Pages

Jump to bottom

20 comments

1 FreedomMoon  Sun, Nov 14, 2010 10:15:40pm

Well, if the elephant in the room could talk he'd say 'Good Luck'. (And in all sincerity--all sarcasm aside, I really do mean it) I don't know what would be easier that, or finding 10,000 Evangelical Christians who believe evolution is a fact, and if you can add being pro-choice to the mix and you got yourself a challenge.

2 CuriousLurker  Sun, Nov 14, 2010 11:04:20pm

The site just recently launched.

You seem to think domestic violence is a given amongst Muslims in America, why is that? If you have links to reliable data showing it's significantly higher amongst Muslims than it is in the general population, I'd be very interested in seeing them.

If you're going to posit that an equivalence exists between the attitudes & behavior of the majority of American Muslims and those of Evangelical Christians, please provide concrete examples.

Everyone's always complaining that Muslims never speak out about things, yet when they do there's precious little positive acknowledgment of it. Is it really that difficult to just say, "Hey, that's great. I'm glad to see Muslims speaking out on this." sans the snarky backhanded wishes of "good luck" and comparisons to anti-science, anti-abortion Evangelicals?

3 CuriousLurker  Sun, Nov 14, 2010 11:07:26pm

re: #1 tacuba14

My comment #2 was in response to you.

4 kreyagg  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 1:06:13am

From [Link: www.submission.org...]

4:34] The men are made responsible for the women, ** and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD's commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.

Beating ones wife is clearly on the list of allowable remedies.

5 CuriousLurker  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 3:01:44am

re: #4 kreyagg

From [Link: www.submission.org...]

Beating ones wife is clearly on the list of allowable remedies.

Not only have you conveniently cherry picked a single verse from the Qur'an and left out all notions of the existence of a wider context, but you've also purposely omitted the heading of that section entitled Do Not Beat Your Wife, as well as the notes that follow:

*4:34 God prohibits wife-beating by using the best psychological approach. For example, if I don't want you to shop at Market X, I will ask you to shop at Market Y, then at Market Z, then, as a last resort, at Market X. This will effectively stop you from shopping at Market X, without insulting you. Similarly, God provides alternatives to wife-beating; reasoning with her first, then employing certain negative incentives. Remember that the theme of this sura is defending the women's rights and countering the prevalent oppression of women. Any interpretation of the verses of this sura must be in favor of the women. This sura's theme is "protection of women."

**4:34 This expression simply means that God is appointing the husband as "captain of the ship." Marriage is like a ship, and the captain runs it after due consultation with his officers. A believing wife readily accepts God's appointment, without mutiny.

I'm certain that you haven't the faintest idea which type of "rebellion" the verse you've cited refers to, which word in the Arabic original is translated into the English "beating", nor do you have any knowledge of the detailed Qur'anic exegesis that explains exactly what is meant by that word. You've already made it clear numerous times—for example here and here with Alouette recently, and here with me earlier this month—that you think all religious beliefs are absurd, so why do you persist? Your redundancy is tiresome and pointless (I mean outside your own head—it's obviously important to you).

In polite company, your ignorant contemptuousness and boorish manner make you look twice as foolish as any "delusional myth believer" (to use your parlance). Your behavior wouldn't be tolerated for more than a few minutes in real life, so I'll venture a guess that you're most likely a misfit whose lack of social skills has relegated you to trolling the internet in search of attention. Sad, but not my problem.

And on that note, I'll say this to you, Craig: There are billions of us "believers" on this planet, and we will persist in our believing no matter how much or how often you bravely ridicule us from behind the anonymity of your keyboard, so deal with it. You've received the last bit of attention from me that you're going to get—now piss off.

6 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 3:15:03am

re: #5 CuriousLurker

Hey, don't go to the opposite extreme and mix all atheists in with Kreyagg.

I'm an atheist. I think that the religion you believe in is a myth, and that all religions are myths. However, I also think the tendency to believe in non-real things is inherent in humanity, that it is one of the defining characteristics of mankind, and that to not believe in some religious concept is a rarity because one has to follow a particular path of thought to get there.

As long as your religious belief simply informs how you live your life and your ethics, I have no problem with it. If your religious belief tells you that you need to contradict ethics-- for example, if it says that gay people don't deserve the same rights as straight people-- then I see that portion of that religious belief as harmful.

That said, the essence of any of the textual religions is interpretation of the text, so attempting to castigate a non-literalist follower of that text for the exact words inside it is missing the point by a country mile, as you demonstrate. The worst excesses of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. have not been from following the bare text of those religions-- all of which contain far more verses about charity, humility, generosity, and brotherhood than they do violence.

7 CuriousLurker  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 3:29:34am

FYI: For anyone else who may be reading, the submissions.org site that keyragg referenced belongs to an organization called United Submitters International, whose beliefs put them WAY outside mainstream Islam. As a matter of fact, some of their stuff puts them outside Islam, period.

This is what happens when people who don't have a clue about the subject they're trying to discuss start surfing around and willy-nilly grabbing any link that looks like it might support their position.

8 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 3:30:52am

re: #7 CuriousLurker

Heh. It'd be like representing those bondage fetishists who see support in Christianity as representative of mainstream Christianity.

[Link: www.christiandd.com...]

9 CuriousLurker  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 3:55:40am

re: #6 Obdicut

Hey, don't go to the opposite extreme and mix all atheists in with Kreyagg.

I'm an atheist. I think that the religion you believe in is a myth, and that all religions are myths. However, I also think the tendency to believe in non-real things is inherent in humanity, that it is one of the defining characteristics of mankind, and that to not believe in some religious concept is a rarity because one has to follow a particular path of thought to get there.

As long as your religious belief simply informs how you live your life and your ethics, I have no problem with it. If your religious belief tells you that you need to contradict ethics-- for example, if it says that gay people don't deserve the same rights as straight people-- then I see that portion of that religious belief as harmful.

That said, the essence of any of the textual religions is interpretation of the text, so attempting to castigate a non-literalist follower of that text for the exact words inside it is missing the point by a country mile, as you demonstrate. The worst excesses of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. have not been from following the bare text of those religions-- all of which contain far more verses about charity, humility, generosity, and brotherhood than they do violence.

No WAY am I mixing you in with keyragg. Never in a million years.

My problem with the guy is that he's just flat out rude. And uninformed. And behaving like a freaking troll. I have difficulty mustering up any sort of respect or patience for that kind of behavior. Heaping scorn on people's beliefs is counterproductive—it just pisses them off and causes them to shut down and stop listening to you, at which point productive discussion becomes impossible. (I'm talking about "normal" religious people here, not fundies/fanatics. There's no point in talking to most of them at all.)

I have no problem with atheists believing—or rather not believing, to be more accurate—however they wish. I may disagree with you, but you always approach in a reasonable, polite, respectful manner. And you're always well informed. Huge difference there.

See? I'll even hug an atheist once in a while. {{{Obdi}}} ;o)

10 CuriousLurker  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 3:57:20am

re: #8 Obdicut

Heh. It'd be like representing those bondage fetishists who see support in Christianity as representative of mainstream Christianity.

[Link: www.christiandd.com...]

Oh my. LOL, yeah, like that.

11 kreyagg  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 3:58:29am

re: #5 CuriousLurker
You don't get away that easily, you've made a claim about Islam that is clearly not supported by facts. It isn't me saying out the blue that Islam is full of wife beaters, I was pointing that justification can be found and apparently there are dozens of examples of clerics demonstrating this fact for me.

[Link: www.memritv.org...] beating&bAdvSearch=false
[Link: www.memritv.org...]
[Link: www.memritv.org...]
[Link: www.memritv.org...]

And how is it even possible for a wife to be rebellious with respect to her husband? A moral person would not expect their spouse to obey.


I'll leave you with this article to let you know how I feel about the "billions of believers"
[Link: www.slate.com...]

12 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 3:58:41am

re: #9 CuriousLurker

Being scornful of religious beliefs is like being scornful of people for believing in love. There may be some extremely bad outputs of religion, but the urge, the desire to believe in the first place is simply human.

13 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 4:02:05am

re: #11 kreyagg

You're treating Islam as monolithic concept, when it isn't.

A religion isn't defined by its text, but by its practice. If a community of Muslims holds it as abhorrent and anti-Islamic to beat their wives, then that is what it is to them. That is Islam as much as a guy who says beating your wife is great is Islam.

For some reason, you seem to think that religions are bound by their texts. Clearly, a brief review of human history will show that religions depart wildly from their texts.

So why do you think religions are bound by literal interpretations of their texts?

What you are arguing against is the strawman position that no Muslims believe that Islam sanctions wife-beating. Nobody has made that assertion, so your attempts to beat it down are rather futile.

14 CuriousLurker  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 4:06:28am

re: #12 Obdicut

Beautifully stated. Thank you for recognizing & articulating that. You just helped me put my finger on the essence of why the keyragg's tactics are so repugnant to me.

15 CuriousLurker  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 4:08:19am

Ugh, seriously dyslexic finger this morning. Excuse the typos. *sigh*

16 CuriousLurker  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 4:20:56am

re: #13 Obdicut

What you are arguing against is the strawman position that no Muslims believe that Islam sanctions wife-beating. Nobody has made that assertion, so your attempts to beat it down are rather futile.

Precisely.

17 kreyagg  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 4:34:34am

re: #13 Obdicut

You're treating Islam as monolithic concept, when it isn't.

A religion isn't defined by its text, but by its practice. If a community of Muslims holds it as abhorrent and anti-Islamic to beat their wives, then that is what it is to them. That is Islam as much as a guy who says beating your wife is great is Islam.

For some reason, you seem to think that religions are bound by their texts. Clearly, a brief review of human history will show that religions depart wildly from their texts.

So why do you think religions are bound by literal interpretations of their texts?


I have said nothing about Muslims at all. The closest I have come to that is linking those videos. The problems with Islam/Christianity/Judaism are the foundational texts. They will always be there to be read literally by the truly faithful.

The Westboro Baptists are vile people, but I am sure that they know and read the Bible and adhere to its rules more closely than the average nominal Christian.

What you are arguing against is the strawman position that no Muslims believe that Islam sanctions wife-beating. Nobody has made that assertion, so your attempts to beat it down are rather futile.

I have done no such thing. I have claimed that the religion and its texts sponsor and according to some of the videos I linked require such behavior

18 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 4:43:37am

re: #17 kreyagg

I have said nothing about Muslims at all. The closest I have come to that is linking those videos. The problems with Islam/Christianity/Judaism are the foundational texts. They will always be there to be read literally by the truly faithful.

No, you are, for reasons of your own, defining the literal readers as the 'truly faithful'. I have no idea why, except sheer laziness in argument.

I have done no such thing. I have claimed that the religion and its texts sponsor and according to some of the videos I linked require such behavior

Again: You're treating all of Islam as a monolithic belief. "The religion" doesn't have any existence. CuriousLurker and Osama Bin Laden do not follow the same religion, any more than Fred Phelps and Stephen Colbert follow the same religion.

The texts were written during a period of time where counseling people to first talk with their wives, then deprive them of sex, before beating them, was actually a very liberal and forward thinking policy. This is why moderate Muslims, as CuriousLurker demonstrated, do not interpret that text to mean that God thinks it's great to beat your wife, but as an attempt to change people's behavior so that they'd beat their wives less often.

19 kreyagg  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 5:26:02am

re: #18 Obdicut

Again: You're treating all of Islam as a monolithic belief. "The religion" doesn't have any existence. CuriousLurker and Osama Bin Laden do not follow the same religion, any more than Fred Phelps and Stephen Colbert follow the same religion.

Indeed they do follow the same religions, it's just that Curious Lurker and Stephen Colbert trade more of their religions away for civilization than do the other two.

The texts were written during a period of time where counseling people to first talk with their wives, then deprive them of sex, before beating them, was actually a very liberal and forward thinking policy. This is why moderate Muslims, as CuriousLurker demonstrated, do not interpret that text to mean that God thinks it's great to beat your wife, but as an attempt to change people's behavior so that they'd beat their wives less often.

You are demonstrating a species of cultural relativism, just because it was better at the time doesn't mean that it was ever very good. That the teachings of Mohamed were a step forward in 8th Century Arabia doesn't mean much today. The problem with the texts is that they can't evolve from their original, primitive position. For progress to happen you need to have the followers be willing to ignore more and more of what those texts teach.

20 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 5:32:45am

re: #19 kreyagg

Indeed they do follow the same religions, it's just that Curious Lurker and Stephen Colbert trade more of their religions away for civilization than do the other two.

Can you provide any support for that argument, please? Or is it just an article of faith for you? You are seriously saying that the Westborough Baptist Church and the American Catholic Church are the same religion?

On what grounds? Is your sole argument "They both believe that the bible contains some truth", and you steadfastly ignore the vastly different ways they interpret that text?

You are demonstrating a species of cultural relativism, just because it was better at the time doesn't mean that it was ever very good.

Yes, I am demonstrating cultural relativism, one that realizes that the advance of mankind's understanding of rights has been one of progression, not revelation.

That the teachings of Mohamed were a step forward in 8th Century Arabia doesn't mean much today.

They do mean, as I said, that modern moderate Muslims will interpret that verse in that vein.

The problem with the texts is that they can't evolve from their original, primitive position.

Your use of the world 'primitive' is kind of odd. Can you explain what you mean by primitive?

For progress to happen you need to have the followers be willing to ignore more and more of what those texts teach.

Well, no. Not really. The texts are inherently contradictory in many, many places. For some bizarre reason, you're treating the texts, as well as the religions, as though they are monolithic. This is a rather odd position for an atheist to take, as atheists usually understand the inherent self-contradiction inside religious texts.

What is necessary for progress is not the ignoring of the religious texts, but the transformation of the parts of them that suggest negative behaviors into allegorical or otherwise non-real forms; resolving contradictions in favor of the most 'progressive' interpretation.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Indigenous Americans Ruled Democratically Long Before the U.S. DidDemocracy: it was older and more widespread than we thought. At the Oconee site, called Cold Springs, artifacts were excavated before the valley became an aquatic playground. Now, new older-than-expected radiocarbon dates for those museum-held finds push back the origin ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 4 days ago
Views: 1,347 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 3 •