Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Telgin]

1 Timothy 2:12 is the only place I know of that directly says that women shouldn't teach in church, but there may be others.  Yet, Galations 3:28 says that there's no difference between men and women before God.  So... which is more important, and why?

One might argue that the more specific rule is more important, but I think it's generally healthier to read anything that wasn't said directly by Jesus with a grain of proverbial salt and not take bans like that seriously.

If there's anything I learned from a Catholic friend who trained to be a priest, it's that you really have to read most of the books of the New Testament with their target audience in mind.  Most of them were written to specific churches in specific places that already had cultures and expectations that had to be worked with.

I don't buy into the Bible as divine inspiration anyway, but I think even if you do it's a healthy mindset.  In this case, that was just the writings of someone who didn't like the idea of women teaching in church and not something God said or directed.

[origamiscienceguy]

Men and women are created equally, but with different roles. Much like the trinity. They are all equal, but have different roles.

[Loud Whispers]

If you can use an excuse to justify not publicly executing people, you can use it to have special bum fun.

What excuse?
This is more like saying Muslims can brush off the Quran if they're so inclined

[wierd]

IIRC, the typical rhetorical justification for this is that woman was created from man, and man came first-- so, by virtue of this-- somehow-- women need to come second to men, but are otherwise equal and to be respected.

The true equal treatment of women, in respect to the biblical rhetoric and doctrines, is a case of "She not respect my authority, by talking to me like my equal! That bad! Jew man STONE!"

[Graknorke]

If you can use an excuse to justify not publicly executing people, you can use it to have special bum fun.

What excuse?
This is more like saying Muslims can brush off the Quran if they're so inclined

That the Hadiths aren't as necessary to follow as the Quran. It's how the Muslims I know who care about that kind of thing rationalise that they're not getting together to lynch gays and adulterers and so on.

[Orange Wizard]

IIRC, don't Sunni Muslims hold to both Quran and Hadiths, but Shia Muslims hold only to the Quran? Obviously it's a bit more complicated than that but I think that's roughly the case.

...

1 Timothy 2:12 is the only place I know of that directly says that women shouldn't teach in church

Timothy, Corinthians, and a few others that I can't recall off-hand. There's probably an article in the Westminster Confession on it as well.

[Bohandas]

Had a re-look, and it's one of those things that's in the Hadiths but not in the Quran itself. AKA you can kind of brush it off if you're so inclined.

What
That's like saying Christians can brush off what Jesus says if they're so inclined

IIRC The hadiths are not held to be divinely inspired

[Loud Whispers]

That the Hadiths aren't as necessary to follow as the Quran. It's how the Muslims I know who care about that kind of thing rationalise that they're not getting together to lynch gays and adulterers and so on.

IIRC The hadiths are not held to be divinely inspired

wat who is telling you people these things

IIRC, don't Sunni Muslims hold to both Quran and Hadiths, but Shia Muslims hold only to the Quran? Obviously it's a bit more complicated than that but I think that's roughly the case.

No, both Sunni and Shia hold onto both Quran and Hadiths and... Well, I think there's some confusion on what the Hadith are. They are a collection of the things Muhammed said when he was alive in response to things and all that, so it's like a compendium of "what would Jesus do" with answers helpfully attached. The Sunni hold the hadith to be legit (with some hadiths more legit than others) and have six major hadith, whilst the Shia have four different ones (and by virtue of their skepticism of Sunni sources, also view their own with more skepticism. The hadith are fundamental to the religion of Islam and form much of the basis of Sharia Law, I'm a bit thrown aback by this lack of cultural enrichment, how have you lived your lives with so few encounters with Islam is beyond me, we must rev up Muslim immigration to the USA gorillion fold at this rate O_O

For the Sunni following the Hadith as part of the Sunnah is especially important - the whole notion of being a Sunni is being a person of tradition, of living your life based on what Muhammed did/said/forbid and in turn based off of the religious canon, which in turn has primacy.
For the Shia they have different Hadith and they also believe that Muhammed's divine guidance was passed down to Ali and his successors, the twelve Imams. The Shiites also believe in their ayatollahs (high ranking priests well versed in Islamic / theological studies) being in a way qualified by God to interpret and reinterpret the Canon similar to say, the Papacy of the Roman Catholics reinterpreting the Christian Canon to respond to new problems that arise over long periods of time, whilst Sunni are much more traditional and keeping to the primacy of the Canon; follow the example of the Hadith and Quran as is said, even more than a Christian fundamentalist would follow the examples in the Bible by the text

[Rolepgeek]

I get the feeling, and I might be wrong, but I get the feeling that a large part of your debate strategy consists of basically No True Muslim-ing in the opposite direction from what you might expect. "No the actual religion is this official stuff that inevitably leads to Very Bad Thing, not that silly 'reasonable' stuff that people who just claim to be part of the religion say they believe".

With a bit of shitposting, strawman parody (I don't think anyone has claimed Sharia law to be cultural enrichment on this thread, at any rate), a fair amount of condescension, and guilt-by-association thrown in. (That last one's okay though basically everybody does it and it's fairly inevitable)

[Rolan7]

There's not exactly a "true" religion, just how people choose to interpret it.  Most Muslims (worldwide, not in America probably) believe in instituting shariah law.  Including in nations they're immigrating into.

To ignore that is to do a disservice to the Muslims who are pushing for progressive values and cooperation.  And extremely condescending.  And you're guilty by association.

[Loud Whispers]

Wallotext

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I get the feeling, and I might be wrong, but I get the feeling that a large part of your debate strategy consists of basically No True Muslim-ing in the opposite direction from what you might expect. "No the actual religion is this official stuff that inevitably leads to Very Bad Thing, not that silly 'reasonable' stuff that people who just claim to be part of the religion say they believe".

I have not even debated anything, I don't consider points of information to be debated, and if we're running off of our personal claims of what Muslims we know believe in representing the majority then I've got Whitechapel and Tower Hamlets and enough's said. But explaining the philosophies? If you don't like it because "it leads to Very Bad Thing," well yeah it's a very bad thing to you, don't assume your morals are universal to everyone, least of all me. We've got very bad things now, they didn't materialize out of nothing, and what you may find as express evil I find as utmost virtue xD Except for maybe stuff like death for apostasy, we both agree it's irreconcilably wrong. But tell me, what do you expect? What direction are you talking about? Please consider that I have no idea what to expect because cultural barriers are big, I'm not even being rhetorical: I don't know what I should expect you to expect from me.

With a bit of shitposting, strawman parody (I don't think anyone has claimed Sharia law to be cultural enrichment on this thread, at any rate)

wat
u even cultural enrichment m8

a fair amount of condescension, and guilt-by-association thrown in. (That last one's okay though basically everybody does it and it's fairly inevitable)

Sorry m8 I don't understand what you mean I'm too blockheaded, though I can comment on the whole condescension thing cos it's warranted - Islam's popped up on bay12 so much and I've been shocked a few times when I realized how strongly everyone felt about something they knew nothing about (or worse, knew misconceptions and lies) but discarding the hadith was just one brick too far and I got bricked well proper. If there's something as rare as LW taking the moral highground on toleran and progresiv there's LW taking the high horse on knowing more shit than other people, because I know enough to know that I know very little. Hence why I don't bring on airs to make myself sound authentik and intellectual as fuck, and prefer to keep simple shit language so people see my words for their words, not for me and my name.
Only in this moment my name is problematic, I am the toleran and progresiv intellectual academic on high horse educating the shitlords with ebin meymeys, I am become tumblr, freezer of snow
Also consider this, once someone knows a piece of information they cannot unlearn it, lest they be drunk, damaged or forgetful, and the internet does not forget, so this is perhaps the only and last time I'll be able to ever shitpost thus xD

Metaedit:
AHAH! I knew I remembered having a conversation similar here:

My big question for Loud Whispers is really one of: What are you suggesting be done, and/or trying to say? I can't tell if your concern is with the fundamentals involved in the Islamic faith, with the way it's practiced, or with how it's been practiced in the past.

Take what I'm saying at face value. People are ignorant of Islam, its origins and its practice. Peace in Dar Al-Islam and peace are not the same. As for what is to be done? I don't know, depends on who you are and what your objective is I suppose. I have no say over 1,800,000,00 people, only I myself ~o.o~

Hahahaha, even now Rolepgeek, from 2015 to 2016 I am having the same conversations with you xD
Though I must say I put much more effort into my posts when I was writing them in Nov

Also this is not exactly history ugh it's not my job to educate you shitlord it's the current year

IT'S 2016 WOO
COME NEXT CURRENT YEAR WE'VE COVERED:

• The origins of Jihad (and how I learned to accidentally the Persia)
• The origins for apostasy cheekiness
• I like to salat a lot
• Whodunnit derail into ancient poison prophet saga and blessed Yahel
• Some of the finer points of Shariah Law, a lot of it is pretty neat actually (or was, irreconcilable parts aside)
• Eurothread crossover, Halal slaughtering is totally Kosher

I'm tempted to go into the history of Taxation, Finance and Islam because the smallest of issues with Taxation have had the largest of impacts, hell the whole MUH FREEEDOM history derail can start with the taxation of wool in the hundred years war all the way to the taxation of tea in freedomland, and issues of money and Abrahamism are always relevant!
It's not exactly the most exciting of derails though. Who wants to talk about taxes? ;P
Also I must say I am quite pleased that no one trusted me for my word alone, even if they did place faith in that abominable higher power they call Wikipedia

[Bohandas]

Had a re-look, and it's one of those things that's in the Hadiths but not in the Quran itself. AKA you can kind of brush it off if you're so inclined.

What
That's like saying Christians can brush off what Jesus says if they're so inclined

More like blowing off the Books of the Maccabees or the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon.

EDIT:
see below

[Bohandas]

IIRC, don't Sunni Muslims hold to both Quran and Hadiths, but Shia Muslims hold only to the Quran? Obviously it's a bit more complicated than that but I think that's roughly the case.

No, both Sunni and Shia hold onto both Quran and Hadiths and... Well, I think there's some confusion on what the Hadith are. They are a collection of the things Muhammed said when he was alive in response to things and all that, so it's like a compendium of "what would Jesus do" with answers helpfully attached. The Sunni hold the hadith to be legit (with some hadiths more legit than others) and have six major hadith, whilst the Shia have four different ones (and by virtue of their skepticism of Sunni sources, also view their own with more skepticism. The hadith are fundamental to the religion of Islam and form much of the basis of Sharia Law,

Papal Encyclicals are fundamental to Catholic Christianity and form the basis of canon law but they're not themselves canon in the sense of being part of the faith's official holy book. The Talmud is central to the Jewish faith and form the basis of Rabbinic law, but it's not part of the Tanakh.

Plus, from your description, the Hadiths sound much closer to the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, or possibly the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, than any of he Gospels.

[Orange Wizard]

tbf Wisdom of Solomon is apocryphal in protestant churches so it's not really a good comparison

[Bohandas]

tbf Wisdom of Solomon is apocryphal in protestant churches so it's not really a good comparison

According to my research the Shi'a consider the main Sunni hadiths to be apocryphal and vice versa. So the comparison stands.