Islam - What's your view on it?

[HenrySwanson]

Yes. That being literally what I quoted you saying and my single-word question response to it.

It shouldn't take multiple enquiries to get a simple response, but bad-faith gonna bad-faith.

It's the entire point of your argument and therefore beholden on you. Rejecting it doesn't require anything from anyone else and doesn't shift any responsibility to them.

That you're choosing to entirely ignore fundamentalist groups - groups which adhere only to fundamentals - that are inconvenient to your argument while directly quoting the actual Taliban and using cherry-picked, English translations of Arabic oral tradition speaks volumes as to the nature of your argument.

Those fundamentalist groups are fundamentalist to what?
The teachings of Buddha?

Your argument is simply not convincing to those not already convinced, and to those already convinced it's just reinforcement.

It's not convincing here. Step into Reddit or Twitter for reasons why it...erm...is convincing, and the world has moved on from the opinions being shown here.

I'm taking from more than your posts.

Jesus is still divine in Christianity, and still perfect. So it's the same situation as the one you pointed out with Mohammed where they can't really disagree with what they think he says, which can be a lot of things given the nature of religion. Also religion is a huge motivation behind pushing things like intelligent design, abortion bans, and gay marriage bans. Jesus isn't stopping Christianity from promoting bad ideas.

What, in Jesus's life would be bad to disagree with?

I don't know what the rates are across religions, but I also don't think it's very important given how much religions can change with time and other factors.

Look up how many terrorist groups atm are Islamist. Name me even a few fatal attacks this year that have been committed by the other faiths.

Religious influence in the US, which is mostly Christian, is currently a massive problem.

It's a MASSIVE problem!

Hence my "Don't Alabama my Western World" post.

 

[Scaff]

Did I say it was quite so black and white? Please show me where I did.

By omitting the context that's exactly what you did.

It is enough, though, for the director of MI5 to broadly base their threats as 75% Islamist and 25% extreme right.

No, because he was clear that it's not that simple, you know in his very next sentence, that you didn't bother with.

I was going to stop posting in this thread because it really is like arguing with MAGAs but maybe I'm a glutton for punishment.

Want to put money on that?

Step into Reddit or Twitter for reasons why it...erm...is convincing, and the world has moved on from the opinions being shown here.

You're saying that your views are accepted and understood on two of the platforms that are home to some of the most blatant racists and bigots on the planet? Well colour me pink and call me surprised.

Those fundamentalist groups are fundamentalist to what?
The teachings of Buddha?

"a vessel of impurity, full of stinking filth. It is like a rotten pit ... like a toilet, with nine holes pouring all sorts of filth."

Go on, have a guess who said that about women.

As for violence, Buddist teaching or 'allowable exceptions' to allow violence have been around as long as the religion, and if you're going to allow hadiths, then Sutras get included as well.

Buddhism and violence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Famine]

Those fundamentalist groups are fundamentalist to what?

As stated in my post that you actually quoted, "fundamentalist groups - groups which adhere only to fundamentals".

Again, bad-faith.

It's not convincing here. Step into Reddit or Twitter for reasons why it...erm...is convincing, and the world has moved on from the opinions being shown here.

So what? Go post your tripe on Reddit or Twitter instead.

Here - where we don't have ingrained problems with massive racists and exploitative pornography - it's just the regular bad-faith, failure to engage, cherry-picking, Gish gallop slop of the arrogant "alternative thinkers" we've seen dozens of times before.

It's up to you to demonstrate your point (when you have one), and engaging in all these tedious tactics just makes you look... well, let's say disingenuous at best.

 

[Danoff]

On that basis, you should have more of an issue with Christianity, as the Bible is more violent that the Koran...

"Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."

It is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.

"In other words," Jenkins says, "Saul has committed a dreadful sin by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the confrontation with Indians — not just is it legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God's law if you do not.""

But hey, what would a religious scholar know.




Do Churches not display the 10 commandments in them? Has a mass movement to get them posted in US schools not been active for years?

What you miss is that most Christians cherry-pick from the texts, just as most Muslims do.

I'm a little weak on my scripture, but isn't this an argument more with the OT than Christianity in general? I think you have something of a leg to stand on when it comes to the OT being slightly more violent than the Koran. But the NT seems like it's definitely less violent, and overwrites some of the OT with Jesus's New Deal.

I don't have much of a dog in this fight, and I'm not a theologian. If we're talking Abrahamic religions though, my impression is that Christianity is the least violent according to scriptural command, and Islam and Judaism can hash it out for the winner, both scripturally and in person.

 

[Exorcet]

What, in Jesus's life would be bad to disagree with?

Like I said before there is a lot of room to squeeze any message you want out of religion. Christians can't even agree with each other enough to have a single unified religion and many rely on priests and preachers to interpret the Bible for them.

Here is a random site admitting that Jesus did not speak about homosexuality, but that doesn't stop them from stating that Jesus is against homosexuality:

If homosexuality is a sin, why didn’t Jesus ever mention it? | GotQuestions.org

If homosexuality is a sin, why didn’t Jesus ever mention it? Why did Jesus never address the issue of homosexuality?

www.gotquestions.org

It also references Jesus referring to events covered in the OT, which modern Christians will also use as justification for various things. Intelligent design for one doesn't need to involve Jesus at all, yet it has been very popular among some believers.

Look up how many terrorist groups atm are Islamist. Name me even a few fatal attacks this year that have been committed by the other faiths.

Someone pushing for ID in schools may not be trying to actively stab me, but they are certainly trying to hold back science, technology, and education. If they do kill me it will be a slower process where they erode the economy and healthcare with misinformation and ignorance. Although I guess it might not be that slow either:

America - The Official Thread

On this anniversary of a tragedy, I'd like to offer a reminder that everyone has their own way of dealing with grief. Never forget.

www.gtplanet.net

(I was looking for a different post but found this one instead)

There are a lot of ways to cause harm.

 

[Scaff]

I'm a little weak on my scripture, but isn't this an argument more with the OT than Christianity in general? I think you have something of a leg to stand on when it comes to the OT being slightly more violent than the Koran. But the NT seems like it's definitely less violent, and overwrites some of the OT with Jesus's New Deal.

I don't have much of a dog in this fight, and I'm not a theologian. If we're talking Abrahamic religions though, my impression is that Christianity is the least violent according to scriptural command, and Islam and Judaism can hash it out for the winner, both scripturally and in person.

It does, but Christianity has never fully moved away from the OT (and love to cherry pick), and once we get to revelations, all bets are off. As it gives pretty much free reign to anyone who believes the end-times are here. It's worth keeping in mind that almost all Christian evangelical support for Israel, isn't for the benefit of Jews, but as a requirement to bring about the 'end-times.

 

[Danoff]

It does, but Christianity has never fully moved away from the OT, and once we get to revelations, all bets are off. As it gives pretty much free reign to anyone who believes the end-times are here. It's worth keeping in mind that almost all Christian evangelical support for Israel, isn't for the benefit of Jews, but as a requirement to bring about the 'end-times.

I know, it's an annoying analysis. Christianity is this self-contradictory exercise in cherry-picking from the OT whenever they feel like it and kinda keeping the same god but not really... through the absolutely insane concept of a human sacrificial scapegoat in the form of Jesus. It's hard to say exactly what part of OT violence belongs in Christianity and what doesn't. But I generally give it a leg up over Judaism and Islam because my understanding is that Christianity is itself an exercise in toning down the violence of the OT, and Judaism and Islam just don't do that exercise.

 

[Famine]

But the NT seems like it's definitely less violent, and overwrites some of the OT with Jesus's New Deal.

It absolutely ought to - it's the whole covenant thing - at least if you go by what's written in most translations (of translations of tra... etc), but it's so rare to find a sects which doesn't include at least some OT garbage. Usually it's at least the Ten Commandments, but the more orthodox (and dare I say "fundamentalist") you go, the more the sect picks bits from the OT it likes.

I know we've had a conversation before with a Catholic on here - which is about the most orthodox mainstream cult of Christianity - and they love a bit of OT and don't adhere to the new covenant idea at all. Which is weird as they have, like, a Boss Catholic who doesn't get even the slightest mention in their storybook.

 

[HenrySwanson]

As stated in my post that you actually quoted, "fundamentalist groups - groups which adhere only to fundamentals".

Again, bad-faith.

It is not bad-faith.

"Adhere to which fundamentals" has always been my question.

So what? Go post your tripe on Reddit or Twitter instead.

Here - where we don't have ingrained problems with massive racists and exploitative pornography - it's just the regular bad-faith, failure to engage, cherry-picking, Gish gallop slop of the arrogant "alternative thinkers" we've seen dozens of times before.

It's up to you to demonstrate your point (when you have one), and engaging in all these tedious tactics just makes you look... well, let's say disingenuous at best.

I think I've layed it out, and defended it appropriately.

Like I said before there is a lot of room to squeeze any message you want out of religion. Christians can't even agree with each other enough to have a single unified religion and many rely on priests and preachers to interpret the Bible for them.

Here is a random site admitting that Jesus did not speak about homosexuality, but that doesn't stop them from stating that Jesus is against homosexuality:

If homosexuality is a sin, why didn’t Jesus ever mention it? | GotQuestions.org

If homosexuality is a sin, why didn’t Jesus ever mention it? Why did Jesus never address the issue of homosexuality?

www.gotquestions.org

You will note in my previous posts my HUGE problem with Christianity and LGBT people. A major reason I am no longer a Christian.

It also references Jesus referring to events covered in the OT, which modern Christians will also use as justification for various things. Intelligent design for one doesn't need to involve Jesus at all, yet it has been very popular among some believers.

No doubt, but it doesn't mean churches don't accept evolution:

Acceptance of evolution by religious groups - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Someone pushing for ID in schools may not be trying to actively stab me, but they are certainly trying to hold back science, technology, and education. If they do kill me it will be a slower process where they erode the economy and healthcare with misinformation and ignorance. Although I guess it might not be that slow either:

America - The Official Thread

On this anniversary of a tragedy, I'd like to offer a reminder that everyone has their own way of dealing with grief. Never forget.

www.gtplanet.net

(I was looking for a different post but found this one instead)

There are a lot of ways to cause harm.

Oh hell yeah, which is why you need to resist. Again though, it is less of a menace overall than Islamic fundamentalists/Wahhabism/Salafism.

In America you are seeing the problem with reproductive rights acutely - but name many secular countries that were/are Christian or Christian majority countries that are as extreme.

It absolutely ought to - it's the whole covenant thing - at least if you go by what's written in most translations (of translations of tra... etc), but it's so rare to find a sects which doesn't include at least some OT garbage. Usually it's at least the Ten Commandments, but the more orthodox (and dare I say "fundamentalist") you go, the more the sect picks bits from the OT it likes.

I know we've had a conversation before with a Catholic on here - which is about the most orthodox mainstream cult of Christianity - and they love a bit of OT and don't adhere to the new covenant idea at all. Which is weird as they have, like, a Boss Catholic who doesn't get even the slightest mention in their storybook.

And yet, living in the West and indeed the world in 2024, we don't have Christian fundamentalists using violence on a same level as Islamic ones.

 

[Famine]

It is not bad-faith.

That is what they all say. Avoiding questions, feigning ignorance, moving goalposts, failing to nail down actual opinions, dodging by presenting unreferenced videos and memes, failing to engage, and cherry picking sources (amplifying those that you think agree, denying those that you think do not) are all bad-faith tactics and you have and continue to use them all.

I think I've layed it out, and defended it appropriately.

You have not.

You're now almost certain to be ready to type an interrogative reply, and I'll redirect you to the first lines of the first reply to the first quoted segments above.

And yet, living in the West and indeed the world in 2024, we don't have Christian fundamentalists using violence on a same level as Islamic ones.

Have you missed the ongoing Christofascist attempt to take over the United States or something? Or do you not classify the slavery, rape, and forced birth of women to be violence because it's inconvenient to you?

 

[Haitauer]

Well, go ahead. What's your view on it?

It's just yet another form of crowd control. "Panem et circenses". And it's broken. Like every other religion and ism in the history of humankind. These things just can't work without turning into exploit and abuse of authority. That is the outcome of weak human minds.

Any idea that teaches "we are better than others" is a lie.

 

[Danoff]

@Famine, @HenrySwanson

Famine, I can tell you that I'm confident from discussions with Henry that he's concerned about freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing Islam. Whether that's justified or not based on where he lives, I know that he believes it. So you'll find that some of his caginess around answering questions directly or making direct statements comes from worry about running afoul of speech restrictions. It's not that he harbors prejudiced tendencies (at least as best I can tell) so much as it is that he thinks that speech restrictions around criticizing Islam are strong.