Bauglir was making a point that following a literal but shallow and selective reading of a holy book doesn't make you "better" at that religion.
Both the Bible, the New testament and the Quran are filled with smilies that are extremely easy to see apart from the literal. arguing that a smilie is a literal and a literal is a smilie is the
most common method which a religion can either survive by somewhat adapting to the changing human society, or excuse committing certain actions that are either opposed to the books or don't appear there. the art of interpreting the holy texts is only possible because the propagators of all those religions have taken the authority by claiming that they alone have the power to do so. this was supported by the fact most of the common people were illiterate at the time and it also strengthened the false belief that the holy texts are actually deeper than they actually are, whereas now days any human being with an average reading skills and average intelligence can discern the smilie from the literal with such ease, that the agency of interpreters is simply not needed and its apparent that the alleged notion of depth was and is clearly greatly overestimated, especially when you KNOW they interpreted according to personal agendas and motives.
When you understand that, when you realize that reading and
understanding the quran (And most other holy texts) is actually quite simple, such sentences as "literal and shallow" become meaningless because they serve nothing but implying depth, hidden messages and reversed meanings where there simply aren't any. most of the quoted violent verses in the quran are in fact literal and there is a passage in the quran that claims that the quran is literal. those that do use similies metaphores and allegories, do so by using simple similies that are hard to misunderstand. the simple and sad truth is that the quran is preaching for violence which makes islamic fundamentals inevitable violent. you don't need interpreters or wikipedia to tell you that, you just need to open the Quran and read it from start to end and see its effects on islamic ruled organizations and states.
*yawn*
And the Army of God (an extreme pro-life terrorist group in the United States) are following Christianity. What's your point?
99% of modern Christians have diverged from the "original actions and words" of the Bible and 1st-century Christianity, through 2000 years of theological discussion and debate. That's the whole point of fundamentalism, is that it sees this process as a bad thing and tries to return to just the original source material. Should we interpret your logic to say that only the most extreme fundamentalist sects are the "true" representatives of a religion? In which case, "true" Christians are misogynistic dominionist Communists. Depending on which early sect you decide had it right. (Personally, I think Christianity went off the rails with St. Paul. But that's me.)
Judaism and Islam have an even more involved process of debate and religious jurisprudence and a body of literature and theology which has grown from the original source material. To say that Wahhabi Islam is "more Islamic" than the Sufis or the Ismail'is or the Druze is to be a fundamentalist yourself, though for your own pernicious reasons.
If i say that Druze are less islamic than Wahhabis, it doesn't mean i think Druze shouldn't be respected or recognized as a true religion, its simply that by definition, they are less Islamic than Wahhabis.
Fundamental:
"forming a necessary base or core; of central importance."
The earliest, truest (As in, closer to the original meaning of the word) Muslims had the quran as the core of their belief. anything that diversify from that core, is by definition less Muslim than the original muslim, and opposite to that, anything that is closer to the core, is closer to the original, and therefor truest, meaning of the religion. this is not something you can argue with, this is a very simple semantic definition. an argument would have to be around which one is better, or which one is favoured by god or which one we should worry about, but which one is the truest is not an argument because all we simply need to do is to compare certain sects to the original book that define the religion of those sects.
The simple logical fallacy of most religions, is that they actually adapt and progress while leaning on the original holy texts which they believed were given by either god, or by its truth speaking messengers.
By logic, accepting that a religion should be changed/altered from its original practice as preached in its holy book while still maintaining the belief that their holy text was given by god, is either stating that their god is not an all knowing, omnipotent deity, that its holy book was not actually given by god, or that god intentionally lied to them by making them do things that are either wrong or unnecessary which is a freaking infantile thing to do and such a belief can only survive by the power of indoctrination and excused as "Test of faith". Not to mention that in Islam case, there is a passage that address this issue directly and claims that there can be no change to anything said in the Quran and that everything said in it is literal and an everlasting truth. simply put, Islam doesn't leave room for change and that's why Druze, by any semantic definition and islamic definition, are less islamic than Wahhabis. this wouldn't have been a problem, only that the original source material is counter humanist and returning to follow it directly is a desired goal for many muslims.
Comparing Islam to other religions is extremely boring and meaningless. you don't have to remind me what religion can do because its not that i am Anti-Islam, its that i am Anti-religion that knows Islam is the worst of the religions. as i stated earlier in this thread or the other that got closed, Christianity is losing popularity, Judaism is neglible, Buddhism damages are far less horrible while Islam is not only extremely popular and dangerous, its also one that is the most change/progress/reform averse of them all. also, we are in an IS thread. islamic state. naturally, islam will take the meat of the arguments.
I also can't understand the reason or goal of those comparisons. how accepting that christians nutcases exists excuse or negate my claims that islam is a violent religion?
So we have to wait until morning for the Islamophobic carp? awww
I spared your morning and gave a few nights off
Phobia is an irrational fear, where as i base my fear of islam on its holy book, its history and the present day actions of its believers. i'd say that not fearing this religion is actually the irrational thing to do.
Also:
"I actually find the "Islamophobe" label encouraging. The moment people can't respond to your argument anymore, they label you a bigot or Islamophobe. As I've written before, it's the ultimate lazy excuse for not having a counterargument. When I hear it, I know the other side has run out of fuel."
Said by an Ex-Muslim.
Author
Topic: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat. (Read 207204 times)