|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 23, 2017 19:26:35 GMT
In the case of religion haters, I may be using the wrong terms. I'm not sure that verses are being taken out of context as much as they are taken without regard to context at all.
Are those the same thing?
In any event, I can generally sleep at night with the nonsense I'm accused of.
It's like blurting out "Oh Yeah?!?! Well, what about meatloaf!" to the drycleaner or ordering borscht in a Mexican restaurant.
It makes no sense and they don't realize they are talking gibberish since the gibberish emanates from a "respected" source.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Mar 23, 2017 19:31:59 GMT
You have a problem with metro (part of the Daily Mail no less, a hotbed of Muslim apologetics) calling IS a pejorative?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 19:48:48 GMT
If you know the context, then why don't you tell me the context and overtly shame me for my ignorance, rather than just hint towards it? And the putative creator of the universe should never have to be second guessed or be so easy to take out of context. I'd be very interested in what context would render "curse" either neutral or positive. And even if I and the author of the article are wrong about those specific instances, there are many things in the Bible which are hard to reconcile with how modern Christians live their lives. I am perfectly fine with you misunderstanding it. You haven't asked for ay assistance from me.
However, what I take issue with is assumption made bade on stuff you don't know anything about.
You're the one playing fast and loose with Scripture. You can't help it because you have no idea what you're reading.
If you did you would know there's very little, if anything, that is irreconcilable in Scripture. Yes, as usual, that was a challenge.
As the expert on this subject, why not explain to me how you personally determine which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which are to be taken as being apocryphal? It seems that Christians only abandon the literalist interpretation when that belief becomes unsustainable. In the US you are currently undergoing this process with Young Earth Creationism in schools, to give only one example. In any case, the putative creator of the universe ought to have written or inspired a book which does not require that either he nor the authors need to be second guessed; especially not to the extent that blood feuds develop between the competing interpretations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 19:51:02 GMT
You have a problem with metro (part of the Daily Mail no less, a hotbed of Muslim apologetics) calling IS a pejorative? If that's their editorial policy with respect to all organisations and groups that don't align with their politics, then it would be acceptable. But I can't think of any other cases in which they have habitually avoided referring to a group or organisation by the name that they have given themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Mar 23, 2017 19:53:26 GMT
You have a problem with metro (part of the Daily Mail no less, a hotbed of Muslim apologetics) calling IS a pejorative? If that's their editorial policy with respect to all organisations and groups that don't align with their politics, then it would be acceptable. But I can't think of any other cases in which they have habitually avoided referring to a group or organisation by the name that they have given themselves. So is the Daily Mail trying to pretend IS isn't Muslim? www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-3329494/Dealing-Daesh-time-terror.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 20:03:40 GMT
If that's their editorial policy with respect to all organisations and groups that don't align with their politics, then it would be acceptable. But I can't think of any other cases in which they have habitually avoided referring to a group or organisation by the name that they have given themselves. So is the Daily Mail trying to pretend IS isn't Muslim? www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-3329494/Dealing-Daesh-time-terror.htmlWell, the article is written by "Manoj Joshi", it mentions "Islamic State" once but "Daesh" several times, and it suffixes the name of Prophet Muhammad with "(PBUH)". Yes, it's not trying to make Islamic State into an atheist group, but you couldn't do that whilst still claiming to be a reputable news source.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Mar 23, 2017 20:07:32 GMT
Well, the article is written by "Manoj Joshi", it mentions "Islamic State" once but "Daesh" several times, and it suffixes the name of Prophet Muhammad with "(PBUH)". Yes, it's not trying to make Islamic State into an atheist group, but you couldn't do that whilst still claiming to be a reputable news source. Just because a name sounds foreign, doesn't make it Muslim, and Joshi is most certainly not a Muslim name.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 20:21:51 GMT
Well, the article is written by "Manoj Joshi", it mentions "Islamic State" once but "Daesh" several times, and it suffixes the name of Prophet Muhammad with "(PBUH)". Yes, it's not trying to make Islamic State into an atheist group, but you couldn't do that whilst still claiming to be a reputable news source. Just because a name sounds foreign, doesn't make it Muslim, and Joshi is most certainly not a Muslim name. I would normally have assumed that Joshi was a Hindu name; however the author used "PBUH" after the name of the Prophet Muhammad. Non-Muslims authors do not usually observe that convention (and especially not if they are writing for the Daily Mail).
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 23, 2017 20:49:02 GMT
Well, sure, there's a real effort to distinguish between incredibly violent extremists out to blow of groups of people and the millions of Muslims who, you know... don't. We have the same dynamic in the US - hundreds of thousands of Muslims who've been here for generations, but now we're having to convince rural folk addicted to Alex Jones and Breitbart that they're not all ticking time-bomb pocket terrorists who've only been PRETENDING to be functional citizens for nigh on a century.
We sort of distinguish between Westboro and "real Christians", too, but we all know they're still Christians.
D.A.E.SH is a transliteration of the Arabic acronym formed of the same words that make up I.S.I.S in English: 'Islamic State in Iraq and Syria', or 'al-dowla al-islaamiyya fii-il-i'raaq wa-ash-shaam'.
So it's got the word "Islamic" right in there. They're Muslims.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 23, 2017 21:02:26 GMT
I am perfectly fine with you misunderstanding it. You haven't asked for ay assistance from me.
However, what I take issue with is assumption made bade on stuff you don't know anything about.
You're the one playing fast and loose with Scripture. You can't help it because you have no idea what you're reading.
If you did you would know there's very little, if anything, that is irreconcilable in Scripture. Yes, as usual, that was a challenge.
As the expert on this subject, why not explain to me how you personally determine which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which are to be taken as being apocryphal? I never said I was an expert just because I say you're being silly regarding what you think my beliefs are.
Never be offended on the basis of being wrong since it makes you look petty. You started the conversation as if you knew a thing or two so no need to get bent out of shape when it is revealed you know nothing.
Case in point:
There is no process. Evolution and abiogenesis are being taught universally in public schools across the country.
Your arguments have nothing to do with literal interpretations. You apparently don't understand enough about Scripture to realize how it is written or its intent.
Your argument is basically that because you aren't smart enough to read a whole book, so it's God's fault?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 23, 2017 21:19:04 GMT
He said there's no context that makes it right, not that killing doesn't occur: I know.
I addressed that.
It may not be right, but it also depends on the perspective and I think some people's perspectives are skewed toward what only they think is right or they don't realize the amount of killing done on the behalf of ideals.
Per the Quran, it's clear there re times it's OK to kill people no matter what any of us think, however, he is very wrong in suggesting that is the way of Islam.
Yes, I literally do not care about the perspective of anyone who thinks it is okay to kill someone because they have different beliefs. I don't care how many times it happened or who did it, it is still wrong.
|
|
|
Post by papalazarou on Mar 23, 2017 21:36:59 GMT
What's the curse being discussed in this verse?
Seeing as it's in the bible, Did he bring his boyfriend home to meet the folks?
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Mar 23, 2017 21:48:37 GMT
align yourself with the biggest cache of weapons of mass delusion and you get to call everyone else terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 23, 2017 21:52:05 GMT
What's the curse being discussed in this verse?
Seeing as it's in the bible, Did he bring his boyfriend home to meet the folks? Nope that's [probably] not it.
There aren't that many gay people out there to warrant that.
Besides a gay dude was probably going to marry a woman anyway back then.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 23, 2017 21:56:49 GMT
I know.
I addressed that.
It may not be right, but it also depends on the perspective and I think some people's perspectives are skewed toward what only they think is right or they don't realize the amount of killing done on the behalf of ideals.
Per the Quran, it's clear there re times it's OK to kill people no matter what any of us think, however, he is very wrong in suggesting that is the way of Islam.
Yes, I literally do not care about the perspective of anyone who thinks it is okay to kill someone because they have different beliefs. I don't care how many times it happened or who did it, it is still wrong. You're changing your argument which started with the notion that all Muslims would do this.
They don't and it's important to stay focused on that retarded piece of bigotry.
But I'll go ahead and digress a little...
Let's not pretend that you would have issues with defending your ideals & culture. It is what you gripe about half the time. Unless you are saying that you would condemn you country and ideals if they lead to violence your outrage is hollow. I think your problem is simply with a religion doing it, but for many people, such as myself, my faith is far more important than the country I live in...& especially since it's president is an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 24, 2017 2:04:51 GMT
Yes, I literally do not care about the perspective of anyone who thinks it is okay to kill someone because they have different beliefs. I don't care how many times it happened or who did it, it is still wrong. You're changing your argument which started with the notion that all Muslims would do this.
They don't and it's important to stay focused on that retarded piece of bigotry.
But I'll go ahead and digress a little...
Let's not pretend that you would have issues with defending your ideals & culture. It is what you gripe about half the time. Unless you are saying that you would condemn you country and ideals if they lead to violence your outrage is hollow. I think your problem is simply with a religion doing it, but for many people, such as myself, my faith is far more important than the country I live in...& especially since it's president is an idiot.
I never said that once. I wouldn't kill somebody for having a different set of idea you unhinged loon. How do you get from defending my ideals to murder?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 8:08:31 GMT
align yourself with the biggest cache of weapons of mass delusion and you get to call everyone else terrorists. Weapons of mass delusion... I like that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 8:18:07 GMT
Well, sure, there's a real effort to distinguish between incredibly violent extremists out to blow of groups of people and the millions of Muslims who, you know... don't. We have the same dynamic in the US - hundreds of thousands of Muslims who've been here for generations, but now we're having to convince rural folk addicted to Alex Jones and Breitbart that they're not all ticking time-bomb pocket terrorists who've only been PRETENDING to be functional citizens for nigh on a century. We sort of distinguish between Westboro and "real Christians", too, but we all know they're still Christians. Muslims aren't just Muslims if they only do things that we morally sanction. And atheists aren't only atheists if they do things that I agree with. The fact that some atheist guy in the news a while ago who murdered his Muslim neighbour (and his hatred of religion probably did inspire the attack to some degree) doesn't make him "not a real atheist" because most atheists would find that abhorrent. We can't just say that he must have believed in God because an atheist wouldn't have done that, and I certainly wouldn't expect a world leader to make such an absurd claim just in order to exculpate other atheists from the act. And in the US, it is important to realise that your Muslims are better integrated than the ones in Europe. I know that the name "Daesh" is based on the Arabic name for the group (although certainly not an exact one). But the group does not refer to themselves as "Daesh" and most readers will not understand the link between the word "Daesh" and the group's stated goals and ideology.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 8:23:44 GMT
As the expert on this subject, why not explain to me how you personally determine which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which are to be taken as being apocryphal? I never said I was an expert just because I say you're being silly regarding what you think my beliefs are.
Never be offended on the basis of being wrong since it makes you look petty. You started the conversation as if you knew a thing or two so no need to get bent out of shape when it is revealed you know nothing.
Case in point:
There is no process. Evolution and abiogenesis are being taught universally in public schools across the country.
Your arguments have nothing to do with literal interpretations. You apparently don't understand enough about Scripture to realize how it is written or its intent.
Your argument is basically that because you aren't smart enough to read a whole book, so it's God's fault? Well you don't get to say that my interpretation is wrong "cuz context" unless you can show how the greater context subverts the apparent meaning that would be taken from the passage in isolation. And yes, it is absolutely God's fault if I'm not smart enough or inclined enough to read a huge tome about something that I don't believe in. I don't choose my own inclinations or my intelligence level, and it is God's responsibility to ensure that the truth reaches someone like me in a format which is accessible to both my ability levels and my personal predisposition. Moreover, reading the entire Bible from cover to cover is often cited as a cause for people to irrevocably lose their faith, rather than to bolster it and grow in it.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 24, 2017 9:00:10 GMT
I completely agree. Like I said - we all know these various sects are all "Muslim". I think the political nod ("not true Islam!") is nothing more than an effort to keep the *other* Muslims that surround us in mind.
Truth. I don't envy what you guys are going through. We have a nice, huge body of water between us and having to integrate a sea of refugees from a VERY different culture. We've had the leisure of slow integration.
(As an aside, they do use "DAESH" in their recruitment mag) I have to disagree - the name has seen quite a bit of time in the news spotlight since they arose. Those actually following the issue are pretty familiar with its function. Either way, you're neither helping nor harming "DAESH" by using the term. It certainly doesn't imply they're not Muslim.
|
|