|
Mandy Thompson posted:No religion is truly the religion of peace and even empiricism has been used to justify eugenics. What is this even supposed to mean? It sounds like vague crap.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
Sethex posted:Fear not, I read the thread 11 months ago, the voting was that way then, feel free to PM a mod to confirm. Ahh yes, my ridiculous conspiracy theory of racists brigading minority subreddits and some internet atheists invading religious discussions with belligerent slander. Jet fuel can't melt steel and I am cuckoo for cocoa puffs. If we assume the premise is accurate, that's merely a factor of public opinion within the community and that is what needs to change and can change. The mechanism for this successfully occurring doesn't involve discrimination or sweeping denunciations by scholars of Islam who did their research project on the comments in a webzone
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Woah, woah, woah, are you really saying that any Christian who isn't a universalist isn't really a Christian? Whoops, there goes hundreds of millions of adherents! Universalism is actually the minority view, at least in America. I mean let's be honest here at least a large majority of people who claim they're Christian aren't actually.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:No, you do not undermine Islamism at all. You have, presumably, nothing to do with it. Do you think that the Tea Party movement reasonably can be undermined the Chinese middle class? There are a plethora of Russian intellectuals and fancy middle-class debaters who a little too frequently complain about US transgressions of international law and democratic standards in the Russian media. What a loving joke they are, just like we are when we obsess about today's Islamic culture and all its many flaws. This thread is mostly just a wallowing in stereotypifications and neat little academic roundabout formulations disconnected from reality. People talk about Islam and Muslims as if they just arrived from Mars with tentacles and in a pool of sludge, and if I didn't personally think that the Islamic religion is dumb crock I'd be pretty offended and even seriously worried by the words being used. Absurd Alhazred posted:Oh, by the way, turns out that "Islamic" attack on women's right to sunbathe in parks was actually a gang fight. Like the point I'm trying to drive through: Islamism is a political ideology, treat it that way. Of course you're going to get people saying it's the true expression of some inherent islamic religion, it's not, it's supremacist ideology that's implanted itself in Islam. You have to confront it, don't downplay it, don't excuse it. Protect Muslims as a group, but suppress fascists who are also muslims, just as you would suppress fascists who are also christian. rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Ahh yes, my ridiculous conspiracy theory of racists brigading minority subreddits and some internet atheists invading religious discussions with belligerent slander. Jet fuel can't melt steel and I am cuckoo for cocoa puffs. I disagree with your implied point. As we've seen before in this thread, you have a very essentialist view of cultures - a view that most of the modern left does not share. This excerpt from one of the best Je Suis backlash responses makes the point diplomatically: Slate.com posted:The leaders of religious communities don’t necessarily speak for all their members, either. William Donohue, of the Catholic League, claims that Charlie Hebdo’s satires have wronged Catholics, but as someone raised in that particular authoritarian faith, I can attest that when I was young, rude parodies of the religious figures I had been taught to respect (specifically in Mad magazine) gave me the nerve to challenge their right to tell me how to live my life. It might suit Western leftists’ sensibilities if the only people allowed to mock or criticize Islam in our countries were other Muslims, but it simply isn’t true that rebels and innovators only learn to challenge orthodoxies from people just like themselves. Or from people just like us. Although in this case it is "sweeping generalizations" on the internet you are attempting to squelch rather than crass caricatures, the principle is the same. You talk about how such and such a type of discourse "isn't part of the mechanism" for some community's cultural change, and all we see is some high-handed rear end in a top hat trying to set the boundaries of the debate like he's the god drat Pope and lumping everyone in every civilization into some racialized category which you then hold up as their sole defining attribute. Have you ever considered that there might be a lot of people in the Middle East (many of whom call themselves Muslims because they'd be ostracized if not immediately murdered by their "friends" and family if they were revealed as an unbeliever) who actually wish there was more criticism of Islam? Even if the criticism is crude and/or comes from the mouths of the damnable imperialistic white race?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:I mean let's be honest here at least a large majority of people who claim they're Christian aren't actually. Says who? Who is a Christian? What's the definition you're working with and from where does it derive its authority?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
A person who closely follows and lives by the teachings of Christ, derived from the meaning of the drat word. Don't be pedantic, you know exactly what I meant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:A person who closely follows and lives by the teachings of Christ, derived from the meaning of the drat word. Don't be pedantic, you know exactly what I meant. I know what you meant, but it's loving nonsense. You may as well say most people who think they're liberals aren't really liberals because they aren't sufficiently committed to the set of philosophical principles derived from the work of John Locke. It's idiotic. You're indexing your definition of 'Christian' to your interpretation of the supposed teachings of a guy we don't even know for sure wasn't made up out of whole cloth. I don't think it's pendantry to point out how dumb that is. I mean, where do you think 'the meaning of the drat word' (or any word) comes from? Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 10:01 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
If someone says they're a liberal and then talks about how great Donald Trump is and how all the people shot by cops recently deserved to die, I'm gonna seriously loving question whether they actually are one (or even truly comprehend what a liberal is).
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:If we assume the premise is accurate, that's merely a factor of public opinion within the community and that is what needs to change and can change. So do you think the behaviour of the community defines the religion? Tezzor posted:The mechanism for this successfully occurring doesn't involve discrimination or sweeping denunciations by scholars of Islam who did their research project on the comments in a webzone Why do you conflate criticizing something as a form of discrimination?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 12:05
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:If someone says they're a liberal and then talks about how great Donald Trump is and how all the people shot by cops recently deserved to die, I'm gonna seriously loving question whether they actually are one (or even truly comprehend what a liberal is). Yes but if a large number of liberals say the same thing, then the definiton of what a liberal is shifts towards that thing. Regardless of the original definition of the word.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:If someone says they're a liberal and then talks about how great Donald Trump is and how all the people shot by cops recently deserved to die, I'm gonna seriously loving question whether they actually are one (or even truly comprehend what a liberal is). Yeah, but the fact is that most people in America who identify as liberals are actually social democrats who favour some market regulations for the sake of equality, a social safety net funded through taxation, and various other very sensible things that are basically anathema to the coherent system of political beliefs known philosophy, economics, and political science as liberalism. They're still liberals, though, and anybody arguing otherwise is a buffoon. What a word originally meant isn't usually of very much importance. All words are made up. Their meanings shift. Saying most people who are baptised and attend church on a Sunday aren't actually Christians because they're capitalists or bigoted is ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
Yeah, I was entirely ignoring the academic definition of "liberal" there. From that definition, those positions would actually make them a true liberal- it's the "vaguely social-democrat" definition that's more relevant to my analogy. Also, my point is that if you actively ignore everything a religion says, and yet you still claim to profess that religion, you're a goddamn idiot and people are entirely justified in calling you such. For example, Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with right-wing politics, and not in a way that is open to interpretation- the "Eye of the Needle was actually a gate" thing, for instance, is straight up disingenuous bullshit and has no theological backing. Plus, money changers in the temple, multiplying the bread and fish, et cetera. You can claim to be a Christian and be right-wing, but you cannot actually follow the words of Christ and be right-wing. Similarly, Daesh are professing to be Muslims, even though (to my understanding) their actions make Mohammed spin in his grave fast enough to power the entire Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 13:04
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:I disagree with your implied point. As we've seen before in this thread, you have a very essentialist view of cultures - a view that most of the modern left does not share. This excerpt from one of the best Je Suis backlash responses makes the point diplomatically: Do you think that there are some Americans in the US who disagree with US foreign policy and wish there was more criticism of it? Sure. What percentage of these do you think want to hear it from Osama bin Laden or the Ayatollah? The western countries ceaselessly slaughter and oppress Muslims and have been doing so essentially uninterrupted for nearly a century. The fiercest critics of Islam in these countries are fascists and guys who otherwise openly loathe them, such as yourself. So certainly there are some who want to hear it, but they probably don't want to hear it from you. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:For example, Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with right-wing politics, and not in a way that is open to interpretation- the "Eye of the Needle was actually a gate" thing, for instance, is straight up disingenuous bullshit and has no theological backing. Plus, money changers in the temple, multiplying the bread and fish, et cetera. You can claim to be a Christian and be right-wing, but you cannot actually follow the words of Christ and be right-wing. But Christians have never considered 'following the words of Christ' to be a prerequisite for belonging to the club. It's always been about what you believe, not what you do. The Nicene Creed doesn't say a thing about how one must behave in order to be a Christian. Far closer to the fundamental core - the kernel I guess - of Christianity than principles of charity is the notion that your fuckups during mortal existence are entirely expungeable if you believe the rights thing and ask to be forgiven. 'Christian' is a term that refers to such a broad and varied category of people that it's simply indefensible to define it as anything more specific than 'one who believes Jesus is the son of God and that he died so that our wrongdoings may be absolved.' I mean, it doesn't necessarily have to be that exactly, but it simply doesn't make sense to be any more restrictive. Similarly, I really don't see how you can define 'Muslim' any more narrowly than, for instance, than 'one who believes there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet.'
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:'Christian' is a term that refers to such a broad and varied category of people that it's simply indefensible to define it as anything more specific than 'one who believes Jesus is the son of God and that he died so that our wrongdoings may be absolved.' I mean, it doesn't necessarily have to be that exactly, but it simply doesn't make sense to be any more restrictive. Similarly, I really don't see how you can define 'Muslim' any more narrowly than, for instance, than 'one who believes there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet.' This, precisely. To make a No-True-Scotsman argument about Christianity and political leaning is beyond ridiculous, and would get you labeled a racist if you tried anything similar with other religions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Similarly, I really don't see how you can define 'Muslim' any more narrowly than, for instance, than 'one who believes there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet.' A major difference is that you could very credibly call yourself a Christian and reject the Old Testament and large swathes of the New Testament based on what you perceive as a lack of validity, given how the Christian Bible was compiled over a hundred years after Jesus' death from a wide variety of sources and whether or not you believe Jesus' teachings superseded Jewish law (like how Christians don't follow Jewish dietary practices). A Muslim cannot do the same for the Quran, although they can pick and choose their Hadiths. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Narciss posted:A major difference is that you could very credibly call yourself a Christian and reject the Old Testament and large swathes of the New Testament based on what you perceive as a lack of validity, given how the Christian Bible was compiled over a hundred years after Jesus' death from a wide variety of sources and whether or not you believe Jesus' teachings superseded Jewish law (like how Christians don't follow Jewish dietary practices). A Muslim cannot do the same for the Quran, although they can pick and choose their Hadiths. I'm pretty sure Pauline, Nicene Christianity (AKA what people are referring to when they say "Christianity") requires both the Old and New Testaments, regardless of what the average western Christian personally believes. Because that is the standard we're using here, remember
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Narciss posted:A major difference is that you could very credibly call yourself a Christian and reject the Old Testament and large swathes of the New Testament based on what you perceive as a lack of validity, given how the Christian Bible was compiled over a hundred years after Jesus' death from a wide variety of sources and whether or not you believe Jesus' teachings superseded Jewish law (like how Christians don't follow Jewish dietary practices). A Muslim cannot do the same for the Quran, although they can pick and choose their Hadiths. Well, OK, but I don't see what this has to do with the price of eggs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
Narciss posted:A major difference is that you could very credibly call yourself a Christian and reject the Old Testament and large swathes of the New Testament based on what you perceive as a lack of validity, given how the Christian Bible was compiled over a hundred years after Jesus' death from a wide variety of sources and whether or not you believe Jesus' teachings superseded Jewish law (like how Christians don't follow Jewish dietary practices). A Muslim cannot do the same for the Quran, although they can pick and choose their Hadiths. To be fair, most of the horrible poo poo that fundamentalists do comes from hadiths or from cultural practices with no actual link to Islam. I'm not saying I'd love to live in a society governed according solely to the Quran, but it'd be a drat sight better than what Daesh is doing right now. A lot of more liberal Muslims view a lot of the more "offensive" hadiths, such as the one that calls for death to apostates for example, to be a result of the political context of early Islam, applicable only to that situation, and not actually a universal rule (as the Quran states there should be no compulsion in religion, and the threat of being killed is clearly coercion).
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
PT6A posted:To be fair, most of the horrible poo poo that fundamentalists do comes from hadiths or from cultural practices with no actual link to Islam. This is hardly accurate. Just google "Quran quotes slavery/war/apostasy" and you'll find plenty of repulsive material condoning the raping of women captured in battle, the sanctity of war waged by believers on non-believers, and the lawfulness of executing those who renounce Islam. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Narciss posted:This is hardly accurate. Just google "Quran quotes slavery/war/apostasy" and you'll find plenty of repulsive material condoning the raping of women captured in battle, the sanctity of war waged by believers on non-believers, and the lawfulness of executing those who renounce Islam. The Hadiths are usually lumped under the "Quran" designation in Western society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The Hadiths are usually lumped under the "Quran" designation in Western society. I'm sure your right in some cases, but it's hardly necessary to turn to the Hadiths to find quotes that would make your average liberal-minded person go "uhhhhh": Surah 4 Verse 89 posted:They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Narciss posted:I'm sure your right in some cases, but it's hardly necessary to turn to the Hadiths to find quotes that would make your average liberal-minded person go "uhhhhh": You can also trawl through both testaments to the bible to find some very "uhhh" quotes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Narciss posted:I'm sure your right in some cases, but it's hardly necessary to turn to the Hadiths to find quotes that would make your average liberal-minded person go "uhhhhh": Bible says what?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:You can also trawl through both testaments to the bible to find some very "uhhh" quotes. When we're comparing millenia-old desert religions and the degree to which they are anathema to modern liberal sensibilities, it's always going to be a matter of degree. I would contend that no religion is as blatantly incompatible with liberal society as Islam, and I think many people in this thread would agree. I did some quick googling for "worst New Testament verses" and the stuff I've found is pretty milquetoast when compared to the Quran. Most of the 'violence' is saying how bad things will happen to bad people in the afterlife (as opposed to Islam, which mandates bad things happening to not-bad people in this life), or very clearly symbolic sayings like "if your right eye offends thee, pluck it out". I'll also circle back around to my earlier point about how Christ's teachings are much more open to interpretation for a variety of reasons, given how little we know about him and how his teachings all went through a game of Telephone before being put to paper. Someone isn't any less of a Christian just because they ignore, say, the gospel of Mark and choose to believe the gospel of Thomas better represented what Jesus taught. Islam & the Quran are very different. The Quran is not open to picking & choosing; Mohammad was the final prophet, the Quran is the word of God, and that's the way it's been since Mohammad started the religion. If you are a Muslim, you follow a religion whose unquestionable holy book says that it's ok to rape slaves, murder apostates, and wage holy war. The degree to which Muslims do not endorse these things is the degree to which they are not Muslim and practice cognitive dissonance in order to function in a modern world. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Narciss posted:When we're comparing millenia-old desert religions and the degree to which they are anathema to modern liberal sensibilities, it's always going to be a matter of degree. I would contend that no religion is as blatantly incompatible with liberal society as Islam, and I think many people in this thread would agree. I did some quick googling for "worst New Testament verses" and the stuff I've found is pretty milquetoast when compared to the Quran. Most of the 'violence' is saying how bad things will happen to bad people in the afterlife (as opposed to Islam, which mandates bad things happening to not-bad people in this life), or very clearly symbolic sayings like "if your right eye offends thee, pluck it out". There are multiple passages in the New Testament about how women should be subservient and even petty stuff like banning them from showing their hair during church service. You can argue that that's not in the Gospels but I have yet to meet a single Christian who only uses the 4 Gospels as a bible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:You can also trawl through both testaments to the bible to find some very "uhhh" quotes. Yeah, but it's not exactly courting controversy on D&D to think that, like, Christianity is, like, uhhh, so uncool. Hello? But we weren't discussing Christianity here. Or Jainism either (preemptively). Go on, say racism. You know you want to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There are multiple passages in the New Testament about how women should be subservient and even petty stuff like banning them from showing their hair during church service. Well for one thing, 'women should be subservient to men' is pretty tame for something written two millenia ago, especially compared to many passages in the Quran. If you're referring to Colossians, was that even written when Jesus was alive? My main issue with Islam is that it is not open to interpretation the same way Christianity is. Christianity can bend & adapt with the times because whatever Jesus actually taught has been long lost to the mists of times. All we have are a bunch of writings from followers and followers of followers to pick and choose from, all of questionable historical validity. As a Muslim, you just can't do that and still call yourself a Muslim with any degree of credibility. I'm not religious, so I'm looking at both of these religions from the point of view of "which is easier to get along with as a non-believer", which I believe is roughly in line with the spirit the thread was started in. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
If it were as rigid as you say, Islam would be much more hierarchical in structure surely? There's no Islamic equivalent of a pope or anything like that. And there are different sects in Islam just as there are in Christianity, so some interpretation is obviously going on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
So if we accept the premise that Islam is fundamentally the Worst Evil Bad Religion on the planet then what exactly is your solution? Saturation nuclear bombardment? Mass brainwashing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:So if we accept the premise that Islam is fundamentally the Worst Evil Bad Religion on the planet then what exactly is your solution? Saturation nuclear bombardment? Mass brainwashing? I like how you accepted my conclusion but super sarcastically in a way that makes me think you're not open to a real discussion.  tooterfish posted:If it were as rigid as you say, Islam would be much more hierarchical in structure surely? There's no Islamic equivalent of a pope or anything like that. The Caliph could be viewed as the Islamic patriarch/pope, although it's quite a bit different. Islam sees no dividing lines between religious and political life and the Caliph is the leader of the entire Muslim community in both spheres. I'm not sure what textual basis there is for a Caliph or what the Quran dictates about how one should be selected. That said, just because Islamic is rigid in the degree to which it is open to interpretation doesn't mean it has to have a single leader. There is interpretation, sure, but there's a limit to how much you can soften verses like the ones saying you can kill apostates. If you google Islamic scholar's readings of 4:89, I doubt you'll find an interpretation that has you saying "ah yes this is ok with me". ----------------
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:If it were as rigid as you say, Islam would be much more hierarchical in structure surely? There's no Islamic equivalent of a pope or anything like that. That doesn't follow at all, buddy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Narciss posted:I like how you accepted my conclusion but super sarcastically in a way that makes me think you're not open to a real discussion. I'm accepting it hypothetically (and very sarcastically) because I want to know what you think the world should do about Those Bad Muslims if it really is such a fundamentally, irredeemably anti-modern religion like you imagine it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:If it were as rigid as you say, Islam would be much more hierarchical in structure surely? There's no Islamic equivalent of a pope or anything like that. To be fair The Papacy doesn't have much theological foundation at all and exists in its form as a religious authority more due to massive amounts of skulduggery, tradition and chance than anything else. If Charlemagne didn't really give a poo poo about Popes Stephen III, Adrian I and Leo III's problems with the Lombards, Byzantines and various Italian Lords then the makeup of Christianity could utterly different than it is now. Most protestant sects have little hierarchy (often in response to Catholicism's hierarchical structure which can be easily seen as an innovation that hasn't much to do with pure Christianity). Its differs across Islam too, Shiite's usually have a more elaborate hierarchy than Sunni, and I'm sure if things had gone differently at some point after the religion emerged there could have been an Islamic pope equivalent somewhere. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:That doesn't follow at all, buddy. If that were true then there wouldn't be different sects of Islam and there'd be a single supreme authority. So there's obviously a lot more interpretation going on than he gives credit for. As far as I know every Muslim is required to study the Quran themselves, by contrast the Catholic church went to great lengths to keep the Bible unreadable to the masses. Narciss posted:The Caliph could be viewed as the Islamic patriarch/pope tooterfish fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:
Doesn't Al-Baghdadi claim that? "Claim" being the important factor here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
I don't know why anyone is bothering to argue with a guy who seriously says that you can summarily dismiss self-identified "Muslims" who don't follow ahadith they don't like, but insists that everyone who thinks positively of Jesus counts as a Christian. Unitarians, people who only use the gospels, whatever, are not "Christian" by the definition used for 2000 years. And as for religious law, for most of those 2000 years the Christian establishment considered it fine and dandy to have it and enforce it, including forced tithing, church attendance, fasting, and execution of heretics. You can argue that Islam is somehow less suited to dispense with the religious law, but to argue that Christianity doesn't have it is 100% false
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I don't know why anyone is bothering to argue with a guy who seriously says that you can summarily dismiss self-identified "Muslims" who don't follow ahadith they don't like You need to read what I wrote again. Muslims can pick & choose Hadith, as many of them are of questionable historical validity and as far as I know Mohammad never said "do as I say *and* as I do", as he of course had no way of knowing the collection of writings and stories known as the Hadith would pop up after his death. What I said was that Muslims can't pick & choose bits of the Quran to follow and still call themselves Muslims; if you disagree, I'd be interested to know why. tooterfish posted:Maybe. Who's Caliph now then? According to Wikipedia the 2 current major claimants are Al-Baghdadi (Sunni) and Mirza Masroor Ahmad (Ahmadiyya). Obviously anyone calling themselves Caliph will have a good chunk of the Muslim world saying "no you're not". ---------------- Narciss fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
tooterfish posted:Sure it does. He was saying the Quran wasn't open to interpretation and therefore it's harder to live alongside Muslims than Christians, because Christians have more wiggle room not to be dicks. First, Christian theology is a hell of a lot more varied than Islamic theology. That isn't in any way an indictment of Islam, it's just obviously and demonstrably the case. It is way more philosophically homogenous than Christianity. Second, you used the absence of a counterpart to the Pope in Islam as an example of why Islam isn't hierarchical or top-down authoritative in how interprets scripture. This is exceptionally retarded, not just because the Pope is by no means the boss of what Christians believe, but because Sunni Islam had until 1924 (and has again now, according to Daesh) a supreme religious authority: the Caliph. A bona fide Caliph's legitimacy is derived from his spiritual succession from Mohammed in pretty much exactly the same way as the Pope's derives from his succession from Saint Peter as Bishop of Rome. It is an astonishingly important position. Most Sunnis simply believe the Caliphate currently to be a vacant position, not abolished. In short, sedevacantism is orthodoxy in Sunni Islam. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:49
|
|