|
The idea that any actual religious text more than a thousand years old actually has an effect on culture, rather than being selectively interpreted as a way for existing cultures to represent themselves, is laughable.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:It was legal in Ancient Greece too. I'm not sure what this is supposed to contribute to a debate over Islam, given the fact that the Ottoman Empire was not a Islamic theocracy but a absolutistic monarchy which happened to believe in Islam to a degree. I'd probably go as far as calling it an multi-cultural Empire and not Islamic empire, given that their success based a lot on local autonomy and Quanun law, in contrast to enforcing the Sharia everywhere without exception and one of the more powerful factions within the Empire were the Janissaries, who were Christians. I am not sure what argument you think you are rebutting here, but a couple of points. You are downplaying the role Islam played in the de facto caliphate and protector of the holy Muslim cities for the more than 500 years and the Janissaries started and enslaved Christian children who were force converted to Islam and swore fealty to the caliphate until Muslims themselves were allowed to join. Other than that you are absolutely right. And I would say the Ottomans represent more of Islamic history than the modern theocracies, most of which were not as beholden to fundamentalist movements until the 70s. And these theocracies are still only a part of the modern Muslim world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:My guess as to why people like cloacaholica exist is a that they grew up in fundamentalist environments themselves. The literal, pedantic interpretation of holy text ... the fanatical clinging to a specific interpretation of these texts as the correct, infallible truth. This smells like they are projecting their own hosed up religious experiences unto others. Coming from the other direction (being raised agnostic), it actually took me a long time to understand why anyone would choose to be religious but not fundamentalist. Either the scripture is perfect and you should follow all the bits of it, or why bother with any of it? Now I've reached the point where I accept that the very great majority of religious people pick and choose the bits they like, but I can't say I understand it. It seems more like they just like being "part of the club" than anything else, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The idea that any actual religious text more than a thousand years old actually has an effect on culture, rather than being selectively interpreted as a way for existing cultures to represent themselves, is laughable. But it's both. The text itself is part of culture as well as being dynamically interpreted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
They just raided the home of the guy that sold the shooters the guns.quote:Marquez allegedly purchased the two "assault-style" rifles over three years ago. Authorities haven't been able to talk to him because he checked himself into a mental hospital after the attack, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press. Mickey Mental fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:But it's both. The text itself is part of culture as well as being dynamically interpreted. Sure, but there is no telling whether a single passage will have any bearing on that culture. To comb through the text and say "a ha! here is a line that says this, so that's what you believe!" is nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Coming from the other direction (being raised agnostic), it actually took me a long time to understand why anyone would choose to be religious but not fundamentalist. Either the scripture is perfect and you should follow all the bits of it, or why bother with any of it? Now I've reached the point where I accept that the very great majority of religious people pick and choose the bits they like, but I can't say I understand it. It seems more like they just like being "part of the club" than anything else, honestly. A sense of social belonging, strong pattern recognition to the point of inventing false patterns, as well as a preference for simple and meaningful explanations for complex phenomena are very basic and fundamental qualities of human psychology and part of our early survival mechanism. Religion ticks these boxes for most people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:But it's both. The text itself is part of culture as well as being dynamically interpreted. Yeah, but over time cultural dynamics clearly win out. See how opposing abortion is a huge part of American Evangelical Christianity despite the fact that the Bible contains exactly zero condemnations of abortion (and yes, abortion totally existed back then; plenty of contemporary Greek and Roman writers mentioned it). PT6A posted:Coming from the other direction (being raised agnostic), it actually took me a long time to understand why anyone would choose to be religious but not fundamentalist. Either the scripture is perfect and you should follow all the bits of it, or why bother with any of it? Now I've reached the point where I accept that the very great majority of religious people pick and choose the bits they like, but I can't say I understand it. It seems more like they just like being "part of the club" than anything else, honestly. If you look close enough, you realize that even the so-called fundamentalists and self-described "literalists" do plenty of picking-and-choosing. In addition to what I said above about abortion, have you ever actually looked at the "Biblical basis" for the whole Left Behind End Times Rapture Antichrist mythology? Because it's totally nuts. It's bits and pieces from like 3 different books rearranged and stitched together like some of textual Frankenstein's Monster. One of my favorite parts of Fred Clark's Left Behind readings is the part where a preacher says that the Antichrist will claim to bring peace because, "The Bible says that the horseman will come bearing a bow, but there is no mention of an arrow." INH5 fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The idea that any actual religious text more than a thousand years old actually has an effect on culture, rather than being selectively interpreted as a way for existing cultures to represent themselves, is laughable. These aren't exclusive options. Texts are interpreted and recast to serve and represent current interests, yes, but the content of the texts still impacts the structure of those interpretations and leads to incidental outcomes dependent on that specific content. Texts are mediums for reinterpretation but their structure (and cultural history) still imposes constraints or priors on the interpretations they support (or at least the ideological complexity/dissonance necessary to reinterpret in support of particular representation). It's analogous to how the structure and demographics of a city reflect current power structures, but are also constrained by the developmental history of past power structures through the persistence of architecture and infrastructure. I don't disagree with the point you're making in the current discussion, just that texts are shrink-wrap. They're plastic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:My guess as to why people like cloacaholica exist is a that they grew up in fundamentalist environments themselves. The literal, pedantic interpretation of holy text ... the fanatical clinging to a specific interpretation of these texts as the correct, infallible truth. This smells like they are projecting their own hosed up religious experiences unto others. My parents were 'don't give a poo poo' atheists. True story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
^^^^^ e: welp, there goes my theory. I'm laying down my office as armchair psychologist. Breakfast All Day posted:These aren't exclusive options. Texts are interpreted and recast to serve and represent current interests, yes, but the content of the texts still impacts the structure of those interpretations and leads to incidental outcomes dependent on that specific content. Texts are mediums for reinterpretation but their structure (and cultural history) still imposes constraints or priors on the interpretations they support (or at least the ideological complexity/dissonance necessary to reinterpret in support of particular representation). It's analogous to how the structure and demographics of a city reflect current power structures, but are also constrained by the developmental history of past power structures through the persistence of architecture and infrastructure. But there are countless examples throughout history that these restrictions are pretty much meaningless. Most prominent example is that the pacifistic nature of the new testament did nothing to curtail European aggressiveness and militarism throughout history. The Spanish conquistadors where not one bit less violent than the Norse Vikings plundering and murdering centuries earlier. GABA ghoul fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
INH5 posted:If you look close enough, you realize that even the so-called fundamentalists and self-described "literalists" do plenty of picking-and-choosing. In addition to what I said above about abortion, have you ever actually looked at the "Biblical basis" for the whole Left Behind End Times Rapture Antichrist mythology? Because it's totally nuts. It's bits and pieces from like 3 different books rearranged and stitched together like some of textual Frankenstein's Monster. One of my favorite parts of Fred Clark's Left Behind readings is the part where a preacher says that the Antichrist will claim to bring peace because, "The Bible says that the horseman will come bearing a bow, but there is no mention of an arrow." Oh, certainly. The hypocrisy of many fundamentalists bothers me too (look at all the self-professed Christian who do nothing to follow Christ's example, regardless of their adherence to the rest of the scriptures). I don't feel like there was a bunch of ambiguity in the parts of the New Testament where Jesus talked about loving thy neighbour, how it was bad to be rich, how it's wrong to judge other people, how you should pray in private and not make a big deal out of it, and how you should respond to people who attack you ("turn the other cheek"), yet many so-called fundamentalists or people who believe in biblical literalism neglect these parts. I'm just saying I am mostly unable to understand what drives that impulse. Either this is the word of the creator and controller of the universe about how you should behave, or it's not. Why follow that poo poo halfway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The idea that any actual religious text more than a thousand years old actually has an effect on culture, rather than being selectively interpreted as a way for existing cultures to represent themselves, is laughable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:My parents were 'don't give a poo poo' atheists. True story. waitwhatno posted:^^^^^ Not necessarily. The rise of the Evangelical Fundamentalist Atheist is a wonderful modern phenomenon and includes atheist fundies following noted evangelical atheist preacher Christopher Hitchens into becoming amateur Quran and Hadith scholars. Like Lamarck, your theory was just ahead of its time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Ok you guys win. Looks like none of us are qualified in the subject, myself being the worst I'll concede. Let's just roll with the opinions of totally unbiased practicing scholars on the matter. Have you ever sat down and actually read Quran before? From start to finish, I mean. Or did you just pull your interpretation from https://www.islamisevil.com Edit Which is a real website, I guess?! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The idea that any actual religious text more than a thousand years old actually has an effect on culture, rather than being selectively interpreted as a way for existing cultures to represent themselves, is laughable. Ah so basically the specifics of the scripture are irrelevant. Even if those passages were never written, the same level of atrocities would have been committed under a different banner. And we should stop sticking our noses into Islamic affairs which none of use are qualified to talk about. Its purely a matter of Muslim Internal Affairs that they need to sort out for themselves. Ok boys, lets pack it up and roll out!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Coming from the other direction (being raised agnostic), it actually took me a long time to understand why anyone would choose to be religious but not fundamentalist. Either the scripture is perfect and you should follow all the bits of it, or why bother with any of it? Now I've reached the point where I accept that the very great majority of religious people pick and choose the bits they like, but I can't say I understand it. It seems more like they just like being "part of the club" than anything else, honestly. because this country is so firmly Christian that you don't learn anything about other religions' approaches.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Have you ever sat down and actually read Quran before? From start to finish, I mean. Or did you just pull your interpretation from https://www.islamisevil.com I haven't read the entirety of the Qu'ran, nor of the New Testament, nor of the Old Testament. But of the parts I have read, there are obviously many things that are noble, and many things that are bad. I would be extremely concerned with any person who claimed to follow, literally, any of those books, or idealized doing so. The actual practice of any given religion, on the other hand, is usually pretty acceptable, in spite of their scriptures, not because of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Have you ever sat down and actually read Quran before? From start to finish, I mean. Or did you just pull your interpretation from https://www.islamisevil.com Nah I aint got no time to read the Quran, Surah and Hadith with all their official footnotes in arabic so I don't miss any of the subtleties lost in translation. If passages are taken out of context then it should be easy to put them back into context but from what I've read the western/modern friendly contextualizing is really grasping at straws and sometimes redirected into a new direction that equally bad as the first. But hey! At least people are trying!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Ah so basically the specifics of the scripture are irrelevant. Even if those passages were never written, the same level of atrocities would have been committed under a different banner. I don't find that hard to believe at all, considering that any list of the worst mass murderers in human history, no matter how you rank them, includes several committed atheists such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Nah I aint got no time to read the Quran, Surah and Hadith with all their official footnotes in arabic so I don't miss any of the subtleties lost in translation. If passages are taken out of context then it should be easy to put them back into context but from what I've read the western/modern friendly contextualizing is really grasping at straws and sometimes redirected into a new direction that equally bad as the first. But hey! At least people are trying! If you haven't actually read them in the slightest who are you to say when people are "grasping at straws"? You've just admitted you don't have the standing to make that call. And what do you mean "from what you've read", what did you read and where did you read it? Have you legitimately looked into it, or did you just not find a satisfactory answer in the top Google search result? Considering that you're reveling in ignorance I'm going to guess the latter. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
They're looking for the seller? Were the guns straw purchases? If that's true...well, it still won't change anything for anyone who loves that sweet feeling of the barrel gripping their cock, but it would be an (even bigger) indictment of our absence of gun laws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:They're looking for the seller? Were the guns straw purchases? If that's true...well, it still won't change anything for anyone who loves that sweet feeling of the barrel gripping their cock, but it would be an (even bigger) indictment of our absence of gun laws. Straw purchases are already illegal as gently caress. The DoJ just doesn't care to prosecute them because they aren't sexy enough for hot young AUSAs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The idea that any actual religious text more than a thousand years old actually has an effect on culture, rather than being selectively interpreted as a way for existing cultures to represent themselves, is laughable. Imagine what the religion of the Constitution will be like in 700 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm just saying I am mostly unable to understand what drives that impulse. Either this is the word of the creator and controller of the universe about how you should behave, or it's not. Why follow that poo poo halfway? Uh what That's not how people work. Do you have a perfectly consistent set of values that informs your every action? No, you've picked up a lot of things from your culture, from things you've read, from various philosophies, but there's no way you could sit down and write a comprehensive manifesto that fits all your beliefs and actions into a consistent and coherent whole, and everyone who has tried to do that has failed because it's really not possible. You're basically asking why religious people are human beings instead of philosophical logicbots
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:How so? Exactly. That they're enforced with all the enthusiasm as a mall cop off his segway is (Yet Another) semi-truck-full-of-guns sized pipeline of weapons to people who want to use them. We need to clamp down, and clamp down hard on this sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:We need to clamp down, and clamp down hard on this sort of thing. That said I hope Sig never stops loving with them because it has been hilarious so far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Uh what Of course I couldn't do that. That's why I'm an agnostic. I don't think there's any perfect set of rules or values; that's exactly why I think the idea of a set of rules sent down by the creator and controller of our lives is absurd. However, if I claimed to believe such a thing existed, I struggle to think of how I could justify not following it to the letter, at least as I could best understand it. That being said, I can see how someone would value the cultural aspect of religion, and starting from a religious background, would essentially lead their live in the same way I do, while still identifying with a particular faith. Just, speaking personally, if believed God said I should do X and avoid Y, I'd be really careful about doing X and avoiding Y.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
If anything it sounds like the neighbor bought the rifles a while back and then sold them to Farook a several years later, likely because they needed money or bought into the whole "I can flip it for more in the future because of the panic buying!" thing. So if he didn't property transfer them through a FFL they could get him on that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Ah so basically the specifics of the scripture are irrelevant. Even if those passages were never written, the same level of atrocities would have been committed under a different banner. And we should stop sticking our noses into Islamic affairs which none of use are qualified to talk about. Its purely a matter of Muslim Internal Affairs that they need to sort out for themselves. Ok boys, lets pack it up and roll out! If you're actually curious about this (and your heir of intellectual dishonesty makes me doubt this) the reason that religion has been such a successful force of imperialism (for both Christianity and Islam) has everything to do with strengthening and integrating an otherwise disparate population and almost nothing to do with scripture, except to the extent that scripture supported the aforementioned ends (which is less than you might think - see my next point.) Another thing you might want to look into, as it's a foundational element of modern comparative religion, is the so called Protestant Bias, or a tendency in Westerners to privilege the Text over other aspects of culture, history, politics, and so on when examining religion, religious people, societies, and how they act. To answer your question more directly, I can easily imagine an alternate history where a powerful united Arab force achieves the same level of imperial success as early Islam while being completely different in nature. Mia Wasikowska fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
PT6A posted:That being said, I can see how someone would value the cultural aspect of religion, and starting from a religious background, would essentially lead their live in the same way I do, while still identifying with a particular faith. Just, speaking personally, if believed God said I should do X and avoid Y, I'd be really careful about doing X and avoiding Y. No you wouldn't. If X and Y were things you didn't care that much about okay sure. But if you really hate doing X or love doing Y, you'd come up with a way to justify it: see the modern evangelical movement's attitude toward immigrants and war, respectively. Or see abolition vs slavery with both sides coming up with interpretations of the same holy texts to justify themselves and prove the other side are following false doctrine. Or gay rights: 50 years ago the idea of being Christian and tolerating gay people was unthinkable in America, now large denominations are performing gay marriages with a little reinterpretation of the gospels. Or Orthodox Jews who come up with the most ridiculous rules-lawyering to get around the restrictions: "if the elevator automatically stops on every floor, you're not doing button-pushing work so it's okay to ride it", "oh just run some twine around the entire neighborhood and now it's all indoor area" etc. Or the existence of Jews that aren't Orthodox. This is also why the Islam scholars from their 7th-grade religious studies class itt have such dumb arguments. It's like going up to an Episcopalian bishop and saying "a ha, you hate the gays see here's this passage, that's what you believe and you shouldn't be allowed in modern society with this opinion I've just attributed to you"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No you wouldn't. If X and Y were things you didn't care that much about okay sure. But if you really hate doing X or love doing Y, you'd come up with a way to justify it: see the modern evangelical movement's attitude toward immigrants and war, respectively. Or see abolition vs slavery with both sides coming up with interpretations of the same holy texts to justify themselves and prove the other side are following false doctrine. Or gay rights: 50 years ago the idea of being Christian and tolerating gay people was unthinkable in America, now large denominations are performing gay marriages with a little reinterpretation of the gospels. Or Orthodox Jews who come up with the most ridiculous rules-lawyering to get around the restrictions: "if the elevator automatically stops on every floor, you're not doing button-pushing work so it's okay to ride it", "oh just run some twine around the entire neighborhood and now it's all indoor area" etc. Or the existence of Jews that aren't Orthodox. I would argue that the rules-lawyering in Orthodox Judaism is a consequence of the belief in scriptural inerrancy, actually. And I would interpret large portions of Christian practice of various denominations as a tacit acceptance of the fact that the Bible is not the literal word of God (which is why I respect Catholics compared to denominations which practice the doctrine of sola scriptura).
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I would argue that the rules-lawyering in Orthodox Judaism is a consequence of the belief in scriptural inerrancy, actually. And I would interpret large portions of Christian practice of various denominations as a tacit acceptance of the fact that the Bible is not the literal word of God (which is why I respect Catholics compared to denominations which practice the doctrine of sola scriptura). I disagree. Blatantly violating the spirit of the law by selecting a certain interpretation of the letter in order to allow wacky hijincks to get around it is just another way people reinterpret the texts to make them conform to the realities of their every day life and to their actual preferences. Evangelicals do the same thing "ah it's not impossible for a rich man to go to heaven because you see the eye of the needle was a tiny gate that camels couldn't go through with packs on, therefore I can worship money all my life as long as I say the magic words on Sunday", ask any Christian that takes it more seriously than just a cultural obligation and he'll have a ton of justifications for why he's not actually disregarding his holy texts because "see if you read it this way then technically..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:It was legal in Ancient Greece too. I'm not sure what this is supposed to contribute to a debate over Islam, given the fact that the Ottoman Empire was not a Islamic theocracy but a absolutistic monarchy which happened to believe in Islam to a degree. I'd probably go as far as calling it an multi-cultural Empire and not Islamic empire, given that their success based a lot on local autonomy and Quanun law, in contrast to enforcing the Sharia everywhere without exception and one of the more powerful factions within the Empire were the Janissaries, who were Christians. How is a state where the Head of Government and the Head of Church are not only the same person, but has a recognized separation of State-Religion members and Religious Minorities as citizens/subjects with different rights, anything other than Theocracy? Dont even try to bring the UK into this, not only has the Monarch not been the head of government for years, but Anglicans have no legal rights not also afforded to Non-Anglicans in modern history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
None of the Caliphs from the Rashidun all the way through to the Ottomans were true Muslims you see, because they didn't agree with ISIS on everything and according to my Islamic studies education from townhall.com Muslims have to kill a Christian by their twelfth birthday.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:None of the Caliphs from the Rashidun all the way through to the Ottomans were true Muslims you see, because they didn't agree with ISIS on everything and according to my Islamic studies education from townhall.com Muslims have to kill a Christian by their twelfth birthday. But remember it's a zany 13-month moon calendar so they have more time to accomplish it. That's always the twist in those Muslim Slasher movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
People should read up on Noman Çelebicihan and the short lived Crimean Peoples Republic. Also ask the question wheter you could outdrink a Bosniak or a Kosovar. And why while you agree that religion is a bag of bones, a mish mash stacked to be interpreted to any creeds...do you belive that the reductionist trend always the "correct one"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
420 Gank Mid posted:How is a state where the Head of Government and the Head of Church are not only the same person, but has a recognized separation of State-Religion members and Religious Minorities as citizens/subjects with different rights, anything other than Theocracy? Given that they're talking about the Ottoman Empire it seems a bit arbitrary to limit this to modern British history. For a pretty long period of time the monarchy nominally had absolute power and was also the head of the church. Was it a theocracy then? The church has been involved in government basically throughout our entire history. gently caress, we still have Bishops sitting in the House of Lords.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
The Queen is still technically the Head of State... she just acts in a primarily ceremonial role, with Paliament doing the actual legislative heavy lifting. Elizabeth II is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, as well, but, again, it's the Archbishop of Canterbury who generally runs things, as is my understanding. Plus, the English were totally murdering Catholics for awhile, and persecuting other religious minorities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 22:04 |
|
420 Gank Mid posted:How is a state where the Head of Government and the Head of Church are not only the same person, but has a recognized separation of State-Religion members and Religious Minorities as citizens/subjects with different rights, anything other than Theocracy? Are you talking about pretty much every Protestant fiefdom in Germany during the 16th/17th century? The only reason a lot of Christian rulers were not at the same time the head of the state religion was that they did not control Rome and the Pope was already established as the head of the religion a long time before. Additionally it should be pointed out that the Ottoman Caliphate existed for 200 years before it was accepted by most of (Sunni) Islam as the rightful Caliphate. I'm not saying that the Ottoman Caliphate was a secular state but it was not a theocracy like the Rashidun, Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 09:43
|
|