My apologies for not responding to this myself, but Budget Player Cadet said everything I would have done, and more eloquently besides. I’ve nothing to add to what he posted in his response.
Then your position is just as divorced from reality.
Which is why there have been thousands of people studying them over the centuries to try and make sense of them, or at least a sense that spoke to them or that they could fit inside their brains. I don’t think anybody’s managed to really fit Revelations into it at any point, but that’s drugs for you.
Anyway, the point is : the reason there is such a thing as “mainstream Christianity” is that mostly people agree that the Bible makes this kind of sense and not that one ; and it’s based on tons upon tons of scholarly works and debates and canon law and so forth. Which is why when John Neighbour comes along, even if he does manage to gather a sizeable group of followers, he’s ignored or derided or reviled by the rest - think the God Hates Fags church, or those creepy prosperity gospel TV preachers.
ISIS is that for Muslims. They’re a sect that throws away centuries upon centuries of discourse and study and debate and pondering what the fuck all these contradictions mean, when you get right down to it, maaan ; to focus on a very narrow and *sui generis *understanding of a handful of passages supporting their political goals, throwing out everything else. To go around and tell vanilla Muslims “hey, it’s just as valid an interpretation of Islam as yours !” is at best completely ignorant, at worst insulting on a profound level.
Yes.
Indeed. For over 1400 years there is a strong consensus on this.
It is not a “liberal” re-interpretation or something like that,even the conservative outsideof the Takfiri circles find the idea haraam.
Nothing in “scripture” makes the idea of the suicide bombing acceptable, the Quran and the hadith do not provide any logical easy route.
However just like the Bhuddist monnks in the extremist anti-minorities organizations, for their ideological/organizational reasons desiring to self-justify violance, created a path, so has the Takfiri movement by radical reinterpretation of the idea of martyrdom, in contradiction again to more than one thousand years of consensus.
So “scripture” changed in the past 20 years? No that is an idiotic proposition. An organization and a movement came along to build a new idea.
The understanding of Scripture and the belief based on the interpretation are changeable with ideological force and organization.
The empty headed idiot reptitation “they have consequences” is not any thing more than the ignorant reptitition of sloganeering without substance.
Best Southern Comfort Cocktail:
Take Southern Comfort.
Pour in drain.
Go out and buy a good Scotch. Enjoy in moderation, neat or on the rocks. You’re a grownup now, goddam it. You aren’t sneaking off to get drunk in the woods behind school.
This is a dodge, and a rather artless one at that. Buddhist extremists (the few that there are) have had plenty of time to adopt the suicidal tactics of the Tamils and Jihadis. That they haven’t done so despite their proven effectiveness indicates that such an adoption is less convenient, metaphysically, for Buddhist extremists than it has been for Islamic extremists. For someone like you, who refuses to acknowledge the fact that people’s religious beliefs influence their behaviour, this disparity is very hard to explain. Indeed, it may even be impossible to explain. For everyone else, however, the disparity can be explained very easily by the fact that Islamic scriptures contain reams of verses excoriating unbelievers and extolling the heavenly rewards of martyrdom while Buddhist scriptures don’t.
You’re contradicting yourself. You can’t say that jihadis are motivated by a radical interpretation of scripture and say that scripture doesn’t matter.
What do you think a jihadi expects when he blows himself up in a crowded place? Does he expect to go to heaven or does he expect to go to hell? It’s pretty clear he thinks he going to go to heaven, right? Where does this idea come from, if not from scripture?
This is myopic and stupid. A little equivocation over the definition of the terms “martyr” and “enemies of Islam” is all that is needed to justify suicide bombing in religious terms. Also, your contention that the recent ascendency of suicide bombing as a jihadi tactic somehow proves that it can’t be motivated by scripture is somewhat undermined by the fact that it’s only in recent years that technology has allowed people to easily make suicide bombs in the first place.
I wonder what Southern Comfort poured over grapefruit sections would taste like?
In the name of science, someone should try it.
A dodge?
No it is not.
Only in your stupidity do you think it so.
The Tibetans have not adopte as simply unlike the takfiri, there is no ideological movement and organizaation among them that is favorable to the idea.
There was indeed in the Takfiri movement, and they took on the conscious promotion of the justification and the promotion.
Of course the other examples of the Bhuddish extremists, the Bhuddists control the state and have no need to adopt such measures, which are the choice of the weak.
So, no dodge, rather you try to distract from the failure of your arguments and your complete lack of any knowlege.
This is of course complete hand waving bullshit since on the metaphysical realm there is not a great barrier in bhuddism to suicide and in the Islamic thought there is one thousand four hundred years of complete rejection.
There is no "metaphysical argument, you are simply creating mountains of assserted bullshit to attempt to create ad hoc justifications.
first of course it is your straw man the statement about “refusal to acknowledge” as I have not made any statement about rejecting “influence” of religious beliefs.
I have rejected only your ignorant simplistic assertions about the direct driver and the origins.
Of course your mountain of asserted bullshit asserting the “metaphysical” explaination completely illogically is pure ad hoc assertion.
There is plenty of entirely materialistic logic to see the difference between the actions of the Sri Lankan and the Burmese bhuddist terrorists who have the semi backing of the state or at least its tolerance.
The “disparaties” are not at all hard to explain in fact they are easy to explain and are more internally logical and consistent when one looks at the actual organizational and the socio-economic frameworks in which these specific promoting organizations are or were operating…
Rather than coming up with “metaphysical” explanations that fail factually and are clearly based on superficial ad hoc bullshitting.
Of course the Islamic tradition contains “reams of verses” including the explicit rejection of suicide in the Quran rejecting utterly suicidal actions, and a 1400+ year history of this rejection. One Thousdand Four Hundred years plus of rejection.
And of course the Bhuddism indeed has the concept of the self-sacrifices and essentially martyrdom, so again you are bullshittig.
This also ignores of course that the Bhuddist terror organizations with the monks at their core have where they felt the need created their own radical reinterpretation of their doctrinces and their scriptural texts to enable the violent actions they desire to promote.
So multiple levels of unfactual stupid bullshitting on your part.
No I am not contradicting anything, you are again inventing STRAW MEN distortions in a desparate attempt to distract.
(1) I did not say the Takfiri movement was “motivated” by radical reinterpratation, that is your attempt to distort.
(2) I said that the Takfiri movement radically reinterpretated certain of the verses to use as the basis for the conclusion and the tool they wanted to use.
(3) I said no where “scripture doesn’t matter” that is again your distortion, passibly it is from being someone very stupid or otherwise it is from being a dishonest distorter. I said Scripture is not the explainer of the usage, it became the tool.
The idea comes from the Takfiri propaganda, as the Scripture, which is the Quran, does not tell him he is going to heaven, it says the opposite.
The persons who have bought the repackaging are ignoring the clear prohibitions and buying Propaganda.
No it is not myopic and stupid, is understanding the actual terminology and the actual definitions, which have and except among the Takfiri continue to reject the idea of the martyr
There is no trace, as the respected Jewish historian of Islam, Dr Bernard Lewis has written in the anglophone scholarship of any support until the recent era for the idea of the terrorism in the Islamic war jurisprudence.
Not a little equivocation, a massive rejection of the well established definitions, of the examples from the Hadith, or their huge distortion, a rejection of the thousand year jurisprudence about the non combattants and hundreds of other excuses around centuries of well established interpretation.
Of course to the ignorant convert or the stupid young unlearned man brainwashed it can see as simple as it does to you. But that is the brian washing, it is not the study of the scripture and it is not motivated by the scriptures, reduced to ad hoc tools of selective usage.
Oh you are so stupid as to think that the technology of the bomb making was just invented in the past 30 years?
How funny.
It has nothing to do with reality, but it is very funny.
The technology for being able to do the Suicide bombing has been around for more than a century. It is the very simplest thing possible in fact, it could be indeed pushed back maybe two centuries, but let us be conservative, and say it is one century.
You are a laughable idiot making up ad hoc assertions, piling more ignorant bullshit on top of itself.
It was good enough for Janis, goddamnit!
I had been given to understand that Scotch should be drunk half and half with water, at room temperature.
Many Muslim-majority countries hold regressive views that you could use to pass judgement. It might not explicitly condone terrorism, but ideas like the violent intolerance of apostasy and homosexuality feed into a tacit acceptance of philosophical underpinning of the more extreme groups like ISIS.
In many places, “moderate” Muslim doesn’t mean they accept Western secular values. It simply means that they hold regressive views on gays and women but don’t condone violence based on those views. The religion as a whole needs a 21st-century Enlightenment, or else it risks further regression as the West propels forward.
What is disappointing to many is the unwillingness of the Left to have an honest discussion on this. Without question, it feeds the disaffected toward a bumbling fool like Donald Trump.
Once again, the problem isn’t religion but history and geopolitics.
Promoting supposedly “traditional” values against the “decadent” west is an identity-affirming reaction to Western imperialism and marginalization. It’s nothing endemic to Islam; it just takes on an Islamic veneer because that happens to be the cultural system dominant in many of the places that have been victimized by Western imperialism.
Piffle. Scotch and milk, the drink of streetwalkers since time immem. . .imam. . .eminem. . .since forever.
you already know why the left doesn’t wanna have an honest discussion: they see the potential to get Muslim voters to vote Democrat by convincing them that skepticism of Islam is a front for skin-color based racism, and they also think that us being attacked is “deserved” because of Western imperialism/colonialism.
Oh, we’re having an honest discussion; the problem is that moral degenerates don’t like that the conclusions that an honest discussion will inevitably reach, are ones that don’t justify their morally-degenerate bigotry or sense of superiority and infallibility.
This person is dreadfully mistaken.
Maybe it is because your definition of a ‘honest conversation’ consists of your masturbating furiously over victims of a terrorist attack and singing with absolute glee that Trump’s ludicrous mistake of months ago is somehow vindicated and we all, for some reason, nod in mindless drooling agreement with inane bigotry and cruelty.
Derek only needs the love of a big, tall Omani Khanith, it will then allow him to honestly express his stunted longing that he redirects into the hatred of the transgender and the muslims, in the fashion of the usual gay haters, all into one.
More fantasy shit from our resident lying bigoted coward. No, your fantasies about liberals have no relation to the real world.