The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them...."

Just_Believe18 said:
^ And your point is certainly valid and has been historically true. However, if you compare how modern Christianity is practiced today versus modern Islam, there is a big difference. Although Christianity still has its extremists that we are still fighting, the religion has come a looonngg way.
Click to expand...

Unless you consider the role American Christian fundamentalist preachers have on Ugandan bigots. There, the sense of how "modern" Christianity has become is probably very moot.

Nonetheless, any increase of specificity over the previous generalization is welcome. I think we could still make more improvements on our notion of 'Islam' with regards to nations, districts, sects and subdivisions (not to mention, neighborhoods, classes and the musings of random 'folk'.)
 
Just_Believe18 said:
^ Some of those comparisons were not fair, yes.

However, I would say that Islam is not a religion of peace. There are many scriptures that point to violence towards "infidels" are non-believers. Nevertheless, the religion can be practiced peacefully. I believe in the good of Muslim people, but I also recognize the extremism that exists within Islam today. There are imams out there who are very powerful and use direct scripture to justify violence towards other people.
Click to expand...

Correct. Those verses of the Sword come after, and thus negate, ALL the verses about peace.

What we think of as extremism, blowing up enemies and attacking without warning, is, according to their Prophet, normative Islam. Where Christianity can be seen as the teachings of an itinerant rabbi, Islam is the teaching of an unprincipled warlord.
 
zoltanspawn said:
I could say that Christianity is not a religion of peace. There are many scriptures that encourage violence against all sorts of 'sinner'. Nevertheless, Christianity can be practiced peacefully. I believe in the good of some Christian people, but I also recognize that there are TONS of Christian extremists. There are prophets out there who are very powerful and use direct scripture to justify violence towards other people.
Click to expand...

"Many scriptures"? Jesus never encourages violence against sinners -- except when the sinners were arrogant hypocrites who'd taken over His Dad's welcoming room.

Christianity is a peaceful religion that can be abused. But Islam is a religion that when it is being peaceful IS being abused. Violence is what it requires.
 
Just_Believe18 said:
^ And your point is certainly valid and has been historically true. However, if you compare how modern Christianity is practiced today versus modern Islam, there is a big difference. Although Christianity still has its extremists that we are still fighting, the religion has come a looonngg way.
Click to expand...

In Christianity, we have to fight those who pursue aberrations.

In Islam, we have to encourage them.
 
Kulindahr said:
"Many scriptures"? Jesus never encourages violence against sinners -- except when the sinners were arrogant hypocrites who'd taken over His Dad's welcoming room.

Christianity is a peaceful religion that can be abused. But Islam is a religion that when it is being peaceful IS being abused. Violence is what it requires.
Click to expand...

I think it's great that you know so much about the Bible that you can really speak with some expertise on the issues. Many Christians might disagree with your opinions, but I recognize that you have reasonable credentials to discuss Christanity at an above-average level.

I could be wrong, but my suspicion is that you simply do not have equal credentials to support your opinions about Islam and its theologies. I don't believe you know enough Arabic...or have made a significant study of Islam...I mean, real study, not just watching a documentary...you must've read a Wiki on Islam or perhaps read a book...but haven't lived in a Muslim country...or mightn't even have just visited a Masjid.

If I'm incorrect and you have some substantial credentials with which to make claims like "Islam requires violence" then I'd like to know more.

But until I'm convinced that you're not simply engaging in Christian Tribalism I'm going to take my cues from more credible sources.
 
zoltanspawn said:
I think it's great that you know so much about the Bible that you can really speak with some expertise on the issues. Many Christians might disagree with your opinions, but I recognize that you have reasonable credentials to discuss Christanity at an above-average level.

I could be wrong, but my suspicion is that you simply do not have equal credentials to support your opinions about Islam and its theologies. I don't believe you know enough Arabic...or have made a significant study of Islam...I mean, real study, not just watching a documentary...you must've read a Wiki on Islam or perhaps read a book...but haven't lived in a Muslim country...or mightn't even have just visited a Masjid.

If I'm incorrect and you have some substantial credentials with which to make claims like "Islam requires violence" then I'd like to know more.

But until I'm convinced that you're not simply engaging in Christian Tribalism I'm going to take my cues from more credible sources.
Click to expand...

I've put in about ten hours since seeing the video, and I can't find any source that doesn't agree that the "verse of the Sword" abrogates all verses about peace. None disagree with the principle that whatever is said later on a subject overrules what was said earlier.

This is theology, so living in or visiting a Muslim country isn't relevant, BTW.

This is perhaps the best take on it:

It is clear, therefore, that this verse is one of self-defense. The Muslims here are commanded to "slay the pagans" who are hostile towards them. It is not a carte blanche to "kill all infidels". This verse is specific to a specific time, and it is not understood by the overwhelming majority of Muslims to be a general call for murder against all those who are not Muslim.
—Hesham A. Hassaballa, Does Islam Call For The Murder of 'Infidels'?

There's also this, which makes clear the need for Arabic to really get into it:

In order to understand the context, we need to read from verse 1 of this surah. It says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriks (pagans) of Makkah. This treaty was violated by the Mushriks of Makkah. A period of four months was given to the Mushriks of Makkah to make amends. Otherwise war would be declared against them. This verse is quoted during a battle, and hence the Qur'an says, "Kill the Mushriks wherever you find them", during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur'an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don’t be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them.
—Dr. Zakir Naik


I'm still digging into it. But I thought that the video, with its highly educated former terrorist and some other scholars, ought to be listened to.
 
Ten hours of Googling and you're willing to make claims about how a religion "requires violence?"

When others, who live their lives in the tradition, claim otherwise?

Okay.

*

Kulindahr said:
This is theology, so living in or visiting a Muslim country isn't relevant, BTW.
Click to expand...

If the practical consequences of theology aren't relevant, I'm afraid the purported requirement to commit violence isn't relevant either. I've assumed we weren't just jabbering abstractly, but were concerned with the real effects Islamic theology has on society.
 
since christians, not muslims, started WW I

and Lutheran/Catholic (Hitler was a catholic) Germany led the way in WW II,

the 2 bloodiest conflict in Earth's history,

I don't understand your point

what's yr position on Shintoism, (that's japanese ancestor worship) is that still dangerous,

decades after pearl harbor?
 
Kulindahr said:
I've put in about ten hours since seeing the video, and I can't find any source that doesn't agree that the "verse of the Sword" abrogates all verses about peace. None disagree with the principle that whatever is said later on a subject overrules what was said earlier.
Click to expand...

I just put in ten minutes Googling ('verse of the sword') and I found this video. There's lots of other disagreements about the Sword Verse abrogating Peace Verses, and other discussion about the nature of Islamic admonitions themselves.

 
rareboy said:
Uh....Ok.........

I wonder if we might hear from an islamic scholar on this subject.

I have a feeling that the above is a rather narrow interpretation of the doctine....rather like asking a southern baptist to define and interpret what the Old Testament means in the life of a Christian.
Click to expand...

I have to differentiate between islam the religion and muslim the people.
Islam = bad, especially the political Islam.
Muslim = most are good.

Therefore the right thing to do is to challenge and make fun of the Quaran itself.
Like we make fun of the bible and nothing happens. What is so special about the Quaran then.
 
barnbuddy said:
since christians, not muslims, started WW I

and Lutheran/Catholic (Hitler was a catholic) Germany led the way in WW II,

the 2 bloodiest conflict in Earth's history,

I don't understand your point

what's yr position on Shintoism, (that's japanese ancestor worship) is that still dangerous,

decades after pearl harbor?
Click to expand...

This is why living in a Muslim country is irrelevant: I'm concerned about what the religion says, not what some adherents do. Only once what the religion says is known can any critique be valid.

I have no position on Shintoism. I've heard no claims that it's a threat to 'Western' civilization, nor have I read that any of its adherents think all Jews and Christians must be killed.

As for research, I've read two books on Islam and one on the life of Mohammed. The latter is not something that encourages me to think Islam is anything peaceful or honorable, nor is the one historical book about Islam -- both their Prophet and their history are full of violence.
 
Telstra said:
I have to differentiate between islam the religion and muslim the people.
Islam = bad, especially the political Islam.
Muslim = most are good.

Therefore the right thing to do is to challenge and make fun of the Quaran itself.
Like we make fun of the bible and nothing happens. What is so special about the Quaran then.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of a questions I've had: what the frak do Muslims care what non-Muslims say about their Prophet? I've never understood how anyone should be guilty of blasphemy unless he's a believer.
 
Kulindahr said:
This is why living in a Muslim country is irrelevant: I'm concerned about what the religion says, not what some adherents do. Only once what the religion says is known can any critique be valid.
Click to expand...

Okay. If a religion says you must be violent, but then the adherents don't act violently, the problem is dumb and you're welcome to it.
 
zoltanspawn said:
Okay. If a religion says you must be violent, but then the adherents don't act violently, the problem is dumb and you're welcome to it.
Click to expand...

But if some adherents do act violently and pose a threat to your own society, it's a good idea to try to understand why many, many other adherents don't act violently -- and perhaps see what you can do to encourage that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top