So what you’re saying is that when people disregard or ignore or go against things in a religious text that would keep them from doing bad things, they are not a part of that religion.
But when they disregard things that you personally consider benign, that’s okay.
This is utterly inconsistent, of course. Supposedly divinely inspired texts being disregarded or broken either show that those ignoring them can still be a part of that religion or not, but you want to pick and choose.
Which ironically enough is what all religious adherents do in one form or another.
Also, in doing so, you actually make yourself the arbitrator of who is actually practicing a religion and who is not.
Dare I say, you lack the discernment. You certainly lack the consistency that would at least make me think you yourself didn’t bend rules to fit your own agenda.
You are putting words in my mouth. “Disregard or ignore or go against things in a religious text” is not the standard I am using. Neither is “disregard things I personally consider benign”.
Reform Jews had a debate, big whoop. ISIS has performed acts that match what inspired a prophet to declare another group godless. Is that really inconsistent of me?
I think everyone would agree that even the most serious adherents of religions fail to adhere perfectly to the texts. They don’t just get summarily kicked out. I think there is a tough standard for that, and I don’t see how the Reform Jews meet it.
Actually, I’ve tried to put Habukkuk in that role, since he is a prophet. I’m not aware of a phophetic condemnation that we could apply to what the Reform Jews have done.
I admit I haven’t been reading the thread all that closely, but I think I missed the part where you explained why Daesh should give two shits about Habukkuk.
If your premise is “a person cannot be considered an adherent of a religion if they do not follow the divinely-inspired texts of that religion,” adding a qualifier of “the shit I consider important” is not only inconsistent but also presumptuous, hypocritical and ironic.
Muslims accept the Old Testament prophets. YHWH = Allah. Therefore, Habukkuk speaks for Allah.
That is your misinterpretation of my premise. Again, what I am actually asserting is that Habukkuk provides a list of behaviors from which he concludes the Babylonians are godless. ISIS has committed those same acts. The Reform Jews, as far as I know, have not. On that basis I judge one but not the other.
I’m an atheist, so of course I don’t think Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is a prophet. The point is that his followers think he has the authority–as “caliph” not “prophet”–to order the slaughter and enslavement of infidels.
Or, according to you, his followers are just a bunch of closet atheists.
But seriously, the Chosen People are like the Bible’s red-headed stepchildren. They go astray, God kicks their asses, rinse and repeat. If such a fate befalls the Reform Jews, well, we’ve seen this movie before. The question was whether they are still Jewish, not whether God is going to force them to cannibalize their own children before driving them, quivering with fear, into the hands of their enemies.
I wish I could trust people as much as you. I think sometimes there appear charlatans and demagogues who play on commonly held beliefs while not in the least respecting them themselves, even to the point of behaving entirely contrary to the beliefs they espouse.
I can accept that that could/probably would happen. Still, there is at least going to be an omission present if it is not acknowledged that, in this system of thought, a prophet lists a set of behaviors that qualify a group as godless, behaviors which the group in question sure seems to have committed.
Whatever Habbakuk may or may not have said (since the source material, for Muslims, is not reliable), what Muhammad, as the final Prophet, said and did trumps it. If you find a contradiction, even a blatant one, Islamic sources always win out. So for most Muslims today, they will acknowledge that declaring some Muslims as apostates goes against what Muhammad said to do, and so even though they may loathe ISIS, they won’t do that. Thus, appealing to Habbakuk is pointless.
For the minority of Muslims who are sympathetic to ISIS, they see ISIS’s actions as in line with what Muhammad did, which will always trump whatever any previous Prophet may or may not have said to do. Thus, appealing to Habbakuk is pointless.
Anyone is free to draw the line between Islamic and not Islamic wherever they want, but a consequence of excessive arbitrariness is that the argument becomes unpersuasive.
Is that how they see things? Do you have a cite for that? :dubious:
I never said they weren’t human beings. If they were dogs they could never be reasoned with, only trained. But, obstinate as ISIS members appear to be, well either
they are Muslims as you claim. Then obviously they exhibit capacity for reason, even if only religious reasoning. They quote the Koran and think about it, act on it- admit it, there is reasoning there. So maybe 1 in 100 is susceptible to persuasion via religious instruction.
or 2) they are not Muslims as I claim. Therefore your objection re: Muhammad is at least not guaranteed to apply. Some ISIS recruits were never Muslim to begin with. Some sure seem like the criminal dregs of failed-state society to me, so the prospect of some complex or disciplined religious/philosophical motivation seems unlikely, though possible. Bringing them the Word of Habukkuk might be convincing in 1 in 99 cases. (Here I invite you to imagine we have been having this conversation during a stroll along a sandy beach, and we came upon a stretch of helpless sea stars that had washed ashore. I pause and squint into the sunset, then fling a starfish back far out into the ocean.) For those, it would make a difference.
But let’s say you’re right, it is futile. For all my efforts, I persuade none of them. Say tens of billions of years from now, parsec-scale disaster has rendered most of our solar system a nebula of cosmic dust. Advanced beings take a risk to probe the dust for clues of historical curiosity. Examining the dust under close-to-Planck-length resonant magnification, they note a message in the dust granule: “ISIS is not Islamic”, the ideation mostly holographically reconstructed in all its depth, and sublimated directly into their minds in a bluetoothy sort of way. The aliens are all like, “Yah, I know.” Finally, at the end of their ancient lives, they cremate themselves by hyperwarping their bodies billions of light-years beyond the heat death horizon of the universe in some weird acknowledgement of the futility of it all, as is their custom.
Isn’t that universe, or even the possibility of it, better than one in which the dust granule is blank?
Sorry. Should I have used a multiplier for you. Maybe if you looked up the definition of theme or in some way tried desperately to get a clue.
Here. Let me put it in simpler terms.
Assholes use religion to justify their bullshit actions. Some bullshit actions are offensive. Some are horrendous. Same theme, different degrees.
I think he would agree with this. The issue is whether the assholes are actually adherents of the religion that they claim to be.
There isn’t a lot of consistency to how he decides that they are not.
If you are acting good-to-indifferent about things (say, Jews who don’t keep Kosher) they are still Jewish.
If you are acting bad but not genocidal (say, Westboro) they are still Christian.
However if you are genocidal (say, ISIS), they are not Islamic.
I do wonder if whether the inconsistency is based on the supposed severity of the deviation from the religion’s traditions or the fact that Muslims are not Jewish or Christian that allows him to think there is some kind of validity to his views.
I don’t know. ITSM that if ISIS recruits could be led by propaganda into apostasy, they could be led back out with reasoning. I get it that ISIS members prefer Muhammad, but that doesn’t change what other prophets have said. They all speak for the same god yanno.
Besides, this isn’t all about convincing ISIS members. I don’t think they are Muslims, and I don’t think other people should believe they are, either.
This is nonsensical. ñañi has correctly noted the belief and the framing of the belief, your response has no logic to it.
The Quran is held to override the incorrect records and the distorted records of the past. The actions and models of the Prophet also override these accounts considered untrustworthy.
Your naive and badly informed argumentation is not in any way convincing to a Muslim, it is perhaps at best puzzling.
**You are not a Muslim and you have no say in this. **
You also display very bad reasoning and a strangely superficial understanding of the actual theology.
This is silly and sterile, but if you want to engage in the empty posturing for yourself only, well we can not stop you evidently.