The Islam Thread. Page 82

  • Page

    of 101 First / Last

  • LeoliansBro 6 May 2014 15:52:53 43,321 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    And the theological debate which underpins The Name of the Rose is as to whether Christ owned the clothes that he wore. The (rich, sumptuous) Benedictines hope he did, the (self-denying) Franciscans hope he did not.

    There's some ridiculous dogma for you.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Khanivor 6 May 2014 15:54:14 40,405 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Unless you actively help the poor, love all those that you meet and are most excellent to them then I can't see how you can call yourself a Christian. If you can't abide snare drums and electric guitars but are quite partial to oboe's you can't really call yourself a metal fan. Quite how people who look down upon the poor, tolerate no opinion but one that jives with their own and have even a dislike for women and gay feel they can qualify themselves as Christian is beyond me.

    All that worshiping in the open and making a huge public spectacle of your belief is also contrary to they way it's meant to be, but in the scheme of the evils perpetrated by those claiming to be acting in the name of Christ fucking repulse me.
  • Khanivor 6 May 2014 15:55:52 40,405 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    And the theological debate which underpins The Name of the Rose is as to whether Christ owned the clothes that he wore. The (rich, sumptuous) Benedictines hope he did, the (self-denying) Franciscans hope he did not.

    There's some ridiculous dogma for you.
    It'd be nice to think that if the Bible was to be treated as the actual word of God and utterly immutable then things would be better but then you just have to look at the Shia and the Sunni to see human desire to act the prick will trump all.
  • midnight_walker 6 May 2014 15:56:28 1,879 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    Unless you actively help the poor, love all those that you meet and are most excellent to them then I can't see how you can call yourself a Christian. If you can't abide snare drums and electric guitars but are quite partial to oboe's you can't really call yourself a metal fan.
    But if you're most excellent to everybody AND like electric guitars... WYLD STALLYNS!!
  • DrStrangelove 6 May 2014 16:02:39 3,401 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    'back in the times'...
    Sorry, I'm just mindlessly polemising again, but afaik in the middle ages it was mainly the Muslims who engaged in progressive stuff like philosophy and mathematics. We got our numerical system from them, for example. If I remember correctly, they also passed on Greek philosophy before it came back to Europe eventually. Medieval Europe seems pretty barbarian to me.
  • LeoliansBro 6 May 2014 16:05:29 43,321 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    This whole 'progressive Islam' thing isn't really true. Yes, they were sophisticated thinkers and curious about the world, and we credit many inventions to them, but this is a backlash to the traditional 'Christendom was the centre of the world and was surrounded by savages' message which was around for fucking ever.

    The scurry to compensate for our earlier rudeness has made them into The Chinese (tm) Mk II, when they weren't really that at all.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • DrStrangelove 6 May 2014 16:11:23 3,401 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:

    Quite how people who look down upon the poor, tolerate no opinion but one that jives with their own and have even a dislike for women and gay feel they can qualify themselves as Christian is beyond me.
    I think the latter is actually open to debate from a Jesus point of view. On one hand, there's the thing about who's without sin throw the first stone, and forgiving the prostitute her sins, on the other he went further than the OT in some moral regards, e.g. by saying that marrying a divorced woman is adultery, or that even feeling a desire to commit sin is already an act of sin.
  • DrStrangelove 6 May 2014 16:15:29 3,401 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    @LeoliansBro

    You're probably right. Maybe the desire to condemn our own dark ages is just another form of self-obsession. Don't know.

    And maybe I just read too much Nietzsche back in the times. Christianity the worst calamity that ever happened to mankind and all that.

    Edited by DrStrangelove at 16:16:50 06-05-2014
  • LeoliansBro 6 May 2014 16:18:21 43,321 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Religion may be the most destructive addition to our society in that it created a major reason to treat people as 'different'. But it's also the reason we have society at all IMO.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • dirtysteve 6 May 2014 16:24:27 132 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    DrStrangelove wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    'back in the times'...
    Sorry, I'm just mindlessly polemising again, but afaik in the middle ages it was mainly the Muslims who engaged in progressive stuff like philosophy and mathematics. We got our numerical system from them, for example. If I remember correctly, they also passed on Greek philosophy before it came back to Europe eventually. Medieval Europe seems pretty barbarian to me.
    You would be wrong then.
  • Khanivor 6 May 2014 16:26:44 40,405 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Post deleted
  • Fake_Blood 6 May 2014 16:36:30 4,090 posts
    Seen 32 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    They were good at math until one guy decided it was the work of the devil.
  • DrStrangelove 6 May 2014 16:38:28 3,401 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    dirtysteve wrote:
    DrStrangelove wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    'back in the times'...
    Sorry, I'm just mindlessly polemising again, but afaik in the middle ages it was mainly the Muslims who engaged in progressive stuff like philosophy and mathematics. We got our numerical system from them, for example. If I remember correctly, they also passed on Greek philosophy before it came back to Europe eventually. Medieval Europe seems pretty barbarian to me.
    You would be wrong then.
    But it seems so compelling :(
  • Khanivor 6 May 2014 16:46:00 40,405 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    It's mostly right; we do have them to thank for retaining the work of the Greeks, they did give us our numeric system and their work on mathematics allowed Western scientists to make great progress when they decided to get back into the swing of thing.

    For example, there's good evidence that Copernicus' work on the solar system relied on the proofs of Islamic scholars from centuries before.

    They wasn't a bastion of liberal, progressive thought and advances in science to make all that came before seem like child's play, granted, but there's still a lot of credit to be given to the Arabic world.
  • malloc 6 May 2014 17:57:10 2,301 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    the JW's edict on blood transfusions are all based on OT scripture.
    Acts 15:28,29 is very much NT
  • dirtysteve 6 May 2014 17:59:39 132 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Why, when people talk about religion, does it always seem to go back to antiquity?

    The present day should tell you what any religion is all about.
  • Khanivor 6 May 2014 18:02:06 40,405 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Fair enough; two thirds of the relevant scripture is from the OT.

    A quick Google leads me to ask; what does the Watchtower tell you about unmarried sex and have you ever done it?
  • dirtysteve 6 May 2014 18:04:37 132 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    'You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality'
    Ok, so don't drink the blood, is what Im getting from that. I assume transfusions are fine? unless you're a spacktard who can't extrapolate in the present day?
  • malloc 6 May 2014 18:18:00 2,301 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    Fair enough; two thirds of the relevant scripture is from the OT.
    I can't do this subject justice over a thread without more time than I have, however the blood issue in the OT is a lot more involved than a line in Leviticus, I.e. more than the Law Covenant. Also whilst the LC may not be binding for Christians it isn't irrelevant, and can be used to get the thoughts on certain things of the author, hence the LC saying about what blood represents, which is why it is hardly a surprise that it's use is mentioned throughout the bible, pre and post LC.
  • Khanivor 6 May 2014 18:29:50 40,405 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    And yet the central element of communion is to consume the blood and body of Christ, (yes, I know you guys don't go for the whole transubstantiation thing but there are around a billion plus Christians who do and who also get their rules from the exact same words).

    It's almost is if the Bible is a book written by loads of different people over thousands of years with little more than geographic region linking them, a state of affairs which leads to a massive number of inconsistencies and contradictions that even the most Nicean editing and proofreading could not mash into an internally cohesive work.

    You'd think with the exponential rise in the number of followers and the resulting divergence of beliefs, creeds, etc that God would have made it a priority to sends down another prophet. One that is totes recognized; it's been 2,000 years since the last one to get bipartisan approval and 1,400 years since the last one to gain any real traction. If there were any oversight then God surely would have got in trouble for gross negligence by this point.
  • reggy72 6 May 2014 18:40:43 265 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    @Khanivor
    He did, but David Ike wasn't up to the task.
  • malloc 6 May 2014 18:44:07 2,301 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    And yet the central element of communion is to consume the blood and body of Christ
    Leviticus 17:11,12
    This is the bit about what I meant by what blood represents, why it was used in sacrifice and what the wine represents.
  • Khanivor 6 May 2014 18:45:49 40,405 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Which is not relevant to what I posted.

    Speaking of not having time, I ain't got the time to get into another head-banging-off-desk discussion with ya.
  • LeoliansBro 6 May 2014 18:57:39 43,321 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    TBH a lot of the dogmatic, and nowadays bullshit advice offered in the Bible made a lot more sense when it was written. For instance, if you're semi-nomadic tribesman in an era before refridgeration, damn right you steer clear of shellfish and pork.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Khanivor 6 May 2014 19:12:26 40,405 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    A lot of future hassle could have been saved if they had just codified the smell test instead.

    Although, it's occurred to me this would probably have made life more difficult for gamers.
  • DrStrangelove 6 May 2014 19:13:24 3,401 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    dirtysteve wrote:
    Why, when people talk about religion, does it always seem to go back to antiquity?

    The present day should tell you what any religion is all about.
    Problem is, the holy scriptures are from back then, and the fundamentalists of either religion who trouble the world and kill each other all feel called by those ancient scriptures like it were some timeless law cast in stone (which they actually claim to be). Judaism is founded on the Torah, Christianity on the NT on top of the Torah, and Islam on the Quran. Christian extremists like Evangelicals claim the bible's sole authority, Jewish extremists the Torah's, and Islamists the Quran's. If you're dogmatic about them, and reading them there's good reason to consider them dogmatic, there is little room for understanding and tolerance. Tolerance in the sense of accepting the other ones as equals, and not consider their belief idolatry and darkness of mind.

    Jewish extremists who believe in God's ancient order to settle the lands of Canaan and slay the Canaanites may feel bound to settle in the West Bank and dislodge its inhabitants. Christian extremists may feel bound to spread the gospel to all the world, and not least to the Jews themselves (which they're not too fond of), and usually consider Islam some sort of devil worshipping. Christian extremists can be quite un-Christian about fighting other beliefs. I'm not sure what the particular Islamic "order" is, but it's probably also something that's likely to cause disagreement.

    It'd be great if there were only moderate followers of each religion, who seem to get along very well in my experience, but the big trouble and instability is caused by extremists claiming the sole authority of their respective scriptures. I don't know if it's the same with Judaism and Islam, but Christian fundamentalism continues spreading, and with it, the belief in the bible's literal truth, which I'm very concerned about.

    Point is, those ancient scriptures are so central and influential that imo you can't separate either religion from them.
  • malloc 6 May 2014 21:13:49 2,301 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    Which is not relevant to what I posted.

    Speaking of not having time, I ain't got the time to get into another head-banging-off-desk discussion with ya.
    Which is your privilege. As this is a public conversation, just in case anyone else is following...

    Blood is consistently used in the Bible to represent life and is only used in sacrifice and the wine consumed as per Jesus' instruction represents his blood as it's this blood which is how Christians gain forgiveness, as per Ephesians 1:7. Therefore the bible is consistent in it's useof blood all the way through.
  • dirtysteve 6 May 2014 21:50:28 132 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    *knock knock*

    Who's there?

    *knock knock*

    Who's there?

    *knock knock*

    Who's there?

    Look Jesus, let me finish nailing your feet and quit the fucking jokes, eh!?
  • mcmothercruncher 6 May 2014 23:01:43 6,510 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    That's incredibly distasteful.



    Jesus used to paint his nails?
  • DrStrangelove 7 May 2014 18:19:01 3,401 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    dirtysteve wrote:
    'You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality'
    Ok, so don't drink the blood, is what Im getting from that. I assume transfusions are fine? unless you're a spacktard who can't extrapolate in the present day?
    Drinking the blood of Jesus is okay.
  • Page

    of 101 First / Last

Log in or register to reply