|
I'm interested in the nature of Allah as a deity. Specifically, what are the differences between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions regarding the nature of God? It seems to me that the Christian God takes a far more active role in the world than that of either Islam or Judaism; is this correct? While there's obviously no trinity in Islam, to what extent is God's immanence emphasised? And how does this vary between different branches of Islam? In the interests of full disclosure, I ask because I consider myself a pantheist with perhaps some animist elements, and I'm interested in understanding how the Abrahamic religions relate God and the world.
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:IMO, bad incentive structures are the main problem in basically everything ever. The kind of people who only does nice things because they're waiting for their turn to drunkenly have sexbot orgies is not the kind of people you can build a truly good society with. You want the kind of people for whom kindness is inherently rewarding - where heaven is a place where you're still being nice to others, or at least treating people with basic respect, because that's the kind of person you are. Wouldn't this be a virtue ethics conception of morality rather than a deontological one? As far as I know most branches of most Abrahamic religions don't use virtue (in the Classical sense, i.e. personal character) as their metric of goodness, but rather good acts. Therefore it's not hypocritical to reward people for being good because of what they get out of it; if the act is what's important, then the motivation of the individual is irrelevant.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:On mobile now, but I remember a fairly liberal cleric saying that it's a sin, but desperately trying to get across that it's still not okay to kill them. Disclaimer: I'm not a Muslim, but I lurk the thread and take an active interest in Islam, as I do in many religions. My background's in philosophy and I take a special interest in religious and cultural questions as they relate to philosophy. The view that homosexuality is a sin but shouldn't be punished by men isn't exclusive to Islam. I've heard similar views from evangelical Christians and Catholics, and I think what it ultimately comes down to is a question which has haunted queer theory for generations: what is homosexuality? If you hold the view that homosexuality is something one is, as is prevalent in the liberal parts of the West, then the idea that homosexuality is a sin will seem completely alien; even if you take a negative view, it makes more sense to describe it as a 'curse' or a 'burden'. Ironically, this is a view which has had its own awful history, having roots in the Victorian need to classify and regulate sexuality (at least, if you believe Foucault in History of Sexuality). This view led to jolly moments like the neutering of homosexuals such as Alan Turing in the West or the extermination of 'deviants' by the Nazis. But it's a view that's been picked up on by LGBT movements and become mainstream because in liberal discourse, to say something is inherent to a person is to make it 'natural' and outside the sphere of human governance. This ties in nicely with other concerns in liberal discourse with regard to the relationship between the state and the individual, the state and the market, etc. If you're operating outside a liberal discourse, however, then just because something is natural it doesn't mean it should be praiseworthy: nature may be seen as bad, and God's law, being supernatural, a way to transcend the mire of 'nature'. This seems more compatible with a conservative Christian position to me. At an extreme you could even take this view to mean that homosexuals are irredeemably sinful, and ought be eradicated, as in an extreme right-wing politics. On the other hand, if you hold that homosexuality is something one does, i.e. an action, then it becomes legitimate to describe it as a sin, and perhaps even to demand punishment for it even if you hold a generally liberal view. Like many other Westerners, I didn't understand this position until I spent some time discussing the matter with evangelicals. It's not limited to evangelicals, however; this is the view that Foucault advocates in the History of Sexuality, and one which contemporary queer theorists continue to grapple with. As I understand Islam (and I could be wrong: again, I'm not a Muslim), things which are natural are seen as part of God's creation -- see Islam's long history of contribution to science, and connection of science to God's will. Where the difference seems to arise between liberal and conservative Muslims is whether homosexuality is part of the natural sphere. If you hold that homosexuality is something one is then it makes sense to deny it's a sin; if you hold that it's something one does, then it may or may not be a sin, and I suppose at this point, were I a Muslim, I'd refer to the Qu'ran or Hadiths. I suppose my point is that these questions are complicated and that the concerns being wrestled with in Muslim discourse are the same as those being wrestled with everywhere else, just framed differently. Whereas the 'action' view of homosexuality can be associated with post-modernist queer theory, it can also be associated with conservative Catholic, Evangelical, and Muslim views which treat it as a sin like any other. Whereas the 'being' view of homosexuality is prevalent in liberal discourse, it can just as well be used to justify interpretation of homosexuality as a test of faith or as a blight to be eliminated. Just attempting to open up the debate a little to allow for some more clarity on this issue. Even my analysis is probably oversimplifying the issue, and I'd welcome any corrections or extensions from Muslims in the thread, especially around what the sources say with regard to the views I've laid out. Purple Prince fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:That may be so. But I don't think philosophy has *anything* to do with being homosexual. Penguins I don't believe know much about philosophy and they can be homosexual. I certainly didn't know anything about philosophy when I realized I was gay. And certainly no human I know did a course in philosophy before accepting their homosexuality. This is the whole debate I outlined, though. Can you 'be' homosexual, or is 'doing' homosexual acts something separate from your essence / individual nature? Whether or not animals exhibit homosexual behaviour doesn't have much relevance to this argument. You're taking homosexuality as something one is when this is the entire question. e: To clarify, I'm not writing an apologetic for violence against or persecution of homosexuals / people who do homosexual actions. I just think before it's possible to have a meaningful discussion about the issue the terms of the debate need to be made clear; otherwise we're not having a rational discussion, but a rhetorical one. Purple Prince fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Being homosexual and homosexual acts are completely different ideas. The idea of binary sexuality, either homosexual or heterosexual is also wrong. See the Kinsey report. Homosexuality is about an "attraction" to the same sex, and it exists on a spectrum, between being completely heterosexual or completely homosexual. If we cannot control our attractions, the question gets thornier, because it transforms the question of how we should treat homosexuality. Should it be a disease to be treated? Should it be treated as an inherent burden never to be acted on? (I believe this is the official position of the Catholic Church). Or on the other hand, should it be tolerated and treated as something to respect? The answers to these questions will come down to different individuals and different branches of theology. In any case the 'naturalness' of homosexual attraction once again makes it hard to see it as a sin, so any view which holds homosexual attraction to be sinful probably needs to hold the view that this attraction is in some sense a choice. Unless you hold something like the Calvinist view where sin is predetermined. This extends my earlier typology a little bit: we now have a more complex view of the situation. It's probably possible to hold that homosexual attraction is natural and not blameworthy, while homosexual action is a choice; I think this is the Catholic view. The idea that homosexual attraction is a choice is one that evangelicals seem to love. The idea that both are natural is the familiar liberal view, and the idea that homosexual action is alright while homosexual attraction is a bit weird is one which the Classical world seemed to love. The terms of the debate are being drawn in this case by whether sexuality is a case of attraction or of action, which is an interesting but different debate to whether one is gay or if it's something one does. The really interesting and relevant question is which views different schools of Islam take, because I doubt it's homogenous. BattleMoose posted:Absolutely. I was born this way. If you ask other gay people, they will tell you the same. It is a fundamental part of who we are. Ask gay people and they will tell you the same. Its only heterosexual people who argue against this. I am as gay as I am male or caucasian, these are just aspects of who I am as a person. BattleMoose posted:Let me put it to you this way. Why would heterosexual penguins commit homosexual acts? Or form lifelong homosexual partners? And this extends to all animals, not just penguins. The only reasonable position to take is that homosexuality exists in all animals, as fundamental characteristics. Purple Prince fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
It would be really nice if some Muslims in this thread would give their five cents, because my views are based on analysis of stuff I've heard and have little relationship to any Islamic scholarship. Before I go full devil's advocate, I should point out again that I'm not Muslim, and that the views that I'm putting forward are not my own. I'm a very liberal bisexual, but I also believe in understanding others' points of view. Labelling opinions which large numbers of people hold as 'irrational' without an examination of the underlying beliefs which lead to those opinions is dangerous and doesn't benefit cross-cultural communication in the slightest. Call me an optimist, but I don't think that everyone who thinks homosexuality is a sin is some sort of irrational monster; they just hold different beliefs and assumptions to me and other posters in this thread. Lassitude posted:Are you people really so loving stupid you need the ethical position of homosexuality (or any sexual proclivity between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home) explained ad nauseam? BattleMoose posted:It seems that you have jumped a few steps without dealing with a more fundamental issue. Why should we control our impulses or attractions? Why should homosexual attractions be controlled or limited? Similarly, why should homosexual actions be controlled limited? There isn't anything in my ethical or moral code that suggests these things should, nor are there within (very liberal) social circles I associate with. Consequently the views you are espousing are extremely alien to me. Perhaps if you could frame, why, homosexuality can/should be limited with explicit connections to ethical or moral values, that would be helpful. BattleMoose posted:I don't really value journalists opinions highly at all. If the point that you want to make, is that homosexuality is socially constructed, that is an extremely extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence. There is evidence for this, published in the peer reviewed literature, right? Two points. First, the argument that homosexuality is a social construct isn't a scientific one, but a sociological one. It's not saying that people are only homosexual because they've learned to be that way, but that the idea of a category called 'homosexual' is a recent invention. Nobody denies that some people are attracted to others of the same gender -- what's being denied is that this points to sexuality being a fixed aspect of identity, rather than something which is part of a pattern of emotions and behaviour like anything else. Second, surely because something is biological it doesn't mean that we should tolerate it? For example, XYY syndrome is a genetic condition where males are born with two Y chromosomes. This leads to an increase in testosterone production, and a corresponding increase in violent and antisocial behaviour. You could say that this violent and antisocial behaviour is therefore natural, because they were 'born this way'. Does that mean that we should tolerate such behaviour? I doubt you'd say we should. How does this case differ from that of homosexuality? In both cases they may have a genetic cause, leading to an undesirable (in some societies) pattern of behaviour. Yet it would seem normal to say that people with XYY syndrome should learn coping mechanisms and ways to avoid acting out based on their genetic condition. Once you identify homosexuality as something which is reducible to a pattern of emotions and behaviour, and having taken it already as something undesirable, you can make an argument for having people regulate their behaviour: for example, by learning ways to deal with homosexual urges such as praying, venting it in different ways (at the gym?), or distracting themselves with other pursuits (business, education). You'll note that this was a common way to treat homosexuality in the West until recently, and from my experience it still is a common way to treat it in many cultures. Is this unhealthy? Modern Western society says so; many other cultures don't. Penguins don't care. Remember, this is a devil's advocate argument. I'm just interested in making the point that you can put forward an argument against tolerating homosexuality which works just as well as one for tolerating it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I am really not interested in arguing against a devils advocate's perspective. You haven't based your argument against homosexuality within ethics or morals and until you do, it cannot be countered with a rational argument based in ethics. I think you'll find that my actual ethical position is very close to Hume's. Just because I don't base my arguments on the boring and terrible utilitarian view, that doesn't mean my arguments fall outside the realm of ethics. e: See here for the is-ought problem. e2: Better source. Purple Prince fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
Lassitude posted:Do you think you're blazing a trail here? Do you imagine this topic has not been the fodder of debate for several decades now? The question is settled. Polluting this thread with your devil's advocate horseshit is not on. Homosexuality, as with any other sexual proclivity, is not a matter of ethics. The practices of consenting adults in their own bedrooms are irrelevant to broader society. Any religion which posits differently is embarking upon a course of bigotry for its own sake and is to be regarded as no better than neo-Nazis or the KKK or other subcultures which peddle in prejudice. That is to say, unworthy of attention or discourse. Whether homosexuality is or is not a matter of ethics is itself an ethical question with different answers. This is evident from the fact that some people think it's sinful. So either you're making a normative claim -- which I'm not interested in debating -- or you're just saying things to gratify yourself. I also disagree that it's unworthy of discourse, because that's a thought-terminating cliché and defeats the entire point of conversation. I'm not going to post any more on the subject because no productive conversation has emerged. I'm not interested in debating whether homosexuality is right or wrong, just in presenting views that might hold it's sinful versus views which find it non-sinful in some way, unpacking some of the ideas behind that, and hearing what support different views have from different groups within Islam. As this doesn't seem likely to happen, I might as well stop 'polluting' the thread. Sorry to everyone who was trying to have a civil conversation for feeding this nonsense. I should have known better. e: In retrospect I could've just asked 'What are different branches of Islam's approaches to homosexuality?' or something. Purple Prince fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 12:40
|
|