How peaceful is Islam?
- Thread starter Momochiru
- Start date
2cents is more informative than the entire British media put together.
"The Son of Man shall send forth his His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth"
"Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this World nor in the world to come"
He's not entirely wrong, but that's classic pot calling the kettle black.
That's not hard really! The quality of news media depresses me greatly. Although I agree that 2cents writes excellent posts.
He's entirely right, and your post is every bit as bad as the Muslims' social media posts that rip the verse cited in the video out of context. You have no idea what you've just quoted. You've just plucked out two verses, one which speaks to end-times judgement which concerns what the Lord will do, not what man is to do, and the second of which followed, though I am not of a mind to look the entire passage up right now, accusations that Christ cast out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of flies, rather than by the Holy Spirit. Of course, to reject the work of the Holy Spirit, if you know anything about Christian theology, is to reject Christ. Forgiveness is of course concerning God's grace, not man's actions on earth towards non-believers. The fact you people constantly try to compare Christianity and Islam is a big part of the problem.
CE Needham.
Oh no, the prince of flies will get me.
The reference to a demon as a fly might seem comical, I don't have a problem with that, but it makes sense in light of Jewish purity laws. The idea was to convey something about the character of evil, rather than to actually think of a spirit as a lord of flies, reminiscent of the way the Jews would only eat unleavened bread in certain feasts. As Jesus explains in the new testament, a little leaven in the lump leavens the whole lump, and the warning here is against pride. A little pride puffs up without any benefit, and so it was with the Pharisees who understood and taught the law but by their own pride had brought in extra, man-made traditions.
To a first century Jew, flies would have been seen as a constant irritant that sought to get into and ruin the food supply. Because the Bible makes many spiritual points using food as the analogy, the analogy of a demon, like Satan for example, as a fly was to tell a discerning reader that evil spirits will target the food supply, which for a Christian (again because it's speaking of spiritual things) is the word of God.That's why Christ tells Satan man does not live by bread alone but the word of God, and he also calls himself the true bread that came down from heaven, unlike the temporal mana that the ancient Israelites ate in the wilderness after leaving Egypt. Because it's speaking of spiritual things which people fail to perceive, this is why you have the Roman Catholic tradition concerning the wafer becoming the literal body of Christ and the wine becoming the blood. Because Christ said eat and drink of me, Roman Catholics fail to understand the Biblical repetition of food to convey spiritual concepts, and they add a man-made tradition to their worship.
By calling a demon Beelzebub, the writers are saying that the primary method of spiritual warfare for Satan and his demons is to get into the food supply (the word) and to corrupt somebody's doctrine.
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."Deuteronomy, Chapter 13:6-10
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. - Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. - Luke 19:27
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Matthew 10:34
And then there's all the killing of firstborn children, ordering others to kill children, not suffering witches to live or God instructing Moses and his mates to commit massacre but keep all the virgins for themselves except for the 32 they were to slay in sacrifice to him. Do you really want to get into a pissing competition as to who's barmy book of medieval fables is the most bloodthirsty.
If Christians are happy to put all the blood and thunder of the old (and new) testaments down to allegory rather than divine law and claim they have moved beyond that to become a happy, clappy peaceful religion of inclusion then how is it hypocritical for the majority of muslims to say the same.
No, you like other secular commentators, just have a lack of knowledge of Biblical revelation and the context of those verses in relation to the Jewish people. In order for God to dwell with the Israelites, the Jewish people entered into a covenant with God (it's called the old covenant, not the old testament, by the way), whereby they were sworn to love the Lord their God first and to love their neighbour as their own body. The rest of the law can be summarised by those two, as Christ states in the new testament.
Before Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, the law acted as a shadow of the fullness to come, which is in Christ. In order for God to dwell with the Israelites, he could not be surrounded by sin because the God of the Bible despises sin, which is logically necessary for the God of creation because to love good is to hate evil. Back then he dwelled behind the veil in the tabernacle (later a temple), which none was to enter aside from the high priest annually. Now, because of the crucifixion of Christ and his resurrection, God dwells with his people in the temple of their bodies. That veil/divide between God and his people was torn by Christ's sacrifice on the cross. We live in an age of grace, but the Bible also promises of a coming judgement for those not found covered by the blood of the lamb, just as God's spirit passed over the doorposts in Egypt smeared with lamb's blood when he put to death all the firstborn. That's why Christ's crucifixion happened at the time of passover by the way, because he is spiritually the lamb of God. The same lamb Abraham promised Isaac that God would deliver in Genesis 22:8.
As to your two quotes from the new testament, I am astonished at those who simply go to secular websites and take whatever quotations suit their fancy. Before you go quoting any more, bear in mind how much time it takes me to give you context and proper exegesis for each passage. I don't think you took that quote from the Bible yourself because you're intellectually dishonest if you did. If you were to cite its context for Luke 19 you'd see that it belongs to a parable. And Matthew 10 talks of the division faith in Christ would bring to families. as I say, I don't believe you took those quotes from the Bible yourself, so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, but let it be a lesson against taking down unresearched material from anti-Christian websites.
It was called the Old Testament when I was at school, you can call it what the flying feck you like but if you can't see the stupidity inherent in statements such as God despises sin and could not be surrounded by it and God the creator, who presumably therefore created all the sin and evil he found himself surrounded by and so pissed off that a bit of righteous smiting was in order then I despair.
I want nowt to do with any of your barmy books, I recognised at a very young age that they are all bloodthirsty medieval fairytales that we'd be far better off without. That others still find comfort and some sort of moral guidance from them will never cease to perplex me but to slag off 1/3 of this planets population because one small grpup chooses to read their particular book literally is facking hypocritical when your book is no better.
I want nowt to do with any of your barmy books, I recognised at a very young age that they are all bloodthirsty medieval fairytales that we'd be far better off without. That others still find comfort and some sort of moral guidance from them will never cease to perplex me but to slag off 1/3 of this planets population because one small grpup chooses to read their particular book literally is facking hypocritical when your book is no better.
I've got news for you buddy, that's not the only thing about Jesus and his pals that's man made.
I've got news for you, buddy, you like crack and male groins.
It is almost the weekend, after all.
Admit it, he's the best thing going for religion threads since Herman graced our pages.
He's definitely entertaining.
I bet you didn't read the bible either. In its defence, it gave us the word smite.
Back to the topic.
This bears out what David Wood said in the previous video I posted.
This bears out what David Wood said in the previous video I posted.
I had to read enough of it in school and pretend to read it in the scouts, the sad thing was that even when I'd decided it was completely batshit and tried taking the piss in the lessons and exams I couldn't get out of I would still get close to 100%. Linguistically I've got nowt against it and the transcription of these books was the original root of academia and the cause of mass literacy, I just have a problem when anyone takes a book too seriously be it bible, quran, torah or the latest Harry Potter.
For one quick to condemn people who seek quotes online you sure do love a youtube video don't you.
As for using prats like Anjem Choudary to make your points, how would you feel if I made my points on Christianity by posting youtube videos of Fred Phelps?
The difference is everything I am citing is in context. David Wood just opened the scriptures for you in the video at the top of the page. I also have my own copy of the Qur'an and the first four volumes of Al Bukhari's Hadith. I also have an online resource here http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2567&Itemid=64 (purposefully left on that Surah) which I use to get the interpretation of a respected Muslim commentator.
I study the things I criticise.
If you would listen to the entirety of Anjem Choudary's comments here in this video you would see he affirms Wood's exegesis of Surah 5.33
Yep, I visited Gloucester cathedral the other month and the cloisters are stunning. I prefer Christianity's literary and architectural legacy. However, being in Sri Lanka now after heavy rains, I do actually believe in the lord of the flies. Big row with the hotel cos they don't even cover the food...
How you choose to waste your time is of no interest to me.
I'm not denying there are passages in the Quran which can be read as calls to arms for some zealot with an urge to wreak mayhem or let slip the dogs of war, just pointing out that there's no shortage of similarly dodgy passages in the other barmy books. Choudary's a vicious little gobshite who loves the attention he can get by playing the unreasonable muslim scholar for any western camera crew with an agenda to fulfill. He's probably worse than my Fred Phelp's example though as I'm sure old Fred was half mad and believed the claptrap he spouted whereas Choudary's just as much of a rabble rouser as the likes of Omar Bakri but he's playing for the Daily Mail audience knowing his words will rile them enough to deepen the rifts in society.
http://nyti.ms/1NuYrWl
Lovely piece about how the Indonesian ulema have pushed against ISIS rhetoric.
Lovely piece about how the Indonesian ulema have pushed against ISIS rhetoric.
You view the pursuit of knowledge as a waste of time; I view knowledge as power.
There's no point making ad hominem arguments. I know enough about Anjem Choudary to come to my own conclusions about the guy. You're right; I think he does love the attention, and he loves frustrating those who are easily riled, but that doesn't mean he doesn't believe what he says. His interpretation is not the marginal view within Islam; it is the majority view.
Main reason Choudary has a voice is because he never says no to radio or TV producers. His influence, if he's even got any, is a result of laziness and little else. It's got little to do with him being a fair representative of Islam, even if he was one.
If the knowledge you are pursuing relates to reality then it is a worthy pursuit, I'd rather not waste my time chasing flying spaghetti monsters though and see very little reason to spend any longer than is necessary understanding mankind's ancient and rather stupid history. Studying engineering, lecturing on it at Universities around the world and trying to make what little sense exists of the fecked up world we live in here and now are about all I have time for.
You may choose to believe that Choudary's view is that of the majority but unless you've spoken to more than 50% of the 1.6 billion muslims and found they all agree with him then your belief is about as well founded as your belief in all this religious claptrap.
Man, I hate that "flying spaghetti monster" expression. Feckin' Dawkins.
And if you think studying religion is a futile endeavour then you're academically barren. Theology is one of the most compelling areas of study.
And if you think studying religion is a futile endeavour then you're academically barren. Theology is one of the most compelling areas of study.
To be fair, there was a pew poll a couple of years back that interviewed thousands of Muslims from just about every Muslim-majority nation in the world, and many of them had rather worrying views. The only countries that did well were former Ottoman empire countries where Islam is followed in the same way Christianity is here. A lot of these countries have a way to go, really.
I'll compel you to keep it to yourself. If religion were the only thing to come out of academia then I'd rather it were barren as the offspring of all the religions are a vociferous blight on mankind with their petty rules, prejudices, bile and hatred. Dawkins is as much of a gobshite in love with the sound of his own voice as Choudary, I worship at nobody's altar.
Here is a great critical review of Ayan Hirsi Ali's new book by Max Rodenbeck. I haven't read Hirsi Ali's book and don't plan to, but Rodenbeck get every major point in this review spot on, it's a must-read - http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/dec/03/ayaan-hirsi-ali-wants-modify-muslims/
By the way Rodenbeck's book on Cairo is one of the best books on the Middle East you'll read.
By the way Rodenbeck's book on Cairo is one of the best books on the Middle East you'll read.
cheers