Braddock
Agitator
+916|6260|Éire

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:


Okay lowing take theologians out of the equation...you are still left with wiggle room when it comes to interpreting ancient texts. The minute you look outside the text and get help from external references (for example trying to infer meaning from cultural factors) you are forming an interpretation and hence there is no such thing as a pure form of any ancient religion. I mean for fuck's sake neither the new testament nor the Qu'ran were even written by the prophets themselves...religion is ALL about interpretation.
Ok so now what, we are gunna agrre that no one is following anything, therefore everyone is fulla shit? So be it, I can live with that. then Islam, for the lack of a better term, is 180 degrees out from where western society is trying to go. Christianity, or whatever you wanna call it, seems to follow a path of tolerance which is in the same direction western society wants to go.
That's fairly close to my opinion on the matter. Christianity has undergone more evolution, due to the more modern nature of the centres of Christianity. Islam still has a good way to go, but is progressing.
I think lowing has finally hit on something here but many on this forum have been saying this for years. Islam is a younger religion and has not undergone as much evolution but people like m3thod and his fellow Western Muslims are living proof that the religion is becoming more in tune with modern society and is moving in the right direction (despite the efforts of extremists).
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6641|UK
i'll give it a day before he reverts back to square 1.

Last edited by m3thod (2008-07-31 17:46:39)

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6736|Cambridge (UK)

lowing wrote:

I judge individuals based on appearance
Need I go on?
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6153|Ireland

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

I judge individuals based on appearance
Need I go on?
What do you Judge them on if not appearance, the last four digits of their social security number?

What do you do if you meet someone with a violent, ignorant, smelly, racist appearence?  Totally ignore this and befriend them?
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6123|what

lol Lowing only likes blonde blue eyed white people.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6811|Cologne, Germany

usmarine wrote:

why is this such a stretch?  you think 50 years ago people in the US thought mexicans would come close to outnumbering them?
come close ? you mean in the US, or as Mexico ? In both cases, you'd be way off, my friend.
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6811|Cologne, Germany

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I'm willing to bet that not a single fucking soul on this forum has fully read either the Bible, Torah or Q'uran and yet we're all fucking theologians on the evidence of our posts. This is nonsense. How people can make 'expert' comments on three documents that contradict themselves every ten paragraphs I'll never know.
I am not a nexpert on anything, I simply know enough as to what is really happening when we want to "interpret" shit. It is not to seek truth, it is to bend and or justify the word to satisfy our own agendas. There is only one word of Jesus, or Muhammad. Follow it or do not follow it. You need not be an expert to understand that. Even theologians will "interpret" to satisfy their own agendas. So are they any more crediable than anyone else?

Who on this planet is REALLY qualified to say what the truth really is about life after death?
come on. Both the bible and the Koran are full of contradictions, and inaccuracies; and if you look at the way these "fact books" came to pass, there is simply no way you could argue that the meaning is always clear, and needs no interpretation.

Moreover, if I recall correctly, there is not even a single theological authority who would form an "official" interpretation of the koran ( as the pope does for roman catholics, for example ). Hence why there are sunnis, ans shi'as, and countless other muslim sects, each claiming they follow "true" islam. That is also why with every imam and muslim scholar you put on TV, you'll get a different version of islam, and its teachings.

From my point of view, that is one, if not the biggest issue that is holding back Islam, and keeping it from developing into a modern religion.
Unclear interpretation, that leads to confusion among its followers.

The same is true for catholicism/christianity to a certain degree, although the catholic church has traditionally given the "official" ( i.e. canonical ) interpretation of the words of the bible. Why ? Because even they acknowledge that the "word" isn't always clear, and accurate, and that it is important that the followers get a clear message as to what it means, historically, and today.

Another reason is, of course, so that the catholic church may retain the power base and control over its followers. But they don't say that in public.

But even the catholic church, as powerful as they are, were not able to stop other christian religions from forming, people who would no longer subscribe to the catholic church's interpretation of the bible. Luther and the protestants come to mind.
Today, just as islam, and judaism, christianity is spread into many variations, from liberal protestants and lutherans, to traditional roman catholics, orthodox, evangelical christians, and even some "crazy" ones, such as the jehova's witnesses.
Did I say "crazy"? sorry, I meant "restorationist"....

Bottom Line ? When it comes to religious scripture, it's all about interpretation. This is true on all levels, be it the canonical version of the roman catholic church, the wild preachings of the evangelical christians, or your very own, personal version of the "word".
But regardless of the interpretation, you all share the same base, and thus, you're all members of the same religion.
And from my point of view, no single person or group of persons has the authority to claim the one true interpretation for themselves, and pass judgement on the others.

sorry for the derail. Now back on topic. anyone left to argue that Europe will be overrun by muslims shortly ?
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6123|what

B.Schuss wrote:

But even the catholic church, as powerful as they are, were not able to stop other christian religions from forming, people who would no longer subscribe to the catholic church's interpretation of the bible. Luther and the protestants come to mind.
My favorite example would have to be The Church of England. Just because King Henry VIII wanted to have one more marriage that Rome didn't want him to, so he forms his own "religion". lol Was a great ploy for taking over land and money owned by the Roman Catholics though.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6736|Cambridge (UK)

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

I judge individuals based on appearance
Need I go on?
What do you Judge them on if not appearance, the last four digits of their social security number?
I don't.

Lotta_Drool wrote:

What do you do if you meet someone with a violent, ignorant, smelly, racist appearence?  Totally ignore this and befriend them?
Yes.

If they act like a violent, ignorant, smelly racist, then, by all means, have nothing do with them.

But, just what does a 'violent, ignorant, smelly racist' look like?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:


And yet when counter arguments by other respected scholars are offered back to you you simply negate them and claim that you know what the truth is.

And don't try and use the actions of extremists as a means of interpreting the Qu'ran. For God's sake you've used the argument yourself in this thread that 'Christian' extremists don't actually represent the Christian faith, why have another rule for Islam.
I simply have an opinion Braddock, I base it on what I see, read and hear. I do not negate anything scholars have to say, the fact just as many of them think Islam is a fucked up religion as well.

I do not have a separate rule, by following Christ you are following a message of peace love and tolerance, by following Muhammad you are following a message of intolerance and death or convertion to your enemies. If you do not follow Christ, and kill, you are not following his message, if you do not follow Muhammad, and love infidels you are not following his message. My beliefs are quite consistant.

I
And why are you so worried about people not following these religions to the letter when such a thing is often positive for society?

You really believe in the idea of being a sheep when it comes to religion. That's the main reason I don't like organised religion of any kind.
Wh osaid I am "worried about it"? Observing the fact that people form religions to suit their own purposes here on earth is am observation, not a worry of mine.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

Braddock wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:


Ok so now what, we are gunna agrre that no one is following anything, therefore everyone is fulla shit? So be it, I can live with that. then Islam, for the lack of a better term, is 180 degrees out from where western society is trying to go. Christianity, or whatever you wanna call it, seems to follow a path of tolerance which is in the same direction western society wants to go.
That's fairly close to my opinion on the matter. Christianity has undergone more evolution, due to the more modern nature of the centres of Christianity. Islam still has a good way to go, but is progressing.
I think lowing has finally hit on something here but many on this forum have been saying this for years. Islam is a younger religion and has not undergone as much evolution but people like m3thod and his fellow Western Muslims are living proof that the religion is becoming more in tune with modern society and is moving in the right direction (despite the efforts of extremists).
Braddock, I understand this, it is the PEOPLE that are changing, NOT the religion. There fore I can say with great fairness I have a big problem with ISLAM which is different than having a probelm with Muslims. The factthat people can or will "interpret" a religion to it their own agenda is exactly why I can judge individually the actions of people over their "interpreted" religion.

If you wanna take Islam which teaches intolerance toward all non-believers, and twist it into something tolerant and peaceful, so be it, I appreciate that, and you ar ewelcome to do so. That however does not change the intent of the teachings, which is intolerance of all non-believers.


It is just comical to me to call these 2 interpretations the same teaching ( religion)
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I'm willing to bet that not a single fucking soul on this forum has fully read either the Bible, Torah or Q'uran and yet we're all fucking theologians on the evidence of our posts. This is nonsense. How people can make 'expert' comments on three documents that contradict themselves every ten paragraphs I'll never know.
I am not a nexpert on anything, I simply know enough as to what is really happening when we want to "interpret" shit. It is not to seek truth, it is to bend and or justify the word to satisfy our own agendas. There is only one word of Jesus, or Muhammad. Follow it or do not follow it. You need not be an expert to understand that. Even theologians will "interpret" to satisfy their own agendas. So are they any more crediable than anyone else?

Who on this planet is REALLY qualified to say what the truth really is about life after death?
come on. Both the bible and the Koran are full of contradictions, and inaccuracies; and if you look at the way these "fact books" came to pass, there is simply no way you could argue that the meaning is always clear, and needs no interpretation.

Moreover, if I recall correctly, there is not even a single theological authority who would form an "official" interpretation of the koran ( as the pope does for roman catholics, for example ). Hence why there are sunnis, ans shi'as, and countless other muslim sects, each claiming they follow "true" islam. That is also why with every imam and muslim scholar you put on TV, you'll get a different version of islam, and its teachings.

From my point of view, that is one, if not the biggest issue that is holding back Islam, and keeping it from developing into a modern religion.
Unclear interpretation, that leads to confusion among its followers.

The same is true for catholicism/christianity to a certain degree, although the catholic church has traditionally given the "official" ( i.e. canonical ) interpretation of the words of the bible. Why ? Because even they acknowledge that the "word" isn't always clear, and accurate, and that it is important that the followers get a clear message as to what it means, historically, and today.

Another reason is, of course, so that the catholic church may retain the power base and control over its followers. But they don't say that in public.

But even the catholic church, as powerful as they are, were not able to stop other christian religions from forming, people who would no longer subscribe to the catholic church's interpretation of the bible. Luther and the protestants come to mind.
Today, just as islam, and judaism, christianity is spread into many variations, from liberal protestants and lutherans, to traditional roman catholics, orthodox, evangelical christians, and even some "crazy" ones, such as the jehova's witnesses.
Did I say "crazy"? sorry, I meant "restorationist"....

Bottom Line ? When it comes to religious scripture, it's all about interpretation. This is true on all levels, be it the canonical version of the roman catholic church, the wild preachings of the evangelical christians, or your very own, personal version of the "word".
But regardless of the interpretation, you all share the same base, and thus, you're all members of the same religion.
And from my point of view, no single person or group of persons has the authority to claim the one true interpretation for themselves, and pass judgement on the others.

sorry for the derail. Now back on topic. anyone left to argue that Europe will be overrun by muslims shortly ?
If you can show me a contradiction in the words and teachings of Jesus, I am all ears.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6525

lowing wrote:

Braddock, I understand this, it is the PEOPLE that are changing, NOT the religion. There fore I can say with great fairness I have a big problem with ISLAM which is different than having a probelm with Muslims. The factthat people can or will "interpret" a religion to it their own agenda is exactly why I can judge individually the actions of people over their "interpreted" religion.

If you wanna take Islam which teaches intolerance toward all non-believers, and twist it into something tolerant and peaceful, so be it, I appreciate that, and you ar ewelcome to do so. That however does not change the intent of the teachings, which is intolerance of all non-believers.

It is just comical to me to call these 2 interpretations the same teaching ( religion)
I think that you're incorrect lowing. You speak of the Q'uran - a book - not Islam. Islam is the interpretation of the book. Islam is the religion based on peoples understandings of the book. Islam is not A BOOK. A religion cannot be A BOOK. Why? Because these books are wildly ambiguous, self-contradictory and require interpretation.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:


Need I go on?
What do you Judge them on if not appearance, the last four digits of their social security number?
I don't.

Lotta_Drool wrote:

What do you do if you meet someone with a violent, ignorant, smelly, racist appearence?  Totally ignore this and befriend them?
Yes.

If they act like a violent, ignorant, smelly racist, then, by all means, have nothing do with them.

But, just what does a 'violent, ignorant, smelly racist' look like?
you are human, so you are judgmental just like the rest of us. Preaching down from your cyber mountain is pretty easy to do, however it does not reflect real life in any way shape or form. So basically you may add liar to your Bf2s forum resume.
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6313|tropical regions of london

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

But, just what does a 'violent, ignorant, smelly racist' look like?
there are a few pics of them around here.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock, I understand this, it is the PEOPLE that are changing, NOT the religion. There fore I can say with great fairness I have a big problem with ISLAM which is different than having a probelm with Muslims. The factthat people can or will "interpret" a religion to it their own agenda is exactly why I can judge individually the actions of people over their "interpreted" religion.

If you wanna take Islam which teaches intolerance toward all non-believers, and twist it into something tolerant and peaceful, so be it, I appreciate that, and you ar ewelcome to do so. That however does not change the intent of the teachings, which is intolerance of all non-believers.

It is just comical to me to call these 2 interpretations the same teaching ( religion)
I think that you're incorrect lowing. You speak of the Q'uran - a book - not Islam. Islam is the interpretation of the book. Islam is the religion based on peoples understandings of the book. Islam is not A BOOK. A religion cannot be A BOOK. Why? Because these books are wildly ambiguous, self-contradictory and require interpretation.
If you are going to BUILD your religion on a book of teachings, then it is fair to say ISLAM is based on the teachings of intolerance.
IF you use the same book and interpret it as to go into opposite directions, then you are not teaching the same religion.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6525

lowing wrote:

If you are going to BUILD your religion on a book of teachings, then it is fair to say ISLAM is based on the teachings of intolerance.
IF you use the same book and interpret it as to go into opposite directions, then you are not teaching the same religion.
The book very clearly preaches subjugation of women, I did buy and read some of the Q'uran (until boredom set in). THe book is quite clearly tolerant of non-Muslims however. A war perpetrated by Muslims is not a Jihad if the intention is to force people to convert to Islam, to conquer other nations to colonise them or to take territory for economic gain, Demonstrate a leader's power. Mohammed engaged in military action on a number of occasions in battles to survive, rather than in battles of conquest. Mohammed quite clearly states:

Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors.
Qur'an 2:190

So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates.
Qur'an 47:4

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things.
Qur'an 2:256

Say, "The truth is from your Lord": Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it): …
Qur'an 18:29

So naturally anyone contravening these excerpts would not be a good Muslim. They would not be practicing Islam.
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6736|UK
Are we even still debating this.

Muslims will NOT be a majority in Europe within 20 years.

/end thread.
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6313|tropical regions of london

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

If you are going to BUILD your religion on a book of teachings, then it is fair to say ISLAM is based on the teachings of intolerance.
IF you use the same book and interpret it as to go into opposite directions, then you are not teaching the same religion.
The book very clearly preaches subjugation of women, I did buy and read some of the Q'uran (until boredom set in). THe book is quite clearly tolerant of non-Muslims however. A war perpetrated by Muslims is not a Jihad if the intention is to force people to convert to Islam, to conquer other nations to colonise them or to take territory for economic gain, Demonstrate a leader's power. Mohammed engaged in military action on a number of occasions in battles to survive, rather than in battles of conquest. Mohammed quite clearly states:

Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors.
Qur'an 2:190

So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates.
Qur'an 47:4

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things.
Qur'an 2:256

Say, "The truth is from your Lord": Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it): …
Qur'an 18:29

So naturally anyone contravening these excerpts would not be a good Muslim. They would not be practicing Islam.
well not all the battles were for survival.  didnt mohammad massacre the jews of medina out of revenge?
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6525

God Save the Queen wrote:

well not all the battles were for survival.  didnt mohammad massacre the jews of medina out of revenge?
They actually turned on Mohammed while he was besieged in Medina (having been helping out beforehand), thinking that he would lose the battle - so it was self defence, but his treatment of them was pretty Old Testament, more than likely contravening some of his own preachings!

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-08-01 08:26:08)

David.P
Banned
+649|6244
https://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k56/dvdpiddy/1217604345884.jpg
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6313|tropical regions of london
that whole tidbit of information is bullshit.  phillipines won their independence.  muslims dont get "barred" from paradise if they tocuh a pig.  72 virgins is a myth.  there were numerous attacks and bombings all throughout the muslim world still and guess what, those muslim phillino insurgents are still fighting today
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6641|UK
lol @ podedworny.

I've touched sausages. Oh noes i am going to hell. Oh noes! Help me!
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6591|London, England

CameronPoe wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

well not all the battles were for survival.  didnt mohammad massacre the jews of medina out of revenge?
They actually turned on Mohammed while he was besieged in Medina (having been helping out beforehand), thinking that he would lose the battle - so it was self defence, but his treatment of them was pretty Old Testament, more than likely contravening some of his own preachings!
Motherfucker shouldn't even be having fucking wars in the first place (in the name of his religion and shit)

I suppose they were just forced to take over the entire Arabian peninsula and then take out the Byzantine and Persian empires. It was all an act of self defence

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-08-01 09:51:31)

m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6641|UK
Gotta makes sure they know who da boss.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard