• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Try to look at Islam academically.

stevecanuck said:
You post in meme quotes. Give me one example of 'hate' that I've used, and we'll take it from there.
Click to expand...

You have not provided a single citation. "Academically"? No. Pure hateful bs.
 
ataraxia said:
That's true. But an academic study of religion would also tell you that most people don't take their religion too seriously. Most followers of any particular religion have never even read through their book once.
Click to expand...

True. I've said that many times. I'm not worried about them. It's the zealots who follow the Qur'an to the letter who are out to control the world. If they didn't think they were earning their way to the highest level of heaven, as promised in the Qur'an, they wouldn't be doing it.
 
Visbek said:
An academic perspective should not be used as an excuse to highlight aspects of a religion that you personally dislike.
Click to expand...

I don't need an "excuse" to "dislike" a religion that calls unbelievers the lowest of God's creatures.
I don't need an "excuse" to "dislike" a religion that denigrates unbelievers literally thousands of times.
I don't need an "excuse" to "dislike" a religion that tells adherents that disbelief in it is worse than killing.
I don't need an "excuse" to "dislike" a religion that tells adherents to beat their disobedient wives.
I don't need an "excuse" to "dislike" a religion that tells adherents they can rape their captives.
I don't need an "excuse" to "dislike" a religion that tells adherents they don't need their wife's consent for sex.
I don't need an "excuse" to "dislike" a religion that calls everyone else evil and unjust.
I don't need an "excuse" to "dislike" a religion that tells adherents to desire death in battle.
I don't need an "excuse" to "dislike" a religion whose founder committed acts of genocide, and then called himself a "perfect example".
I don't need an "excuse" to "dislike" a religion that calls for the subjugation of unbelievers.
I don't need an "excuse" to "dislike" a religion that calls another religion an abomination.
I don't need an "excuse" to "dislike" a religion that allows for wives who "have not yet menstruated".

Remember, that everything you say about the OT applies equally to Islam, because that is it's starting point. Everything I've listed above is an add-on courtesy of Mohamed.
 
vegas giants said:
My god....for centuries. Start with the spanish inquisition
Click to expand...

Do know what a blasphemer is? Doesn't sound like it. The Spanish didn't kill anyone over blasphemy. And, it was the Conquistadors that killed. Not the Church. Spain is a country, not a Church.
 
ecofarm said:
You have not provided a single citation. "Academically"? No. Pure hateful bs.
Click to expand...

What? I cite direct, verifiable quotes from the Qur'an. What are you on?

But, I suppose trying that end-around is easier than trying to provide an example that doesn't exist. Nice try. Well, actually it was pretty lame.
 
stevecanuck said:
What? I cite direct, verifiable quotes from the Qur'an. What are you on?

But, I suppose trying that end-around is easier than trying to provide an example that doesn't exist. Nice try. Well, actually it was pretty lame.
Click to expand...

Academics includes citations.
 
ataraxia said:
That's true. But an academic study of religion would also tell you that most people don't take their religion too seriously. Most followers of any particular religion have never even read through their book once.

My wife is not a Christian, but her parents put her in a private Catholic High School starting in 9th grade because their local public schools were not very good. She says the summer before she started she was so nervous because she had to take some religion classes and she thought she would walk into a classroom full of kids who knew the Bible cold. So she spent the whole summer and read through the whole thing (OT and NT), underlining and taking detailed notes.

Once she started school though, she was surprised to see NONE of the kids knew the first thing about the book. She got the top grade in the class, even though she was the only non-Christian. The other kids were more interested in drinking and making out in the back of the class apparently.

And thank goodness no one takes their holy books too seriously. They never really have, unless it has served some political purpose.

Here is a guy who tried following the Bible for a year. The book is on Amazon. Hilarious!

View attachment 67274544
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem living the bible and following Christ and his examples. The key is the guy "tried" but trying never is doing. By the way, living the principles taught by Christ doesn't mean you are going to be perfect. That isn't the point. Christ died for the sins he knew we would commit so that we would not have to live a life of feeling guilty with no way out. Love they neighbor as thy self and love the Lord thy God with all your heart, mind and strength is following the bible (Christ) Not that hard to do.
 
stevecanuck said:
True. I've said that many times. I'm not worried about them. It's the zealots who follow the Qur'an to the letter who are out to control the world. If they didn't think they were earning their way to the highest level of heaven, as promised in the Qur'an, they wouldn't be doing it.
Click to expand...

That's true of zealots of any religion. Not sure why you are singling out this particular one. The atrocities of Christians, from massacres, colonialism and exploitation, to slavery and genocide, dwarf what the Muslims are doing now. It's just odd why you are focused on them.
 
Cougarbear said:
I don't have a problem living the bible and following Christ and his examples. The key is the guy "tried" but trying never is doing. By the way, living the principles taught by Christ doesn't mean you are going to be perfect. That isn't the point. Christ died for the sins he knew we would commit so that we would not have to live a life of feeling guilty with no way out. Love they neighbor as thy self and love the Lord thy God with all your heart, mind and strength is following the bible (Christ) Not that hard to do.
Click to expand...

Does your church follow these Biblical verses?

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
-Corinthians 14:34-35
 
Cougarbear said:
Do know what a blasphemer is? Doesn't sound like it. The Spanish didn't kill anyone over blasphemy. And, it was the Conquistadors that killed. Not the Church. Spain is a country, not a Church.
Click to expand...

Uh yes they did. It fact....that was the charge. Are you kidding???
 
ataraxia said:
Does your church follow these Biblical verses?

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
-Corinthians 14:34-35
Click to expand...

Typical example of taking things out of context from the entire NT and also not understanding the scripture they are reading. If you read the preceding versus, you would see the topic is prophecy from "Prophets." There is also words in those versus saying the same about men who are not prophets. In short, although in the OT you have prophetesses, they weren't the same as the prophets like Moses, Isaiah and the others. It's saying that women should not be trying to be prophets, seers and revelators. It's not their callings or rights under the Law of Heaven. Doesn't mean they can't talk or even ask questions. Women's revelation was limited to their homes.
 
ataraxia said:
That's true of zealots of any religion. Not sure why you are singling out this particular one. The atrocities of Christians, from massacres, colonialism and exploitation, to slavery and genocide, dwarf what the Muslims are doing now. It's just odd why you are focused on them.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious. It's the DOING NOW part. How the hell can anyone not understand that?
 
vegas giants said:
Uh yes they did. It fact....that was the charge. Are you kidding???
Click to expand...

No, you still don't know what blasphemy is. Or you wouldn't keep saying this. Just look up the definition. They may have been idol worshipers. Savages. Or whatever. But not blasphemers.
Blasphemy: "The act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk." - Online dictionary. That's not why they were killed.
 
stevecanuck said:
I don't need an "excuse" to "dislike" a religion that calls unbelievers the lowest of God's creatures....
Click to expand...
And yet, that's exactly what you're doing. You obviously want to attack Islam by pretending to approach it from a neutral perspective, when in fact you're demanding the exact opposite of how scholars actually work.

And in case you missed it, we can list all sorts of equally reprehensible claims from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Do you really need me to list them...?
 
stevecanuck said:
You can't be serious. It's the DOING NOW part. How the hell can anyone not understand that?
Click to expand...
So thousands of years of, say, Christians torturing and murdering non-Christians doesn't count, because... we're only looking at February 26, 2020?

Seriously?
 
Visbek said:
Academics also understand the importance of context.
Click to expand...

It's strange when hate material does not get cited. Gotta wonder what websites are being hidden.
 
Cougarbear said:
Typical example of taking things out of context from the entire NT and also not understanding the scripture they are reading. If you read the preceding versus, you would see the topic is prophecy from "Prophets." There is also words in those versus saying the same about men who are not prophets. In short, although in the OT you have prophetesses, they weren't the same as the prophets like Moses, Isaiah and the others. It's saying that women should not be trying to be prophets, seers and revelators. It's not their callings or rights under the Law of Heaven. Doesn't mean they can't talk or even ask questions. Women's revelation was limited to their homes.
Click to expand...

Typical example of twisting things completely out of their original meanings to have them mean something else that is more socially acceptable to modern ears. How you get the idea that "women" and "talking" are the same things as prophets and revelation is ridiculous.

But hey, don't worry. Christians are not the only ones who "properly interpret" their scripture to mean something totally different than what it actually says, to make it acceptable to modern sensibilities. Muslims can be every bit as clever and imaginative:

" Myth: Muslims are engaged in Jihad (war) against us.

Fact: The meaning of the Arabic word jihad is struggle. It usually means a struggle of one’s soul against the self and sinful desires. Muslims refer to this inner struggle as the greater jihad. Muslims also have social campaigns to end poverty and hunger which they also call jihad."
Common Misconceptions about Muslims | Encountering the World of Islam

Yeah right. I'll believe that when I believe that Paul just didn't want women prophets making revelations in church. :lamo
 
Cougarbear said:
No, you still don't know what blasphemy is. Or you wouldn't keep saying this. Just look up the definition. They may have been idol worshipers. Savages. Or whatever. But not blasphemers.
Blasphemy: "The act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk." - Online dictionary. That's not why they were killed.
Click to expand...

Uh.....yes it was. Are you kidding
 
Visbek said:
And yet, that's exactly what you're doing. You obviously want to attack Islam by pretending to approach it from a neutral perspective, when in fact you're demanding the exact opposite of how scholars actually work.
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm just quoting the Qur'an. The hate comes from it, not me.

And in case you missed it, we can list all sorts of equally reprehensible claims from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Do you really need me to list them...?
Click to expand...

It's Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition. Muslims believe in the "scriptures that came before" too. The Qur'an simply piles on.
 
Visbek said:
So thousands of years of, say, Christians torturing and murdering non-Christians doesn't count, because... we're only looking at February 26, 2020?

Seriously?
Click to expand...

Those years of killing etc. came from Christians not following the peaceful example set by Jesus. The VAST majority of today's Christians finally got the memo.

And how the hell could we NOT be looking at what Islamic terrorist groups are doing today??? Seriously?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom