Page 8 of 9 [ 128 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

11 Sep 2016, 11:00 am

Ganondox wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Ganondox wrote:

First off, Wicca IS new, it was invent in the 1950s. While it's based around a rival of older paganism, it's still very much a new religion. Then to your understanding of Islam is even more off base. I've studied Islam in college, your idea of Allah is utter nonsense and has absolutely nothing to do with how he is described in the Quran. Like, sexual gratification of his people, seriously? Is this some blatant misinterpretation of "submission"? The main theological difference with Allah and Yaweh is that Allah is strictly immaterial and thus can't have offspring, while Yaweh is more personal.


So a bunch of perpetual virgins for Muslim men in heaven is not sexual perversion. Ok.




This is NOT a part of the Quran AT ALL. The actual description of the heaven is that it's a garden with four rivers, paralleling the Garden of Eden. Obviously you're just regurgitating myths various Islamaphobes have spread rather than studying the religion yourself.


I doubt if I can change your view of that so go ahead and respect a religion that is following immoral tenets and is quite good at producing homophobic and misogynous people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxZXQerkrJE

Regards
DL


The video is inaccurate as it uses a biased population of muslims, most muslims don't believe what the so-called jihadists believe. Again, I studied Islam in university, which gives much more context than some stupid video. It's a myth that the Quran actually says jihadists will be promised virgins in heaven, what it's actually saying is that there are 72 angels who happen to be virgins in heaven. Jihadist iman twisted the words of the Quran and made up the myth that martyrs would be promised 72 wives in heaven for political reasons, it's not actually part of the religion at all. The closest thing to that is a Sunni Hadith (so not part of the Quran) saying martyrs will be promised 72 something (the translation is ambiguous), but the context makes it clear it's referring to a food item (like how the context of the sura of the sword makes it's clear that only the infidels who broke a peace treaty may be killed, not infidels in general). Meanwhile, one of the actual promises in heaven is a fountain of wine which does not intoxicate and rivers of honey. So if anything, you could argue that Islam is based on gluttony rather than sexual perversion. :P


"most muslims don't believe what the so-called jihadists believe."

Look again for the first time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... SPvnFDDQHk

Jihadists likely do not care what the majority of Muslims think. As you can see from those statistics, they sure find a lot of Muslims who think as they do.

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

11 Sep 2016, 11:04 am

BaalChatzaf wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:

Are immoral demiurges like Yahweh, Jesus and Allah, the best that mankind can come up with?

Why do you think we stopped inventing gods and settled for demonstrably immoral ones?

Regards
DL

P.S. Gods are the opium of the people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uEMOeDZsA


We have the natural sciences which have proved to be an overwhelming success.


I agree.

Even our secular law has bested anything that religions have come up with.

Knowing this, why do you think people are still showing respect for immoral religions?

Regards
DL



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,807
Location: USA

12 Sep 2016, 1:30 am

GnosticBishop wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Ganondox wrote:

First off, Wicca IS new, it was invent in the 1950s. While it's based around a rival of older paganism, it's still very much a new religion. Then to your understanding of Islam is even more off base. I've studied Islam in college, your idea of Allah is utter nonsense and has absolutely nothing to do with how he is described in the Quran. Like, sexual gratification of his people, seriously? Is this some blatant misinterpretation of "submission"? The main theological difference with Allah and Yaweh is that Allah is strictly immaterial and thus can't have offspring, while Yaweh is more personal.


So a bunch of perpetual virgins for Muslim men in heaven is not sexual perversion. Ok.




This is NOT a part of the Quran AT ALL. The actual description of the heaven is that it's a garden with four rivers, paralleling the Garden of Eden. Obviously you're just regurgitating myths various Islamaphobes have spread rather than studying the religion yourself.


I doubt if I can change your view of that so go ahead and respect a religion that is following immoral tenets and is quite good at producing homophobic and misogynous people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxZXQerkrJE

Regards
DL


The video is inaccurate as it uses a biased population of muslims, most muslims don't believe what the so-called jihadists believe. Again, I studied Islam in university, which gives much more context than some stupid video. It's a myth that the Quran actually says jihadists will be promised virgins in heaven, what it's actually saying is that there are 72 angels who happen to be virgins in heaven. Jihadist iman twisted the words of the Quran and made up the myth that martyrs would be promised 72 wives in heaven for political reasons, it's not actually part of the religion at all. The closest thing to that is a Sunni Hadith (so not part of the Quran) saying martyrs will be promised 72 something (the translation is ambiguous), but the context makes it clear it's referring to a food item (like how the context of the sura of the sword makes it's clear that only the infidels who broke a peace treaty may be killed, not infidels in general). Meanwhile, one of the actual promises in heaven is a fountain of wine which does not intoxicate and rivers of honey. So if anything, you could argue that Islam is based on gluttony rather than sexual perversion. :P


"most muslims don't believe what the so-called jihadists believe."

Look again for the first time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... SPvnFDDQHk

Jihadists likely do not care what the majority of Muslims think. As you can see from those statistics, they sure find a lot of Muslims who think as they do.

Regards
DL


More biased sources in the format of videos. This is NOT how you learn about a subject. Anyway, it doesn't matter what jihadists think, as we are talking about the origins of Islam, not the views of a modern minority.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

12 Sep 2016, 6:53 am

Ganondox wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Ganondox wrote:

First off, Wicca IS new, it was invent in the 1950s. While it's based around a rival of older paganism, it's still very much a new religion. Then to your understanding of Islam is even more off base. I've studied Islam in college, your idea of Allah is utter nonsense and has absolutely nothing to do with how he is described in the Quran. Like, sexual gratification of his people, seriously? Is this some blatant misinterpretation of "submission"? The main theological difference with Allah and Yaweh is that Allah is strictly immaterial and thus can't have offspring, while Yaweh is more personal.


So a bunch of perpetual virgins for Muslim men in heaven is not sexual perversion. Ok.




This is NOT a part of the Quran AT ALL. The actual description of the heaven is that it's a garden with four rivers, paralleling the Garden of Eden. Obviously you're just regurgitating myths various Islamaphobes have spread rather than studying the religion yourself.


I doubt if I can change your view of that so go ahead and respect a religion that is following immoral tenets and is quite good at producing homophobic and misogynous people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxZXQerkrJE

Regards
DL


The video is inaccurate as it uses a biased population of muslims, most muslims don't believe what the so-called jihadists believe. Again, I studied Islam in university, which gives much more context than some stupid video. It's a myth that the Quran actually says jihadists will be promised virgins in heaven, what it's actually saying is that there are 72 angels who happen to be virgins in heaven. Jihadist iman twisted the words of the Quran and made up the myth that martyrs would be promised 72 wives in heaven for political reasons, it's not actually part of the religion at all. The closest thing to that is a Sunni Hadith (so not part of the Quran) saying martyrs will be promised 72 something (the translation is ambiguous), but the context makes it clear it's referring to a food item (like how the context of the sura of the sword makes it's clear that only the infidels who broke a peace treaty may be killed, not infidels in general). Meanwhile, one of the actual promises in heaven is a fountain of wine which does not intoxicate and rivers of honey. So if anything, you could argue that Islam is based on gluttony rather than sexual perversion. :P


"most muslims don't believe what the so-called jihadists believe."

Look again for the first time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... SPvnFDDQHk

Jihadists likely do not care what the majority of Muslims think. As you can see from those statistics, they sure find a lot of Muslims who think as they do.

Regards
DL


More biased sources in the format of videos. This is NOT how you learn about a subject. Anyway, it doesn't matter what jihadists think, as we are talking about the origins of Islam, not the views of a modern minority.


Islam has grown itself by the sword and not by good deeds, showing just how immoral a religion it is.

You trashed the source of the statistics that come from a well respected source because you do not want to know the truth.

Thanks for taking your head out of the sand for your poor reply.

Regards
DL



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,807
Location: USA

13 Sep 2016, 1:24 am

GnosticBishop wrote:
Islam has grown itself by the sword and not by good deeds, showing just how immoral a religion it is.

You trashed the source of the statistics that come from a well respected source because you do not want to know the truth.

Thanks for taking your head out of the sand for your poor reply.

Regards
DL


You really don't have clue what you are talking about. First off, NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with what we were actually discussing. We are talking about the history of Islam and the nature of Allah, not the attitudes of modern day muslims. Whatever the statistics are they have no effect on that. Second, the source you are giving ISN'T a well respected except among Islamaphobes, in fact the Clarion Project is classified as a hate organization by the Souther Poverty Law Center. Next, the notion that Islam grew based on the sword rather than good deeds is baseless. If anything that better describes Judaism, as they explicitly committed genocide against the native people, while the muslims were specifically commanded not to do that and rather assimilate the native populations. They also brought a lot of good, if nothing else they did wonders economically, philosophically and technologically. But ethically they also brought great strides to the place. The early muslims were persecuted for the same reason as the early christians, their moral ideas were seen as a threat by the rich. That is what motivated the original muslims conquests, it was to grant themselves freedom to practice their religion (and unlike most previous empires Islam required that there be a degree of religious freedom, having non-muslims pay an extra tax rather than be killed), and the empire didn't really expand under the four righteous caliphs, it just absorbed Arabia. It was the latter caliphs who had no real religious motive who did the actual conquest. Finally, I'm not denying what you are saying because I don't want to know the truth, it's because unlike you I've actually studied this subject academically instead of getting all my information from videos from sources with an Islamaphobic agenda. I've also actually lived in a muslim majority country for a good portion of my life, so that's another area where I'm in a better position to talk about this than you are. It's extremely obvious from where I stand that you're just an Islamphobic ignoramus.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

13 Sep 2016, 5:52 am

Ganondox wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Islam has grown itself by the sword and not by good deeds, showing just how immoral a religion it is.

You trashed the source of the statistics that come from a well respected source because you do not want to know the truth.

Thanks for taking your head out of the sand for your poor reply.

Regards
DL


You really don't have clue what you are talking about. First off, NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with what we were actually discussing. We are talking about the history of Islam and the nature of Allah, not the attitudes of modern day muslims. Whatever the statistics are they have no effect on that. Second, the source you are giving ISN'T a well respected except among Islamaphobes, in fact the Clarion Project is classified as a hate organization by the Souther Poverty Law Center. Next, the notion that Islam grew based on the sword rather than good deeds is baseless. If anything that better describes Judaism, as they explicitly committed genocide against the native people, while the muslims were specifically commanded not to do that and rather assimilate the native populations. They also brought a lot of good, if nothing else they did wonders economically, philosophically and technologically. But ethically they also brought great strides to the place. The early muslims were persecuted for the same reason as the early christians, their moral ideas were seen as a threat by the rich. That is what motivated the original muslims conquests, it was to grant themselves freedom to practice their religion (and unlike most previous empires Islam required that there be a degree of religious freedom, having non-muslims pay an extra tax rather than be killed), and the empire didn't really expand under the four righteous caliphs, it just absorbed Arabia. It was the latter caliphs who had no real religious motive who did the actual conquest. Finally, I'm not denying what you are saying because I don't want to know the truth, it's because unlike you I've actually studied this subject academically instead of getting all my information from videos from sources with an Islamaphobic agenda. I've also actually lived in a muslim majority country for a good portion of my life, so that's another area where I'm in a better position to talk about this than you are. It's extremely obvious from where I stand that you're just an Islamphobic ignoramus.


" it was to grant themselves freedom to practice their religion (and unlike most previous empires Islam required that there be a degree of religious freedom,"

Try to start a church in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Thanks for the insults though. You make my case for me.

Regards
DL



Cash__
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,422
Location: Missouri

13 Sep 2016, 7:21 pm

It seems people would rather reinvent and reinterpret their existing god, then make a new one. They are probably just comfortable with what they got, so they tweak the parts they don't like.



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,807
Location: USA

14 Sep 2016, 12:57 am

GnosticBishop wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Islam has grown itself by the sword and not by good deeds, showing just how immoral a religion it is.

You trashed the source of the statistics that come from a well respected source because you do not want to know the truth.

Thanks for taking your head out of the sand for your poor reply.

Regards
DL


You really don't have clue what you are talking about. First off, NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with what we were actually discussing. We are talking about the history of Islam and the nature of Allah, not the attitudes of modern day muslims. Whatever the statistics are they have no effect on that. Second, the source you are giving ISN'T a well respected except among Islamaphobes, in fact the Clarion Project is classified as a hate organization by the Souther Poverty Law Center. Next, the notion that Islam grew based on the sword rather than good deeds is baseless. If anything that better describes Judaism, as they explicitly committed genocide against the native people, while the muslims were specifically commanded not to do that and rather assimilate the native populations. They also brought a lot of good, if nothing else they did wonders economically, philosophically and technologically. But ethically they also brought great strides to the place. The early muslims were persecuted for the same reason as the early christians, their moral ideas were seen as a threat by the rich. That is what motivated the original muslims conquests, it was to grant themselves freedom to practice their religion (and unlike most previous empires Islam required that there be a degree of religious freedom, having non-muslims pay an extra tax rather than be killed), and the empire didn't really expand under the four righteous caliphs, it just absorbed Arabia. It was the latter caliphs who had no real religious motive who did the actual conquest. Finally, I'm not denying what you are saying because I don't want to know the truth, it's because unlike you I've actually studied this subject academically instead of getting all my information from videos from sources with an Islamaphobic agenda. I've also actually lived in a muslim majority country for a good portion of my life, so that's another area where I'm in a better position to talk about this than you are. It's extremely obvious from where I stand that you're just an Islamphobic ignoramus.


" it was to grant themselves freedom to practice their religion (and unlike most previous empires Islam required that there be a degree of religious freedom,"

Try to start a church in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Thanks for the insults though. You make my case for me.

Regards
DL


There are three reasons this argument is asinine. First, those are just two islamic nations. There are other plenty of other Islamic countries with religious tolerance, like Indonesia. Second, you can start a church in Iran. You might be persecuted for it, but as long as it's not considered heretical like Ba'hai you might be able to get away with it. There is some degree of tolerance to religious minorities in Iran like Jews and Zorastorians, though it's far from how we in the West view religious freedom. Finally, this argument makes no sense as it's referring to modern muslims, while the question was about ancient muslims. The Western idea of religious freedom didn't even exist back then.

PS: Pointing out your ignorance to you is not an insult. But if you want to be willingfully ignorant, be my guest.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

14 Sep 2016, 9:15 am

Cash__ wrote:
It seems people would rather reinvent and reinterpret their existing god, then make a new one. They are probably just comfortable with what they got, so they tweak the parts they don't like.


I agree as that can be shown by the myriad of Christian denominations. Most are inventing their own palatable version of immoral gods.

Regards
DL



Lantylam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2016
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 756

14 Sep 2016, 9:27 am

Cash__ wrote:
It seems people would rather reinvent and reinterpret their existing god, then make a new one. They are probably just comfortable with what they got, so they tweak the parts they don't like.


That is probably true to a certain extent. You see it with American Republicans for example who almost see Jesus as a white, gun toting capitalist. They choose to ignore parts of the bible they don't like and to emphasise the parts that agree with their political stance such as hatred towards homosexuals. It is similar with Islam and the Quran.

Many people are now atheists anyway, especially in Europe and very much so in France and the UK where religion is regarded as irrelevant by most people. We just view the Christian god as just another fantasy figure, no different to Zeus, Odin or other mythological gods. Indeed atheists tend to satirise religion with the notion of the flying spaghetti monster "god".

Inventing more gods is just inventing more fantasy / mythical beings.



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

14 Sep 2016, 1:14 pm

Lantylam wrote:
Cash__ wrote:
It seems people would rather reinvent and reinterpret their existing god, then make a new one. They are probably just comfortable with what they got, so they tweak the parts they don't like.


That is probably true to a certain extent. You see it with American Republicans for example who almost see Jesus as a white, gun toting capitalist. They choose to ignore parts of the bible they don't like and to emphasise the parts that agree with their political stance such as hatred towards homosexuals. It is similar with Islam and the Quran.

Many people are now atheists anyway, especially in Europe and very much so in France and the UK where religion is regarded as irrelevant by most people. We just view the Christian god as just another fantasy figure, no different to Zeus, Odin or other mythological gods. Indeed atheists tend to satirise religion with the notion of the flying spaghetti monster "god".

Inventing more gods is just inventing more fantasy / mythical beings.


True.

Perhaps this is a phase that mankind most go through before we turn to the only gods that mater. Ourselves.

Jesus asked, have ye forgotten that ye are gods?

Most did back then and it will take time for modern people to recognize that they are the only gods they will ever know.

Regards
DL



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,764
Location: temperate zone

14 Sep 2016, 2:46 pm

Cash__ wrote:
It seems people would rather reinvent and reinterpret their existing god, then make a new one. They are probably just comfortable with what they got, so they tweak the parts they don't like.


This.
Basically what I, and several others above have also said.

They stop "inventing" gods centuries ago, and they just reinterpret the same monotheistic Abrahamic god different ways.

And that's also what the OP is doing: demanding that we go back to some gnostic interpretation of the same god already worshipped by Christians and Jews.



Grischa
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 22 Apr 2016
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 321

14 Sep 2016, 3:00 pm

whether you create Gods on the outside (orthodox christians, jews, muslims) on on the inside (gnostics), it is all even to me.
the important thing:
after dead ther is no God
there is only Goodbye
you take it with pride or not



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,139

14 Sep 2016, 3:33 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
And that's also what the OP is doing: demanding that we go back to some gnostic interpretation of the same god already worshipped by Christians and Jews.

Well, GnosticBishop also seems to have introduced an interpretation of his own...

... one which apparently obligates him to insert childish ad hominem insults at the end of most of his posts...

Regardless, I fail to see what this interpretation (even the non-insulting kind) has to offer which hasn't been said with greater rigour and elegance by Buddhism... several centures prior to the 2nd century CE invention of Gnostic Christianity...


_________________
Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.

- Daniel Kahneman


friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,547

14 Sep 2016, 8:50 pm

Do you consider Communism to be a religion, in the sense of a personality cult?

Also, weren't Enlightenment ideals personified in figures of Greco-Roman gods, in courthouses resembling pagan temples?

Don't ancestor worshipers create gods, in the act of reproduction, and aren't humanists engaged in hubris?

I mean, none of the people, who you consider to be so superstitious, think of themselves as being the actual deities.

Or, what do Gnostics believe, about magical thinking?

"Magical thinking is the attribution of causal or synchronistic relationships between actions and events which seemingly cannot be justified by reason and observation."
-- Wikipedia

For instance, Communists have said prayers of thanks, to their leaders, for medical aid.

What do Gnostics consider to have creative ability, as in, ex nihilo, or what is attributed to be the first cause of all things?