Started By
Message
re: Bill Maher explains Islam.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 2:49 pm to TreyAnastasio
Posted on 9/11/14 at 2:49 pm to TreyAnastasio
quote:
Bill Maher; spot on for once.
fify.
0
Posted on 9/11/14 at 2:50 pm to genro
quote:Yet fundamentalist denominations (yes, Southern Baptists are definitely fundamentalist) claim Biblical inerrancy.
What's fundamentalist? You talkin' bout fiery Baptists? Hell, even as bad as Westboro is, they're not stoning adulterers. They're not taking the Old Testament literally, they would've been in jail a long time ago. In Islam, in certain parts of the world, it is totally acceptable to stone adulterers. No Christian group in the West is taking the Bible literally.
They take every part of the Bible seriously except those parts which Western culture simply won't accept. They cling to literal interpretations of books like Genesis and antiquated views on matters like homosexuality because of the Bible.
You don't see Western Muslims stoning adulterers either. The fact that Muslims in the Middle East are so violent is a culture issue, not a religion issue.
This post was edited on 9/11/14 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 9/11/14 at 2:53 pm to GatorsGators
quote:
You don't see Western Muslims stoning adulterers either. The fact that Muslims in the Middle East are so violent is a culture issue, not a religion issue.
So Asian Muslims don't have violent tendencies?
How about African?
This post was edited on 9/11/14 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 9/11/14 at 2:53 pm to the808bass
quote:
When Jesus said, "I am the vine," did he literally mean he was a vine?
When god condoned slavery, was he really condoning slavery?
Posted on 9/11/14 at 2:56 pm to Rebelgator
What is this "Magma" bullshite?
Posted on 9/11/14 at 2:57 pm to Pavoloco83
quote:
What is this "Magma" bullshite?
I cannot explain Magma, because you won't understand Magma.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 2:58 pm to Stonehog
quote:
When god condoned slavery, was he really condoning slavery?
I'll assume you answering my question with a question means you don't have a good answer for mine.
Revelation is a tough issue. What's is a cultural accretion to revelation and what is truly transcendent revelation? So, for example, I'd say that the OT proscriptions against eating shellfish and pork were more about safety because of a lack of things like refrigeration. So, I'd say that God continually calls us to Him and his ideals. A God that "condones" as you put it slavery in the OT tells is in the NT that there is neither bond or free in the Kingdom of God.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 3:00 pm to the808bass
quote:
I'll assume you answering my question with a question means you don't have a good answer for mine.
It was a metaphor. There, I answered your question. Can you answer mine?
Posted on 9/11/14 at 3:00 pm to GatorsGators
quote:Christians are hypocrites? Is that your point? Feel better now?
Yet fundamentalist denominations (yes, Southern Baptists are definitely fundamentalist) claim Biblical inerrancy.
They take every part of the Bible seriously except those parts which Western culture simply won't accept. They cling to literal interpretations of books like Genesis and antiquated views on matters like homosexuality because of the Bible.
quote:Muslims in the West are indeed more likely than Christians to do those types of things. The culture certainly contributes, but so does the text and theology.
You don't see Western Muslims stoning adulterers either. The fact that Muslims in the Middle East are so violent is a culture issue, not a religion issue.
This post was edited on 9/11/14 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 9/11/14 at 3:02 pm to Stonehog
I feel I began to answer it in the part you didn't quote.
Were the non-Christian pagans leading the way with slavery non-proliferation in the post-Classical age? Why not? Surely those enlightened non-Christians would have pushed for liberty? Yes?
Eta: in acknowledging a metaphor, you see that interpretation is necessary for every text. Reading is, in fact, a form of interpretation. So then the debate simply becomes a matter of a difference of interpretation. Not that one person isn't interpreting the text and the other is.
Were the non-Christian pagans leading the way with slavery non-proliferation in the post-Classical age? Why not? Surely those enlightened non-Christians would have pushed for liberty? Yes?
Eta: in acknowledging a metaphor, you see that interpretation is necessary for every text. Reading is, in fact, a form of interpretation. So then the debate simply becomes a matter of a difference of interpretation. Not that one person isn't interpreting the text and the other is.
This post was edited on 9/11/14 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 9/11/14 at 3:08 pm to dawgsjw
quote:
No blog. Just pick up the bible and read whats in it. Its quite the entertaining read.
Well you should start one. I'm amazed at your depth of knowledge and I'm sure others would appreciate it. Maybe neckbeard.com is available?
Posted on 9/11/14 at 3:12 pm to genro
quote:That wasn't my point. You stated that no Christian ideologies take the Bible literally, which simply isn't true. A literal interpretation of the Bible is what a lot of Protestant denominations are built upon.
Christians are hypocrites? Is that your point? Feel better now?
quote:I'm not arguing that Islam isn't inherently violent; it is. I'm not saying that the two ideologies are equal; they're not. Islam in and of itself is a bit more violent than the OT, and it's not even comparable with the NT.
Muslims in the West are indeed more likely than Christians to do those types of things. The culture certainly contributes, but so does the text and theology.
But Christians, even those who hold a literal interpretation of the Bible, ignore the violent tenets of Christianity that do exist because they aren't culturally acceptable. What Muslims take literally from their religious texts depends on what their culture deems acceptable, just like Christians.
I'd like to see some evidence that Western Muslims are more violent than Christians. There's nothing substantive to that claim at all.
This post was edited on 9/11/14 at 3:31 pm
Posted on 9/11/14 at 3:12 pm to Pavoloco83
quote:
frick Bill Maher in the arse with a red hot fire poker.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 3:13 pm to TreyAnastasio
quote:
Bill Maher; spot on as per usual.
Said no one ever except Tuba, Rex, and Trey.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 3:16 pm to GatorsGators
quote:
You stated that no Christian ideologies take the Bible seriously
That's not what he stated at all.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 3:19 pm to the808bass
quote:
There's no widespread modern theology that takes the Bible literally.
?
Posted on 9/11/14 at 3:20 pm to GatorsGators
quote:
I'd like to see some evidence that Western Muslims are more violent than Christians. There's nothing substantive to that claim at all.
But there is something substantive to that claim for African, Asian and middle eastern Muslims. So the common denominator for a lack of violence is not Islam. It's Western civilization.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 3:21 pm to GatorsGators
quote:Read up on the UK. Here's an article. LINK. A lot of these statistics are being suppressed for PC and fear reasons, and there are articles on this too. Do you think non-Muslim Brits are doing this on any scale?
I'd like to see some evidence that Western Muslims are more violent than Christians. There's nothing substantive to that claim at all.
This post was edited on 9/11/14 at 3:23 pm
Posted on 9/11/14 at 3:23 pm to GatorsGators
Are you asserting there's no difference between literal and serious?
Posted on 9/11/14 at 3:23 pm to 3nOut
quote:
Said no one ever except Tuba, Rex, and Trey.
Dont know who this tuba character is, but Rex is one of this boards brightest minds.
This post was edited on 9/11/14 at 3:24 pm
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News