The Hazards of Belief

Shrap

silverharp wrote: »

Atheist holding his own against Egyptian liberal media :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa3Qyd4lMH8

Oh. My.

This is liberal? The word "virago" springs to mind slightly more readily than "liberal", but ok. I'm a little happier paying my Irish TV license fee now.

basillarkin

crazy woman

looksee

If it quacks like a duck...

silverharp

looksee wrote: »

If it quacks like a duck...

she is a seasoned actress and her dad is a well known actor there. I wouldnt say crazy, just an example of what religion can do to an otherwise socialised adult

Hotblack Desiato

I'm sure we've seen her in action on this thread before!

Wonder when that was made. Possibly a few years ago not long after Mubarak was toppled. I'd say Egyptian TV is less 'liberal' than that now

Wonder what happened to yer man since. Out of the country or dead probably.

I'd say the reaction from the audience (not the host - not as openly argumentative) to an atheist on the Late Late Show in the 60s/early 70s would have been hostile, practicallly hissing at them I reckon

silverharp

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'm sure we've seen her in action on this thread before!

Wonder when that was made. Possibly a few years ago not long after Mubarak was toppled. I'd say Egyptian TV is less 'liberal' than that now

Wonder what happened to yer man since. Out of the country or dead probably.

I'd say the reaction from the audience (not the host - not as openly argumentative) to an atheist on the Late Late Show in the 60s/early 70s would have been hostile, practicallly hissing at them I reckon

Its dated 3rd of Nov in the intro. I'd assume its current

Bandana boy

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'm sure we've seen her in action on this thread before!

Wonder when that was made. Possibly a few years ago not long after Mubarak was toppled. I'd say Egyptian TV is less 'liberal' than that now

Wonder what happened to yer man since. Out of the country or dead probably.

I'd say the reaction from the audience (not the host - not as openly argumentative) to an atheist on the Late Late Show in the 60s/early 70s would have been hostile, practicallly hissing at them I reckon

I think Noel Browne was an atheist , certainly openly revolting against the Catholic church and I recall far more civil proceedings on Late late archive shows from the 60s

cowboyBuilder

silverharp wrote: »

Atheist holding his own against Egyptian liberal media :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa3Qyd4lMH8

What an absolute lunatic !!!

Really is a backward savage disgusting ideology , and we here in the west
are being forced to accept this as normal by the loony left.

Shrap

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

What an absolute lunatic !!!

Really is a backward savage disgusting ideology , and we here in the west
are being forced to accept this as normal by the loony left.

We live in a democracy where a show of intolerance like that, against ANY ideology, is rightly unacceptable. Which makes it a more level playing field, don't you think? I think you're confusing Secularism for the "Loony left".

cowboyBuilder

Shrap wrote: »

We live in a democracy where a show of intolerance like that, against ANY ideology, is rightly unacceptable. Which makes it a more level playing field, don't you think? I think you're confusing Secularism for the "Loony left".

No, im referring to the host as the lunatic !!

Bristolscale7

**** me, I feel sorry for that guy. I hope he is able to GTFO out of Egypt because I worry about his safety.

Kivaro

silverharp wrote: »

Atheist holding his own against Egyptian liberal media :pac:

TV Hostess to Atheist: Say what you want but don't comment on what I say.

TV Host: What proof have you that God does not exist?
Atheist: What proof have you that Superman does not exist?

Fair play to him. He came across well.

Hotblack Desiato

Bandana boy wrote: »

I think Noel Browne was an atheist , certainly openly revolting against the Catholic church and I recall far more civil proceedings on Late late archive shows from the 60s

I doubt he would have been asked to talk about atheism though so much as politics etc. I very much doubt he would have been saying that god is a superstition and the bible is a lie, even nine or ten years ago the reception Richard Dawkins got on RTE when the God Delusion came out was pretty hostile by Irish standards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBDUPAgy5zk

Shrap

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I doubt he would have been asked to talk about atheism though so much as politics etc. I very much doubt he would have been saying that god is a superstition and the bible is a lie, even nine or ten years ago the reception Richard Dawkins got on RTE when the God Delusion came out was pretty hostile by Irish standards

The operative difference being our "standards". I haven't watched the 2nd and 3rd parts of this youtube vid (and I will) but even in the first 30 seconds Dawkins managed to get more points across than that poor Egyptian chap did in 5 minutes. Disagreement (when it comes, and I assume from your post that it does) will happen after points have been allowed to be made, no?

Edit: Watched the rest. I saw nothing hostile, even by Irish standards! In fact, I've fielded more hostility in chairing the local Parent's Association meetings in our NS. Very reasonable debate. Obviously, I don't agree with most of the opposing points, but that's beside the point. Debate was allowed and it was of a measured and reasonable standard. Again, I'm feeling better about my Irish TV license (Pat Kenny included) since watching that Egyptian Media poor excuse for a debate/discussion.

Hotblack Desiato

Were you reading the texts?

Hotblack Desiato

Eamonn McCann: Islamic State’s actions are rooted in religion

I'm not a fan of McCann by any means, but he's bang on here.

The point is not that religious ideas cause war, or have caused this particular war. It is to say that to refuse to acknowledge the religious basis of the beliefs of those who attacked Paris last week is to refuse to face facts. The evil of IS is rooted in religion.

Too many western commentators are desperately trying to pussyfoot around this fact, or create a false dichotomy between "our" bloodthirsty Abrahamic religion and "their" bloodthirsty Abrahamic religion :rolleyes:

Or else there's a vacuous Inverse No True Scotsman argument. "ISIS are not the real Islam." Sure. Says who? Is it their dogged adherence to their claim of the literal truth of the unchangeable text of the koran which makes them.. oh wait.

There's not very many Christian biblical literalists any more (especially the nasty sounding bits - but you're either a literalist or you're not!) which, really, is just as well. Anyone trying to paint Judaism or Christianity as "nicer" or "better" than literalist Islam is either deluded or deceitful.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Or else there's a vacuous Inverse No True Scotsman argument. "ISIS are not the real Islam." Sure. Says who? Is it their dogged adherence to their claim of the literal truth of the unchangeable text of the koran which makes them.. oh wait.

Actually, that would make them "not the real Islam". The Qu'ran speaks of itself as a book containing some passages that are muḥkam, or clear in meaning, and other that are mutashabih - symbolic, allegorical, or ambiguous. Islam’s extensive interpretative tradition exists precisely for this reawon - the differences between plain and hidden, elliptical and direct, absolute and qualified, are not always obvious.

So anyone taking an approach analogous to that taken by Christian biblical literalists is (a) ignoring what the Qu'ran itself says, and (b) departing fairly radically from long-established Islamic approaches to reading the Qu'ran. Fairly clearly, they're adopting a hermeneutic which is both distinctively western, and distinctively modern. So I think there's a pretty strong case for saying that, up, that's not the real Islam.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, that would make them "not the real Islam". The Qu'ran speaks of itself as a book containing some passages that are muḥkam, or clear in meaning, and other that are mutashabih - symbolic, allegorical, or ambiguous. Islam’s extensive interpretative tradition exists precisely for this reawon - the differences between plain and hidden, elliptical and direct, absolute and qualified, are not always obvious.

So anyone taking an approach analogous to that taken by Christian biblical literalists is (a) ignoring what the Qu'ran itself says, and (b) departing fairly radically from long-established Islamic approaches to reading the Qu'ran. Fairly clearly, they're adopting a hermeneutic which is both distinctively western, and distinctively modern. So I think there's a pretty strong case for saying that, up, that's not the real Islam.

is that a bit like saying Protestants arent real Christians? Islam was born in unrpovoked violence. Killing for Islam is not a modern idea, and it will never end until some sort of reformation takes place within the religion.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

is that a bit like saying Protestants arent real Christians? Islam was born in unrpovoked violence. Killing for Islam is not a modern idea, and it will never end until some sort of reformation takes place within the religion.

Killing for democracy is not a new idea either, though, is it? And I don't know whether Islam was born in "unprovoked violence", but modern democracy was born in the Terror.

I'm a bit impatient with the notion that Islam is a uniquely violent religion or ideology, or that only those Muslims who practice violence are practicing authentic Islam. The easily-observed truth is that almost any ideology can be invoked in support of the most grotesque violence, and most of them are, at one time or another. That doesn't mean that the ideology in question caused the violence, and a few moments' thought suggests that demonising the ideology is more likely to intensify the confrontatation out of which the violence emerges than to end the violence.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Killing for democracy is not a new idea either, though, is it? And I don't know whether Islam was born in "unprovoked violence", but modern democracy was born in the Terror.

I'm a bit impatient with the notion that Islam is a uniquely violent religion or ideology, or that only those Muslims who practice violence are practicing authentic Islam. The easily-observed truth is that almost any ideology can be invoked in support of the most grotesque violence, and most of them are, at one time or another. That doesn't mean that the ideology in question caused the violence, and a few moments' thought suggests that demonising the ideology is more likely to intensify the confrontatation out of which the violence emerges than to end the violence.

democracy is just a way of organising the state , it wanst handed down "from above" . Ive no idea if Islam is uniquely violent but unlike the other big religions its main man was actually violent, how many heads this Jesus command to lopped off for offending him? also your point about violence being the only authentic version of Islam might be overegging the argument although Im sure some people have made it and it would suit extremists to say this. all any critics need to show is that "Islam is the religion of peace" is not a valid statement because violence to expand the religion is part of the founding documents.
If Jesus had been a rebel leader and had kicked the Romans out of the middle east, wouldnt Christianity today be a very different Religion?

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

democracy is just a way of organising the state , it wanst handed down "from above" .

So what? Does that make the proponents of democracy less violent, or violence in the name of democracy less objectionable?

silverharp wrote: »

Also your point about violence being the only authentic version of Islam might be overegging the argument although Im sure some people have made it and it would suit extremists to say this. all any critics need to show is that "Islam is the religion of peace" is not a valid statement because violence to expand the religion is part of the founding documents.

I'm not sure that it is, actually. The Qu'ran explicitly forbids compulsion in the matter of religion.

But we may be getting away from the point here (and this may be my fault). If we go back to what Hotblack wrote, he didn't suggest that Islamist terrorists were authentic Muslims because they were violent; he suggested they were authentic Muslims because they read the Qu'ran in a literalistic fashion. And I suppose the point really is that reading texts in a literalistic fashion isn't a hallmark of Islam any more than it's a hallmark of Christianity. (It's actually a hallmark of modernity, which presumably is why Hotblack takes it to be the basis for authenticity.)

silverharp wrote: »

If Jesus had been a rebel leader and had kicked the Romans out of the middle east, wouldnt Christianity today be a very different Religion?

It's a bit of an unanswerable "what if", really. But my suspicion is that in that circumstance Christianity wouldn't exist as a religion today. The Romans were, after all, eventually driven out of nearly all the countries and provinces they had taken, and none of the leaders of the movements involved are today the object of veneration in any religion. If Jesus had been a successful political leader, I suspect he'd be remembered today as a successful political leader, rather than be revered as the incarnation of god.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

So what? Does that make the proponents of democracy less violent, or violence in the name of democracy less objectionable?

its clear that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. its the best worst at the moment until something changes. the only successful societies have been ones that incrementally change so if anyone argues that 21st century democracy is perfect is a loon.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not sure that it is, actually. The Qu'ran explicitly forbids compulsion in the matter of religion.

lol. Thats why leaving Islam is sooooo easy . The Qur'an does not speak well of unbelivers and not in the next world sort of way

Peregrinus wrote: »

But we may be getting away from the point here (and this may be my fault). If we go back to what Hotblack wrote, he didn't suggest that Islamist terrorists were authentic Muslims because they were violent; he suggested they were authentic Muslims because they read the Qu'ran in a literalistic fashion. And I suppose the point really is that reading texts in a literalistic fashion isn't a hallmark of Islam any more than it's a hallmark of Christianity. (It's actually a hallmark of modernity, which presumably is why Hotblack takes it to be the basis for authenticity.)

thats just the nature of religion, it creates a "non human" authority and people use it for whatever purpose they want. Protestantism is a reasonable adaptation if Christianity, Nazism wasnt even though it might have tapped into christianity. Or if the IRA had claimed to be Catholic terrorists everyone would be scratching their heads and saying this doesnt make sense. You cant say the same with Islamic State. If its a modern thing, its a modern thing, I assume most Muslims could not read or write until a hundred years ago so it was easy enough to control the guidance to an elite cleric class who had no reason to promote bottom up terrorism or violence.

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's a bit of an unanswerable "what if", really. But my suspicion is that in that circumstance Christianity wouldn't exist as a religion today. The Romans were, after all, eventually driven out of nearly all the countries and provinces they had taken, and none of the leaders of the movements involved are today the object of veneration in any religion. If Jesus had been a successful political leader, I suspect he'd be remembered today as a successful political leader, rather than be revered as the incarnation of god.

Mohammed is a hybrid of my tortured "what if". the point though is that the nature of the founding figure or first followers gives the religion certain qualities. Mohammed being a warlord given the religion a slant that will be difficult to escape

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

thats just the nature of religion, it creates a "non human" authority and people use it for whatever purpose they want.

I don't think that's particular to religion, though, If you look at what was done in the name of liberty, equality and fraternity, it's clear that people don't need to invoke any "non human authority" in order to employ ideologies of any kind in support of the most horrific violence.

silverharp wrote: »

If its a modern thing, its a modern thing, I assume most Muslims could not read or write until a hundred years ago so it was easy enough to control the guidance to an elite cleric class who had no reason to promote bottom up terrorism or violence.

I don't have any figures on this, but I suspect you assume wrongly. Literacy is regarded as a virtue in Islamic societies (ironically, because reading the Qu'ran is a religious duty, and it's hard to do that if you can't read). My guess it that you'd find that, for a given level of of cultural and economic development, Islamic societies typically had greater literacy than Christian societies at a similar level - especially Arab societies.

As for elite clerical classes controlling the interpretation of Islam, I think you're projecting the characteristics of Christianity onto Islam. Islam is very non-hierarchical, and there are no religious authorities who claim anything like the magisterium claimed by bishops and popes.

This cuts both ways, of course. One of the problems that Islam currently faces is that there are no religious figures with the authority to decree that interpretations and understandings of Islam offered by violent extremists are wrong. They can say they disagree with them, and they can appeal to their reputation, learning, scholarship etc to suggest that others should take their views seriously. But they have no authority to tell people what to believe. Each Muslim decides for himself which (if any) imam he will attend to. So that's not an environment which is well-adapted to the emergence of a controlling clerical class.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think that's particular to religion, though, If you look at what was done in the name of liberty, equality and fraternity, it's clear that people don't need to invoke any "non human authority" in order to employ ideologies of any kind in support of the most horrific violence.

there hasnt been a year in human history where some group of people under a banner havnt tried to take something from another group of people who live under a different banner. Im all for holding everyone to the highest standards but there is a very good case to target specific ideologies that contribute nothing and keep millions in ignorance and socially retards them. Even if it wasnt violent in the terrorist sense, Islam is awful, its exclusionary, backward and prefers adherence to people finding their own path in life.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't have any figures on this, but I suspect you assume wrongly. Literacy is regarded as a virtue in Islamic societies (ironically, because reading the Qu'ran is a religious duty, and it's hard to do that if you can't read). My guess it that you'd find that, for a given level of of cultural and economic development, Islamic societies typically had greater literacy than Christian societies at a similar level - especially Arab societies.

As for elite clerical classes controlling the interpretation of Islam, I think you're projecting the characteristics of Christianity onto Islam. Islam is very non-hierarchical, and there are no religious authorities who claim anything like the magisterium claimed by bishops and popes.

This cuts both ways, of course. One of the problems that Islam currently faces is that there are no religious figures with the authority to decree that interpretations and understandings of Islam offered by violent extremists are wrong. They can say they disagree with them, and they can appeal to their reputation, learning, scholarship etc to suggest that others should take their views seriously. But they have no authority to tell people what to believe. Each Muslim decides for himself which (if any) imam he will attend to. So that's not an environment which is well-adapted to the emergence of a controlling clerical class.

Absolutely its decentralised nature facilitates extremism and once the genii is out of the bottle I cant see a way out. it will need its own Atheism movement to break the spell.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't have any figures on this, but I suspect you assume wrongly. Literacy is regarded as a virtue in Islamic societies (ironically, because reading the Qu'ran is a religious duty, and it's hard to do that if you can't read). My guess it that you'd find that, for a given level of of cultural and economic development, Islamic societies typically had greater literacy than Christian societies at a similar level - especially Arab societies.

You might find this interesting... It is a few years old, but I heard similar figures more recently, but I can't lay my hands on them.

So whilst in the past the literacy level might have been higher, it does not appear to be the case now. Leaving aside the linked article, one only needs to look at the extremists actions in relation to education, particularly of girls, and towards books that aren't their special holy book, to see that for many literacy, in a general sense, is far from a priority.

MrP

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, that would make them "not the real Islam". The Qu'ran speaks of itself as a book containing some passages that are muḥkam, or clear in meaning, and other that are mutashabih - symbolic, allegorical, or ambiguous. Islam’s extensive interpretative tradition exists precisely for this reawon - the differences between plain and hidden, elliptical and direct, absolute and qualified, are not always obvious.

So anyone taking an approach analogous to that taken by Christian biblical literalists is (a) ignoring what the Qu'ran itself says, and (b) departing fairly radically from long-established Islamic approaches to reading the Qu'ran. Fairly clearly, they're adopting a hermeneutic which is both distinctively western, and distinctively modern. So I think there's a pretty strong case for saying that, up, that's not the real Islam.

So, were the guys than ran into a hotel today screaming "god is great", killing three people, taking 170 people hostage but releasing those that could quote passages form the Koran militant atheists or militant secularists?

MrP

silverharp

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/20/us-saudi-rights-idUSKCN0T913X20151120#xRooYwsZVWXqglDl.97

A Saudi Arabian court has sentenced a Palestinian poet to death for apostasy, abandoning his Muslim faith, according to trial documents seen by Human Rights Watch, its Middle East researcher Adam Coogle said on Friday.

Ashraf Fayadh was detained by the country's religious police in 2013 in Abha, in southwest Saudi Arabia, and then rearrested and tried in early 2014.

The verdict of that court sentenced him to four years in prison and 800 lashes but after appeal another judge passed a death sentence on Fayadh three days ago, said Coogle.

"I have read the trial documents from the lower court verdict in 2014 and another one from 17 November. It is very clear he has been sentenced to death for apostasy," Coogle said.

Saudi Arabia's justice system is based on Sharia Islamic law and its judges are clerics from the kingdom's ultra conservative Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam. In the Wahhabi interpretation of Sharia, religious crimes including blasphemy and apostasy incur the death penalty.

Hotblack Desiato

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/spain-remembers-dictator-franco-and-his-victims-1.2437103

“The ideas and the principles that Franco represented during 40 years of government are and will always be an example for the Spanish people,” Jaime Alsonso, vice-president of the Francisco Franco Foundation, told The Irish Times.

Mr Alonso said that several Masses will be held in Franco’s honour today. One of them will be at the Valley of the Fallen, the huge mausoleum where the dictator is buried, 50km north of Madrid.

“There will be prayers for Franco and for José Antonio,” Mr Alonso said, in reference to José Antonio Primo de Rivera, the leader of the Falange, a quasi-fascist party that supported Franco during the civil war and his dictatorship.

Primo de Rivera is also buried at the site.

The religious order that maintains the Valley of the Fallen confirmed herei]sic[/i would be a Mass dedicated to the two men.

Campaigners estimate that well over 100,000 victims of Franco remain in unmarked graves.

Hotblack Desiato

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalissimo_Francisco_Franco_is_still_dead

At least the **** provided some amusement post death, he provided nothing but misery in life.

robindch

For anybody in or around Limerick this weekend, Cardinal Raymond Burke - of whom much anon on A+A - is the keynote speaker at an event called the "Catholic Voice Conference" taking place at the Savoy Hotel in the city center.

https://www.facebook.com/events/1510360189284319

Topics addressed by this elderly, sexless, womanless and childless virgin and his friends include:

Catholic Voice wrote:

Review of the Synod on the Family; Catholic families will save the world; Economics and the Family: the errors of socialism; Review of the new Religious Education programme for primary schools; New age paganism in Catholic parishes; Science Says No: the gay "marriage" deception; Catholic Action in Europe: the lesson for Ireland; St. Joseph and the vocation of the father.

And the Catholic Voice website includes a range of articles which give a flavour of the degree of generosity of spirit which Mr Burke brings to the west of Ireland:

http://www.catholicvoice.ie/index.php/homepage/news-list

One article suggests that the "Gay Mafia" was behind (so to speak) the divisions evident at last month's "Synod on the Family" organized and populated exclusively by a much larger group of elderly, sexless, womanless and childless virgins.

Shrap

Thank you. I shall avoid it like the plague. If however, I find any of them wandering the city at lunch hour, I'll be sure to ask them for directions to the elderly, sexless, womanless and childless virgins conference.

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

One article suggests that the "Gay Mafia" was behind (so to speak) the divisions evident at last month's "Synod on the Family" organized and populated exclusively by a much larger group of elderly, sexless, womanless and childless virgins.

Holy 1930's Throwback Batman!
http://www.catholicvoice.ie/index.php/homepage/news-list

recedite

It sounds like the holy church has been infiltrated by new age hippies, global homosexualists and socialists. And to add to this insult, it is happening now on 40th anniversary of General Franco's death. If only he was still around, he'd know how to make all these problems "disappear".

Forty years after the death of General Francisco Franco, churches across Spain are holding special masses in homage to the military dictator, drawing strident criticism from relations of the hundreds of thousands of people who were killed or disappeared during the civil war and his 36-year-rule.

Starting on Wednesday and continuing through Friday’s anniversary of the dictator’s death, at least 16 Catholic churches across the country were due to hold services in Franco’s honour, including the basilica at the Valley of the Fallen, where the man many still refer to as the Generalissimo is buried in a monumental tomb built by political prisoners.

robindch

Shrap wrote: »

Thank you. I shall avoid it like the plague.

I have a suspicion that Popette might be there - probably a wise idea to skip town.

Shrap

robindch wrote: »

I have a suspicion that Popette might be there - probably a wise idea to skip town.

Oh, shame I missed bumping into her! Actually managed to navigate Limerick without succumbing to the need to engage with the "What does god think of war" stand just down the main street from the conference. Well done me. Chalk up another victory for restraint :P

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, that would make them "not the real Islam". The Qu'ran speaks of itself as a book containing some passages that are muḥkam, or clear in meaning, and other that are mutashabih - symbolic, allegorical, or ambiguous. Islam’s extensive interpretative tradition exists precisely for this reawon - the differences between plain and hidden, elliptical and direct, absolute and qualified, are not always obvious.

So anyone taking an approach analogous to that taken by Christian biblical literalists is (a) ignoring what the Qu'ran itself says, and (b) departing fairly radically from long-established Islamic approaches to reading the Qu'ran. Fairly clearly, they're adopting a hermeneutic which is both distinctively western, and distinctively modern. So I think there's a pretty strong case for saying that, up, that's not the real Islam.

Here's a couple of reasons why all the above is just PC bolloxology;

1. Islam is very much a literalist religion. All passages are to be taken literally. If there is any conflict or doubt between two verses, the newer "revelation" supersedes the older one. The newer ones tend to be the more violent ones, but the older ones are more often quoted to the western media by Islamicists.

2.Those that are muhkam (clear in meaning) have priority over those that could be open to interpretation. That is the only reason for the term muhkam.

3. According to the doctrine of taqiyya, a muslim may hide the truth from the infidel, in order to further the aims of Islam and hasten the glorious day when the whole world lives under Sharia Law. This kind of deception is especially applicable to muslims living in western countries where disclosing the truth could be damaging to themselves or their aims. Thus Islam is one of the few religions to openly advocate lying (though I believe the Jesuits come close too)
More on that here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb7lhUNqHsg

4. Next time you hear a "moderate" quoting a passage from the Koran saying that "the killing of one man is like the killing of all mankind" or some such pacifist quote, bear in mind that he is legitimately deceiving you, and that the passage actually applies to the jews, not muslims. The verse following it specifies that the punishment for those who kill a muslim or "make mischief" against an islamic state is crucifixion or death.
More on that here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur7Ttz0q0o4

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

As for elite clerical classes controlling the interpretation of Islam, I think you're projecting the characteristics of Christianity onto Islam. Islam is very non-hierarchical, and there are no religious authorities who claim anything like the magisterium claimed by bishops and popes.

This cuts both ways, of course. One of the problems that Islam currently faces is that there are no religious figures with the authority to decree that interpretations and understandings of Islam offered by violent extremists are wrong. They can say they disagree with them, and they can appeal to their reputation, learning, scholarship etc to suggest that others should take their views seriously. But they have no authority to tell people what to believe. Each Muslim decides for himself which (if any) imam he will attend to. So that's not an environment which is well-adapted to the emergence of a controlling clerical class.

P, I think you need to have a word with the Admins. I think someone has hacked your account.

There is another thread where some guy, using your account, is arguing that if a person considers themselves a catholic, even when they don't believe Mary was a virgin, they don't believe bread turns into actual flesh of Jesus, they think the pope is a douche, they support same sex marriage, enjoy (often frequently) sex before marriage, use and believe in the use of contraception, believe abortion is ok in many circumstance and, and this is the big one, don't even actually believe in god, then who are we to say they aren't a catholic.

Given what you are saying here in respect to these scum calling themselves muslim and what that other guy is saying about people calling themselves catholic, I can only assume you account has been hacked.

MrP

Nodin

recedite wrote: »

Here's a couple of reasons why all the above is just PC bolloxology;

1. Islam is very much a literalist religion. All passages are to be taken literally. If there is any conflict or doubt between two verses, the newer "revelation" supersedes the older one. The newer ones tend to be the more violent ones, but the older ones are more often quoted to the western media by Islamicists.

2.Those that are muhkam (clear in meaning) have priority over those that could be open to interpretation. That is the only reason for the term muhkam.

3. According to the doctrine of taqiyya, a muslim may hide the truth from the infidel, in order to further the aims of Islam and hasten the glorious day when the whole world lives under Sharia Law. This kind of deception is especially applicable to muslims living in western countries where disclosing the truth could be damaging to themselves or their aims. Thus Islam is one of the few religions to openly advocate lying (though I believe the Jesuits come close too)
More on that here...



4. Next time you hear a "moderate" quoting a passage from the Koran saying that "the killing of one man is like the killing of all mankind" or some such pacifist quote, bear in mind that he is legitimately deceiving you, and that the passage actually applies to the jews, not muslims. The verse following it specifies that the punishment for those who kill a muslim or "make mischief" against an islamic state is crucifixion or death.
More on that here...

Thankfully I'm old now, and not so afflicted with a hair trigger temper as I once was. Taqqiya is a Shia concept, not really recognised by Sunnis, conceived to survive Sunni persecution centuries ago. The majority of muslims are Sunni, the vast majority of European Sunnis are Sunni, and all the Jihadi groups are Sunni. I'd suggest learning these useful real-world facts before playing the Koran quotations version of top trumps.

silverharp

Sam Harris on the "Religion of Peace" , he goes with Jainism :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfKLV6rmLxE

recedite

Nodin wrote: »

Taqqiya is a Shia concept, not really recognised by Sunnis....the vast majority of European Sunnis are Sunni, and all the Jihadi groups are Sunni.

And yet....

Recently, ISIS has published training manuals that encourage taqiya be used in order to hide prospective terrorists' religion from the authorities.[42]
In 2004, Lebanese Druze scholar Sami Makarem published the monograph Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam ("Dissimulation in Islam"), arguing that the concept should be considered "mainstream" and ubiquitous in modern Islamic politics,
"Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream...Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era." (p. 7, trans. Raymond Ibrahim). Since the 2000s, taqiyya has become a frequently invoked concept in debates surrounding criticism of Islam and especially Islamic extremism. Islamic scholars tend to emphasize that taqiyya is only permissible under duress, and that the inflationary use of the term qualifies as "a staple of right-wing Islamophobia in North America" (Mohammad Fadel 2013), or "Taqiyya libel against Muslims"[43] while their critics accuse them of practicing "taqiyya about taqiyya" (Raymond Ibrahim, 2014)

Of course, that whole wiki article could itself be a kind of reverse "taqiyya about taqiyya". I have no intention of speculating any further about this tangled web of deceit, or who is most involved in it. I merely point out that it exists. It is basically analagous to the "mental reservation" which is occasionally practised by RCC clergy.

Nodin

recedite wrote: »

And yet....
Of course, that whole wiki article could itself be a kind of reverse "taqiyya about taqiyya". I have no intention of speculating any further about this tangled web of deceit, or who is most involved in it. I merely point out that it exists. It is basically analagous to the "mental reservation" which is occasionally practised by RCC clergy.

Again - its a minority practice unintended for what you stated and IS are not precisely the font of koranic wisdom they might like to be seen as. Your point no 3 did rather more than "merely point out that it exists"

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

P, I think you need to have a word with the Admins. I think someone has hacked your account.

There is another thread where some guy, using your account, is arguing that if a person considers themselves a catholic, even when they don't believe Mary was a virgin, they don't believe bread turns into actual flesh of Jesus, they think the pope is a douche, they support same sex marriage, enjoy (often frequently) sex before marriage, use and believe in the use of contraception, believe abortion is ok in many circumstance and, and this is the big one, don't even actually believe in god, then who are we to say they aren't a catholic.

Given what you are saying here in respect to these scum calling themselves muslim and what that other guy is saying about people calling themselves catholic, I can only assume you account has been hacked.

I may be very stupid, but I'm not seeing any inconsistency between the two positions you mention. Can you spell it out clearly?

Catholicism: The Catholic church does have an authority structure though which it can decree that someobody is not a Catholic. You and I are not that authority structure, however, and therefore we cannot decree that somebody is not a Catholic.

If it were the case that the Catholic church authority structure had decreed that somebody who thinks the pope is a douche, supports SSM, etc, is not Catholic, then we could certainly point that out. However the Catholic authorities have made no such decree. Therefore, we cannot point to it.

Islam: Islam has no similar authority structure.

Where's the inconsistency in pointing out these two things?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Catholicism: The Catholic church does have an authority structure though which it can decree that someobody is not a Catholic. You and I are not that authority structure, however, and therefore we cannot decree that somebody is not a Catholic.

Mr.P's point was about people being allowed and even encouraged to call themselves catholic, when clearly they are in breach of certain doctrines.
If you agree this happens, then there is nothing further to discuss.
We can all agree that in the religion game, turning away members is bad for business.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Catholic church does have an authority structure though which it can decree that someobody is not a Catholic.

Yes, they certainly give that impression - but the reality is quite different and the RCC generally uses whatever interpretation is most immediately useful, or what avoids the greatest degree of responsibility.

The RCC defines a concept called the "Primacy of Conscience" which states that each person must decide for themselves what they wish to do + not do, believe + reject - and that this concept stands over all others. They also state that baptism plus some other religious rituals confer the state of "catholicism" upon a believer - but the rituals beyond baptism appear to be necessary or optional, depending on what document one reads. Baptism itself isn't really defined very clearly either in canon law. The RCC also defines that once one is a catholic, one can never stop being one - hence the arguments about removal from the baptismal register and things like that - depending on the religious authority doing the talking, one can learn that the baptismal register is just a recording of an event and that the event can't "unhappen", or that the state of catholicism so-conferred is ontological in nature and can't be undone, or some variation.

In any case, according to the RCC, one can believe and do what one wants and still believe, with the full support of the RCC, that one is a catholic in good standing.

Jesus, who was - let us not forget - jewish and not catholic, and who (if he really were who he is said to have been) could have perhaps foreseen this issue and dealt with it, is conveniently dead and not in a position to pronounce on the Vatican's pronouncements.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Yes, they certainly give that impression - but the reality is quite different and the RCC generally uses whatever interpretation is most immediately useful, or what avoids the greatest degree of responsibility.

The RCC defines a concept called the "Primacy of Conscience" which states that each person must decide for themselves what they wish to do + not do, believe + reject - and that this concept stands over all others. They also state that baptism plus some other religious rituals confer the state of "catholicism" upon a believer - but the rituals beyond baptism appear to be necessary or optional, depending on what document one reads. Baptism itself isn't really defined very clearly either in canon law. The RCC also defines that once one is a catholic, one can never stop being one - hence the arguments about removal from the baptismal register and things like that - depending on the religious authority doing the talking, one can learn that the baptismal register is just a recording of an event and that the event can't "unhappen", or that the state of catholicism so-conferred is ontological in nature and can't be undone, or some variation.

In any case, according to the RCC, one can believe and do what one wants and still believe, with the full support of the RCC, that one is a catholic in good standing.

Jesus, who was - let us not forget - jewish and not catholic, and who (if he really were who he is said to have been) could have perhaps foreseen this issue and dealt with it, is conveniently dead and not in a position to pronounce on the Vatican's pronouncements.

But how is any of that inconsistent with what I wrote about Islam?

(Yes, Robin, I realise it was Mr P who suggested I was being inconsistent, not you. You're under no obligation to defend his position. But I note that, though both yourself and rec have come in on this, neither of you has done so in a way that lends any support to Mr P's position, or even helps to explain it. Is he totally isolated?)

silverharp

in the end it comes to the Islamic texts. If you look at every Protestant sect, the worst they can come up with is the Westboro gang, they might treat certain minorities badly but thats about it. Contrast that with the clusterfk of the Qur'an , if you want to mimic Mohammed, kill a Jew.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

in the end it comes to the Islamic texts. If you look at every Protestant sect, the worst they can come up with is the Westboro gang, they might treat certain minorities badly but thats about it.

Well, not really, no. It's not at all difficult to find much worse examples of oppression and violence perpetrated in the name of Christianity than anything done by the Westboro bunch.

silverharp wrote: »

Contrast that with the clusterfk of the Qur'an , if you want to mimic Mohammed, kill a Jew.

When you say "it all comes to the Islamic texts", do you actually mean "it all comes down to this one line selected from the texts because it suits my purpose, but I ignore all the rest of the texts, most of which I have never read"?

silverharp

UV

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, not really, no. It's not at all difficult to find much worse examples of oppression and violence perpetrated in the name of Christianity than anything done by the Westboro bunch.


When you say "it all comes to the Islamic texts", do you actually mean "it all comes down to this one line selected from the texts because it suits my purpose, but I ignore all the rest of the texts, most of which I have never read"?

I'm sure they have but as you said you don't have to take them seriously. You can always revert to hippy Jesus.
What's this one line nonsense and the you haven't read the book argument. That seems to be a shutting down debate, impune the source approach? I have no wish to be an Islamic scholar but I can take a view on the religion based on what critics who have studied the Quran or ex Muslims views on the religion they were brought up in.
What exactly is your point ? That it doesnt matter what the foundational books of a religion actually say?

Peregrinus

My point is that you don't know what the foundational books of the religion say. If you have taken your view of Islam "based on what critics who have studied the Quran or ex Muslims views on the religion they were brought up in", doesn't that rather suggest that you took your view first, and then sought to reinforce it by carefully consulting only sources that were likely to conform the negative view you already held?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

My point is that you don't know what the foundational books of the religion say. If you have taken your view of Islam "based on what critics who have studied the Quran or ex Muslims views on the religion they were brought up in", doesn't that rather suggest that you took your view first, and then sought to reinforce it by carefully consulting only sources that were likely to conform the negative view you already held?

My only starting position was that something seems quite funky when you compare islam to other poor parts of the world that have different religions. So the hypotheses becomes are all religions the same or does the specific beliefs cause people to behave differently. My view so far is that the nature of Islam reinforces intolerances. Take apostacy as a simple enough thing . does the Anglican church have a similar position to Islam? Can I not have a view on this until I have passed a theological degree in Islamic studies? If you are going to keep reverting to my alleged motivations I'll keep suggesting you are trying to shame me into not discussing these issues and is a cheap debating tactic unbecoming of your good self.