Heartland

I would agree that all spiritual experiences are at root the same, whether the experiencer calls them "nirvana" or "abduction by aliens"...

This is not to say that such experiences have no value.

markfiend wrote:I would agree that all spiritual experiences are at root the same, whether the experiencer calls them "nirvana" or "abduction by aliens"...

This is not to say that such experiences have no value.

I'm not just referring to "experiences" though Mark - "alpha states" and whatnot. I mean even through cold, dry academic study - the similarities still become increasingly apparent. Those who do engage in wars and polemics over their chosen religion are invariably missing the point. That's not to say that the point of every (or indeed any) belief system is peace love and grooviness man, rather that they all come from the same root - human consciousness and intelligence, which is the same from race to race and society to society. What creates barbarism and comparative enlightenment is a host of political and economic factors which either prohibit or encourage backwardness.

Just a couple of points I wanted to come back on (or amplify what others have already said).

First the claim that Islam is less 'interpreted' than other Abrahamic religions:

Apart from the fact that as an organised religion it hasn't had as much time to fragment as Judaism or Christianity, there are still two predominant interpretations of Islam: Sunni and Shi'a.

In the Sunni intrepretation Sunnis recognize four major legal traditions: Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanafi, and Hanbali. All four accept the validity of the others and a Muslim might choose any one that he/she finds agreeable to his/her ideas. (so within one of the 2 major interpretations there are 4 sub-interpretations).

Shi'a gives even greater room for interpretation.

In addition, from Wikipedia:

"The Qur'an contains both injunctions to respect other religions, and to fight and subdue unbelievers during war. Some Muslims have respected Jews and Christians as fellow people of the book (monotheists following Abrahamic religions), while others have reviled them as having abandoned monotheism and corrupted their scriptures."

Which very strongly suggests two opposing interpretations from the same religious text.

So I think the claim that Islam doesn't allow as much interpretation as any of the other Abrahamic religions doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


The other thing I wanted to come back on was the assumption that the Islamic religion was directly responsible for the human rights violations in many countries.

I'm an atheist so I have very little time for religion, but I stand by the fact that religion is not responsible for human rights violations - people are. And by maintaining that position I can discard any defence from a human rights violator that they were only following (divine) orders. I refuse to give them that get-out clause.

Badlander wrote:

HisWimmNess wrote: For me the pope is a massmurderer. No anticonception allowed by faith = mass murderer ...

Be careful. You know what those Christian fundamentalists say : abortion is murder all the same (even more in their opinion). Abortionists are mass murderers of "unborn children".

The mass murderer argument is really a two-edged sword.

My modest contribution to a debate that, I'm afraid, is going nowhere. Paul said it all.

euhm... abortion? A condom is not used to abort, I think?
If the semen is already life, I'm afraid I have been killing millions op people over the last few years

But you're right, this is going nowhere. I was just making some stupid remarks, to prove the same point.

But then again, who cares about Floorshow being played live? Emma, THAT is the real issue

HisWimmNess wrote: But then again, who cares about Floorshow being played live? Emma, THAT is the real issue

And how about Adrenochrome ?

lazarus corporation wrote: I'm an atheist so I have very little time for religion, but I stand by the fact that religion is not responsible for human rights violations - people are. And by maintaining that position I can discard any defence from a human rights violator that they were only following (divine) orders. I refuse to give them that get-out clause.

So let’s see if I get that right. Rape for example is a human rights issue. “People should be protected against crimes such as rape, murder etc..� Now the Koran tells, that there isnt such thing as rape existing in a Muslim marriage. In fact the Muslim wife “doesnt see any sense in refusing sexual intercourse with her husband, because it is natural for her to like to have sex with her husband.�
I don’t believe that Muslim men are all and in general rapist nor that they willingly like to use force upon their wives, but if they do, they have the legitimacy by the Koran. They are not born that way, it's their religion that makes them human right violators.


And YES, definately Emma.

I normally don't jump into these things, but one thing that strikes me is that if you want to discuss Islam the very least you should do is go read the Koran. Then compare what it says in there with how certain followers of Islam behave these days.

And then compare that to how certain so-called Christians behaved when Christianity was the same age as Islam is now.

And then think about the massive contribution Islam has made to the world we live in. Islam basically kept scientific knowledge alive during a time when Christians were perfectly happy to live in the dark ages and jump at shadows (not to mention relentlessly persecute anyone who dared to step outside this orthodoxy).

Maybe it is a peaceful religion, maybe some parts of it are just going through a silly phase, and maybe some of the people who claim to follow it are simply nothing more than bloodthirsty butchers who pervert the teachings for their own twisted ideals. But the same could be said of any religion, and the fact that it happens to be Islam in the news right now means that the finger gets pointed at the innocent as well as at the guilty.

As the Barman would say...

Next!

mh wrote:
As the Barman would say...

Next!

Is that one of the new songs? Don't know it

HisWimmNess wrote:

mh wrote:
As the Barman would say...

Next!

Is that one of the new songs? Don't know it

http://www.paroles.net/chansons/11085.htm

Well, you did ask for it...

lazarus corporation wrote:Just a couple of points I wanted to come back on (or amplify what others have already said).

First the claim that Islam is less 'interpreted' than other Abrahamic religions:

Apart from the fact that as an organised religion it hasn't had as much time to fragment as Judaism or Christianity, there are still two predominant interpretations of Islam: Sunni and Shi'a.

In the Sunni intrepretation Sunnis recognize four major legal traditions: Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanafi, and Hanbali. All four accept the validity of the others and a Muslim might choose any one that he/she finds agreeable to his/her ideas. (so within one of the 2 major interpretations there are 4 sub-interpretations).

Shi'a gives even greater room for interpretation.

In addition, from Wikipedia:

"The Qur'an contains both injunctions to respect other religions, and to fight and subdue unbelievers during war. Some Muslims have respected Jews and Christians as fellow people of the book (monotheists following Abrahamic religions), while others have reviled them as having abandoned monotheism and corrupted their scriptures."

Which very strongly suggests two opposing interpretations from the same religious text.

So I think the claim that Islam doesn't allow as much interpretation as any of the other Abrahamic religions doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

That's a straw-man you're attacking good buddy. My claim was that as a matter of fiqh hermeneutics, the very status of the book within its own tradition is different from the status of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles within their own respective traditions. When Allah says in Surah 9, 29 that you fight those who don't believe in God or the final judgment, who don't prohibit and condone what is haram and halal, those who don't follow "the religion of truth," until they pay the jizya as second-class citizens and acknowledge their own inferiority, who will argue? The one who believes that this is the literal divine speech of God spoken in Arabic? Compare that to Christ--known to employ the odd parable or metaphor from time to time--saying "I bring the sword," in accounts taken to be written down by human beings based on their recollection of events, inspired by God, but not written by God. There's a big difference there.

lazarus corporation wrote:
The other thing I wanted to come back on was the assumption that the Islamic religion was directly responsible for the human rights violations in many countries.

I'm an atheist so I have very little time for religion, but I stand by the fact that religion is not responsible for human rights violations - people are. And by maintaining that position I can discard any defence from a human rights violator that they were only following (divine) orders. I refuse to give them that get-out clause.

The Inca followed a religion that taught human sacrifice. Yes, it's up to the individual Inca to choose to follow it, but it's also a religion that promotes--tah-da!--human rights abuses. And when the Iranian regime hangs a teenage girl for the crime of adultery just because she's been raped guess what? They're justifying it religiously. When the Saudi religious police chased schoolgirls back into a burning building because they were trying to flee the flames while not properly attired, guess what? They're justifying it religiously. Do the individuals involved have a choice? Sure, in the existentialist sense, they do. Just like the Inca mentioned above did.

mh wrote:

HisWimmNess wrote:

mh wrote:
As the Barman would say...

Next!

Is that one of the new songs? Don't know it

http://www.paroles.net/chansons/11085.htm

Well, you did ask for it...

Je ne regrette rien

sultan2075 wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:Just a couple of points I wanted to come back on (or amplify what others have already said).

First the claim that Islam is less 'interpreted' than other Abrahamic religions:

Apart from the fact that as an organised religion it hasn't had as much time to fragment as Judaism or Christianity, there are still two predominant interpretations of Islam: Sunni and Shi'a.

In the Sunni intrepretation Sunnis recognize four major legal traditions: Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanafi, and Hanbali. All four accept the validity of the others and a Muslim might choose any one that he/she finds agreeable to his/her ideas. (so within one of the 2 major interpretations there are 4 sub-interpretations).

Shi'a gives even greater room for interpretation.

In addition, from Wikipedia:

"The Qur'an contains both injunctions to respect other religions, and to fight and subdue unbelievers during war. Some Muslims have respected Jews and Christians as fellow people of the book (monotheists following Abrahamic religions), while others have reviled them as having abandoned monotheism and corrupted their scriptures."

Which very strongly suggests two opposing interpretations from the same religious text.

So I think the claim that Islam doesn't allow as much interpretation as any of the other Abrahamic religions doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

That's a straw-man you're attacking good buddy. My claim was that as a matter of fiqh hermeneutics, the very status of the book within its own tradition is different from the status of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles within their own respective traditions...

No, you distinctly wrote (my emphasis in bold):

sultan2075 wrote:There are enormous differences between Islam and the other Abrahamic faiths, the chief of which is that the Koran does NOT claim to be divinely inspired (as the Hebrew and Christian Bibles do) but to actually be the literal word of God. There's a hell of a lot less room for interpretation there, because the Koran claims to be unmediated--it's not divinely inspired, it's divine. It's the literal word of God, and as the Fremen say: one cannot go against God.

so when you use the status of the book to make the claim that there's "less room for interpretation" in Islam and I say there isn't less room for interpretation and then provide a number of examples of where interpretation has led to differing takes on Islam then I'm contesting the claim you put forward.

Regardless of the point that Muslims believe that the Kuran is the word of God rather than inspired by God, different sects of Muslims have still managed to interpret it differently. Human ingenuity can even provide multiple interpretations of the directly-dictated "words of God".

sultan2075 wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote: The other thing I wanted to come back on was the assumption that the Islamic religion was directly responsible for the human rights violations in many countries.

I'm an atheist so I have very little time for religion, but I stand by the fact that religion is not responsible for human rights violations - people are. And by maintaining that position I can discard any defence from a human rights violator that they were only following (divine) orders. I refuse to give them that get-out clause.

The Inca followed a religion that taught human sacrifice. Yes, it's up to the individual Inca to choose to follow it, but it's also a religion that promotes--tah-da!--human rights abuses. And when the Iranian regime hangs a teenage girl for the crime of adultery just because she's been raped guess what? They're justifying it religiously. When the Saudi religious police chased schoolgirls back into a burning building because they were trying to flee the flames while not properly attired, guess what? They're justifying it religiously. Do the individuals involved have a choice? Sure, in the existentialist sense, they do. Just like the Inca mentioned above did.

Yes, the individual Inca chose to follow that religion, and he was responsible for his actions.

Yes, the Iranian official (who ordered that the rape victim should be hanged) chose to follow that religion, and he is responsible for his actions.

Yes, the Saudi religious police chose to follow that religion, and they're responsible for their actions. They are the ones who made the choice to chase the girls back into the burning building.

These individuals are responsible for their choices and their actions. "The State" isn't responsible, "God" isn't responsible, "religion" isn't responsible, "a bad childhood" isn't responsible, "a lack of post-natal affection" isn't responsible. There are no hand-wringing mitigating circumstances that slimey overpaid lawyers should be able to use to get them off the hook for murder - their actions are their responsibility.

All in my humble opinion, of course.

and to get back on topic, can anyone actually tell me when The Sisters last played Floorshow live, or are you all deliberately going off-topic because you don't want to admit that you don't know?

lazarus corporation wrote:and to get back on topic, can anyone actually tell me when The Sisters last played Floorshow live, or are you all deliberately going off-topic because you don't want to admit that you don't know?

i don't know for you, but here I've heard it 15 minutes ago on my stereo

canon docre wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote: I'm an atheist so I have very little time for religion, but I stand by the fact that religion is not responsible for human rights violations - people are. And by maintaining that position I can discard any defence from a human rights violator that they were only following (divine) orders. I refuse to give them that get-out clause.

So let’s see if I get that right. Rape for example is a human rights issue. “People should be protected against crimes such as rape, murder etc..� Now the Koran tells, that there isnt such thing as rape existing in a Muslim marriage. In fact the Muslim wife “doesnt see any sense in refusing sexual intercourse with her husband, because it is natural for her to like to have sex with her husband.�
I don’t believe that Muslim men are all and in general rapist nor that they willingly like to use force upon their wives, but if they do, they have the legitimacy by the Koran. They are not born that way, it's their religion that makes them human right violators.

People legitimise things to themselves all the time - and they usually gang together with other people who think the same thing in order to reinforce their self-justification through peer-support.

I don't think people should get away with blaming whatever means of self-justification they are using, and I don't think we should get distracted by trying to analyse their convoluted self-justification of their abuse (whether it's the rape of a Muslim woman 'justified' by religion or the torture of Muslims 'justified' by some 'war on terror') when we should be stopping human rights abuses instead.

lazarus corporation wrote:and to get back on topic, can anyone actually tell me when The Sisters last played Floorshow live, or are you all deliberately going off-topic because you don't want to admit that you don't know?

Apparently its 1993/09/04 - Rock Am See festival, Losheim, Germany.

Now that's my kinda thread !

lazarus corporation wrote:Yes, the Iranian official (who ordered that the rape victim should be hanged) chose to follow that religion, and he is responsible for his actions.

Yes, the Saudi religious police chose to follow that religion, and they're responsible for their actions. They are the ones who made the choice to chase the girls back into the burning building.

These individuals are responsible for their choices and their actions. "The State" isn't responsible, "God" isn't responsible, "religion" isn't responsible, "a bad childhood" isn't responsible, "a lack of post-natal affection" isn't responsible. There are no hand-wringing mitigating circumstances that slimey overpaid lawyers should be able to use to get them off the hook for murder - their actions are their responsibility.

All in my humble opinion, of course.

I completely agree that people choose their belief systems, thoughts, words, and actions. We can all agree it is wrong to murder a girl after she has been raped because she lost her virginity whether Islam validates that kind of behavior or not.

My concern is societies justification of human rights violations, terrorism, or terroristic threats by the religious of any religion because of our own greed, politics, etc. It is wrong to say "You, the media, you are next - we will bomb you....." in a Mosque (isn't it??) or a Church or a public square. It is wrong to hold up a sign which says, " I will slay you if you insult me." Those kind of statements, whether written or spoken, are threatening statements and should not be allowed any more than a child should be allowed to say, "I am going to walk into school tomorrow and kill anyone who insults me."

markfiend wrote:Well, not necessarily mass-murderer... but he does condemn billions of his followers to a life of poverty and malnutrition if they follow his church's teachings on contraception.

Although technically the Church has the out that "they didn't have to have sex if they didn't want the kids." :roll:

What is it about God that makes people believe He's so interested in people's sex-lives? :lol:

What is Islam's stance on abortion?

DarkAngel wrote:

markfiend wrote:Well, not necessarily mass-murderer... but he does condemn billions of his followers to a life of poverty and malnutrition if they follow his church's teachings on contraception.

Although technically the Church has the out that "they didn't have to have sex if they didn't want the kids."

What is it about God that makes people believe He's so interested in people's sex-lives?

What is Islam's stance on abortion?

It's only permissible if you take an infidel with you! Booo--yaaaa!

lazarus corporation wrote:
No, you distinctly wrote (my emphasis in bold):

sultan2075 wrote:There are enormous differences between Islam and the other Abrahamic faiths, the chief of which is that the Koran does NOT claim to be divinely inspired (as the Hebrew and Christian Bibles do) but to actually be the literal word of God. There's a hell of a lot less room for interpretation there, because the Koran claims to be unmediated--it's not divinely inspired, it's divine. It's the literal word of God, and as the Fremen say: one cannot go against God.

so when you use the status of the book to make the claim that there's "less room for interpretation" in Islam and I say there isn't less room for interpretation and then provide a number of examples of where interpretation has led to differing takes on Islam then I'm contesting the claim you put forward.

Regardless of the point that Muslims believe that the Kuran is the word of God rather than inspired by God, different sects of Muslims have still managed to interpret it differently. Human ingenuity can even provide multiple interpretations of the directly-dictated "words of God".

Less room does not equal no room, you're still going after a straw man. I never said there was no room for interpretation, I said that, because of the textual tradition, certain limitations exist that are not to be found in the Biblical tradition. The attitude of the believer toward the book will be different if it's revelation unmediated by human beings. Is that so hard to understand? Think about St. Thomas--he begins the Summa by asking whether or not revealed religion is necessary when we, as human beings, have philosophical science. Muslim thinkers begin by asking whether, since they have the Koran and the revealed law, they are permitted to engage in philosophy. There is a very big difference there, and this difference in exegetical approaches limits the way exegesis is done. Why do you think Salman Rushdie had to go into hiding and Gore Vidal--or Dawkins--don't? Why did Theo van Gogh get stabbed in the middle of the street? Why has Ayaan Hirsi Ali fled to the United States? Oh, wait, those things couldn't possibly have anything to with religion, could they?

lazarus corporation wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote: The other thing I wanted to come back on was the assumption that the Islamic religion was directly responsible for the human rights violations in many countries.

I'm an atheist so I have very little time for religion, but I stand by the fact that religion is not responsible for human rights violations - people are. And by maintaining that position I can discard any defence from a human rights violator that they were only following (divine) orders. I refuse to give them that get-out clause.

The Inca followed a religion that taught human sacrifice. Yes, it's up to the individual Inca to choose to follow it, but it's also a religion that promotes--tah-da!--human rights abuses. And when the Iranian regime hangs a teenage girl for the crime of adultery just because she's been raped guess what? They're justifying it religiously. When the Saudi religious police chased schoolgirls back into a burning building because they were trying to flee the flames while not properly attired, guess what? They're justifying it religiously. Do the individuals involved have a choice? Sure, in the existentialist sense, they do. Just like the Inca mentioned above did.

Yes, the individual Inca chose to follow that religion, and he was responsible for his actions.

Yes, the Iranian official (who ordered that the rape victim should be hanged) chose to follow that religion, and he is responsible for his actions.

Yes, the Saudi religious police chose to follow that religion, and they're responsible for their actions. They are the ones who made the choice to chase the girls back into the burning building.

These individuals are responsible for their choices and their actions. "The State" isn't responsible, "God" isn't responsible, "religion" isn't responsible, "a bad childhood" isn't responsible, "a lack of post-natal affection" isn't responsible. There are no hand-wringing mitigating circumstances that slimey overpaid lawyers should be able to use to get them off the hook for murder - their actions are their responsibility.

All in my humble opinion, of course.

Look, the high-school stoicism bit is fine, and I'm a big fan of personal responsibility, but the fact is that society--culture, religion, etc-- shape character. This isn't a new idea, it's as old as the hills (or at least as old as Plato and Aristotle). It does not do so completely, not wholly, but it does, and no one is suggesting that religion gives these individuals a free pass for their atrocities--in fact, a number of people have said quite the opposite, and I certainly haven't endorsed such an absurdity. What's been suggested is simply moving beyond the individual to the wider context. Have I been unclear about this? These events don't happen in a vacuum, and the participants in them are nor isolated Cartesian cogitos.

DarkAngel wrote:What is Islam's stance on abortion?

If I got it right, post-birth it is no problem..

DarkAngel wrote:What is Islam's stance on abortion?

What's their stance on trolls trying to get a reaction?

boudicca wrote:

markfiend wrote:I would agree that all spiritual experiences are at root the same, whether the experiencer calls them "nirvana" or "abduction by aliens"...

This is not to say that such experiences have no value.

I'm not just referring to "experiences" though Mark - "alpha states" and whatnot. I mean even through cold, dry academic study - the similarities still become increasingly apparent. Those who do engage in wars and polemics over their chosen religion are invariably missing the point. That's not to say that the point of every (or indeed any) belief system is peace love and grooviness man, rather that they all come from the same root - human consciousness and intelligence, which is the same from race to race and society to society. What creates barbarism and comparative enlightenment is a host of political and economic factors which either prohibit or encourage backwardness.

But at the core, I believe that all mysticism is an attempt to enter "altered states of consciousness" for want of a better phrase. The reason that the trappings look similar the deeper one gets into it, is that there are a limited number of core techniques for achieving "oneness with the infinite". The problem, in my view, comes when these techniques become buried by their own trappings and fripperies, and "the faithful" forget that there was anything other than the trappings and fripperies, and the trappings and fripperies become a religion...

Anyway, the argument has moved on; while I do agree that ultimately everyone must accept responsibility for their own actions, it can be the case that religious beliefs legitimise abuses.

I like Dawkins' idea of memes to describe various thought patterns like religions; the memes survive at the expense of their carriers. It does not matter to the religion that its believers are suffering as long as the religion can spread to new believers. (I'm aware that this picture runs the danger of anthropomorphising the belief itself; but in simplified terms, memetic evolution behaves as if the memes are aware, self-interested entities.)

Another of Dawkins' ideas is that the moderates of any religion are as culpable as the extremists. Ideas and beliefs are marked "Holy- Do Not Touch". Behaviours generally not tolerated in other areas are tolerated when religion is the reason behind it. (For example, in the USA, pharmacists are allowed to refuse to dispense birth control prescriptions if they have "religious grounds" for such refusal.) IMO that is simply unacceptable. All ideas and beliefs must be open to question* and criticism. The very idea that irrational beliefs should be unquestioned out of a "respect for religion" is outrageous.

* I confidently predict that someone will post: Is the idea that "All ideas and beliefs must be open to question" itself open to question.

markfiend wrote:"the faithful" forget that there was anything other than the trappings and fripperies, and the trappings and fripperies become a religion...

Oh yes.