The Hazards of Belief

Shrap · 21-11-2015 11:23AM

Thank you. I shall avoid it like the plague. If however, I find any of them wandering the city at lunch hour, I'll be sure to ask them for directions to the elderly, sexless, womanless and childless virgins conference.

Nodin · 21-11-2015 03:43PM

robindch wrote: »

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

One article suggests that the "Gay Mafia" was behind (so to speak) the divisions evident at last month's "Synod on the Family" organized and populated exclusively by a much larger group of elderly, sexless, womanless and childless virgins.

Holy 1930's Throwback Batman!
http://www.catholicvoice.ie/index.php/homepage/news-list

recedite · 21-11-2015 06:02PM

It sounds like the holy church has been infiltrated by new age hippies, global homosexualists and socialists. And to add to this insult, it is happening now on 40th anniversary of General Franco's death. If only he was still around, he'd know how to make all these problems "disappear".

Forty years after the death of General Francisco Franco, churches across Spain are holding special masses in homage to the military dictator, drawing strident criticism from relations of the hundreds of thousands of people who were killed or disappeared during the civil war and his 36-year-rule.

Starting on Wednesday and continuing through Friday’s anniversary of the dictator’s death, at least 16 Catholic churches across the country were due to hold services in Franco’s honour, including the basilica at the Valley of the Fallen, where the man many still refer to as the Generalissimo is buried in a monumental tomb built by political prisoners.

robindch · 21-11-2015 06:16PM

Shrap wrote: »

Thank you. I shall avoid it like the plague.

I have a suspicion that Popette might be there - probably a wise idea to skip town.

Shrap · 21-11-2015 06:54PM

robindch wrote: »

I have a suspicion that Popette might be there - probably a wise idea to skip town.

Oh, shame I missed bumping into her! Actually managed to navigate Limerick without succumbing to the need to engage with the "What does god think of war" stand just down the main street from the conference. Well done me. Chalk up another victory for restraint :P

recedite · 21-11-2015 07:45PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, that would make them "not the real Islam". The Qu'ran speaks of itself as a book containing some passages that are muḥkam, or clear in meaning, and other that are mutashabih - symbolic, allegorical, or ambiguous. Islam’s extensive interpretative tradition exists precisely for this reawon - the differences between plain and hidden, elliptical and direct, absolute and qualified, are not always obvious.

So anyone taking an approach analogous to that taken by Christian biblical literalists is (a) ignoring what the Qu'ran itself says, and (b) departing fairly radically from long-established Islamic approaches to reading the Qu'ran. Fairly clearly, they're adopting a hermeneutic which is both distinctively western, and distinctively modern. So I think there's a pretty strong case for saying that, up, that's not the real Islam.

Here's a couple of reasons why all the above is just PC bolloxology;

1. Islam is very much a literalist religion. All passages are to be taken literally. If there is any conflict or doubt between two verses, the newer "revelation" supersedes the older one. The newer ones tend to be the more violent ones, but the older ones are more often quoted to the western media by Islamicists.

2.Those that are muhkam (clear in meaning) have priority over those that could be open to interpretation. That is the only reason for the term muhkam.

3. According to the doctrine of taqiyya, a muslim may hide the truth from the infidel, in order to further the aims of Islam and hasten the glorious day when the whole world lives under Sharia Law. This kind of deception is especially applicable to muslims living in western countries where disclosing the truth could be damaging to themselves or their aims. Thus Islam is one of the few religions to openly advocate lying (though I believe the Jesuits come close too)
More on that here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb7lhUNqHsg

4. Next time you hear a "moderate" quoting a passage from the Koran saying that "the killing of one man is like the killing of all mankind" or some such pacifist quote, bear in mind that he is legitimately deceiving you, and that the passage actually applies to the jews, not muslims. The verse following it specifies that the punishment for those who kill a muslim or "make mischief" against an islamic state is crucifixion or death.
More on that here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur7Ttz0q0o4

MrPudding · 22-11-2015 09:30AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

As for elite clerical classes controlling the interpretation of Islam, I think you're projecting the characteristics of Christianity onto Islam. Islam is very non-hierarchical, and there are no religious authorities who claim anything like the magisterium claimed by bishops and popes.

This cuts both ways, of course. One of the problems that Islam currently faces is that there are no religious figures with the authority to decree that interpretations and understandings of Islam offered by violent extremists are wrong. They can say they disagree with them, and they can appeal to their reputation, learning, scholarship etc to suggest that others should take their views seriously. But they have no authority to tell people what to believe. Each Muslim decides for himself which (if any) imam he will attend to. So that's not an environment which is well-adapted to the emergence of a controlling clerical class.

P, I think you need to have a word with the Admins. I think someone has hacked your account.

There is another thread where some guy, using your account, is arguing that if a person considers themselves a catholic, even when they don't believe Mary was a virgin, they don't believe bread turns into actual flesh of Jesus, they think the pope is a douche, they support same sex marriage, enjoy (often frequently) sex before marriage, use and believe in the use of contraception, believe abortion is ok in many circumstance and, and this is the big one, don't even actually believe in god, then who are we to say they aren't a catholic.

Given what you are saying here in respect to these scum calling themselves muslim and what that other guy is saying about people calling themselves catholic, I can only assume you account has been hacked.

MrP

Nodin · 22-11-2015 12:26PM

recedite wrote: »

Here's a couple of reasons why all the above is just PC bolloxology;

1. Islam is very much a literalist religion. All passages are to be taken literally. If there is any conflict or doubt between two verses, the newer "revelation" supersedes the older one. The newer ones tend to be the more violent ones, but the older ones are more often quoted to the western media by Islamicists.

2.Those that are muhkam (clear in meaning) have priority over those that could be open to interpretation. That is the only reason for the term muhkam.

3. According to the doctrine of taqiyya, a muslim may hide the truth from the infidel, in order to further the aims of Islam and hasten the glorious day when the whole world lives under Sharia Law. This kind of deception is especially applicable to muslims living in western countries where disclosing the truth could be damaging to themselves or their aims. Thus Islam is one of the few religions to openly advocate lying (though I believe the Jesuits come close too)
More on that here...

4. Next time you hear a "moderate" quoting a passage from the Koran saying that "the killing of one man is like the killing of all mankind" or some such pacifist quote, bear in mind that he is legitimately deceiving you, and that the passage actually applies to the jews, not muslims. The verse following it specifies that the punishment for those who kill a muslim or "make mischief" against an islamic state is crucifixion or death.
More on that here...

Thankfully I'm old now, and not so afflicted with a hair trigger temper as I once was. Taqqiya is a Shia concept, not really recognised by Sunnis, conceived to survive Sunni persecution centuries ago. The majority of muslims are Sunni, the vast majority of European Sunnis are Sunni, and all the Jihadi groups are Sunni. I'd suggest learning these useful real-world facts before playing the Koran quotations version of top trumps.

silverharp · 22-11-2015 01:22PM

Sam Harris on the "Religion of Peace" , he goes with Jainism :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfKLV6rmLxE

recedite · 22-11-2015 02:26PM

Nodin wrote: »

Taqqiya is a Shia concept, not really recognised by Sunnis....the vast majority of European Sunnis are Sunni, and all the Jihadi groups are Sunni.

And yet....

Recently, ISIS has published training manuals that encourage taqiya be used in order to hide prospective terrorists' religion from the authorities.[42]
In 2004, Lebanese Druze scholar Sami Makarem published the monograph Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam ("Dissimulation in Islam"), arguing that the concept should be considered "mainstream" and ubiquitous in modern Islamic politics,
"Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream...Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era." (p. 7, trans. Raymond Ibrahim). Since the 2000s, taqiyya has become a frequently invoked concept in debates surrounding criticism of Islam and especially Islamic extremism. Islamic scholars tend to emphasize that taqiyya is only permissible under duress, and that the inflationary use of the term qualifies as "a staple of right-wing Islamophobia in North America" (Mohammad Fadel 2013), or "Taqiyya libel against Muslims"[43] while their critics accuse them of practicing "taqiyya about taqiyya" (Raymond Ibrahim, 2014)

Of course, that whole wiki article could itself be a kind of reverse "taqiyya about taqiyya". I have no intention of speculating any further about this tangled web of deceit, or who is most involved in it. I merely point out that it exists. It is basically analagous to the "mental reservation" which is occasionally practised by RCC clergy.

Nodin · 22-11-2015 04:04PM

recedite wrote: »

And yet....
Of course, that whole wiki article could itself be a kind of reverse "taqiyya about taqiyya". I have no intention of speculating any further about this tangled web of deceit, or who is most involved in it. I merely point out that it exists. It is basically analagous to the "mental reservation" which is occasionally practised by RCC clergy.

Again - its a minority practice unintended for what you stated and IS are not precisely the font of koranic wisdom they might like to be seen as. Your point no 3 did rather more than "merely point out that it exists"

Peregrinus · 23-11-2015 12:50AM

MrPudding wrote: »

P, I think you need to have a word with the Admins. I think someone has hacked your account.

There is another thread where some guy, using your account, is arguing that if a person considers themselves a catholic, even when they don't believe Mary was a virgin, they don't believe bread turns into actual flesh of Jesus, they think the pope is a douche, they support same sex marriage, enjoy (often frequently) sex before marriage, use and believe in the use of contraception, believe abortion is ok in many circumstance and, and this is the big one, don't even actually believe in god, then who are we to say they aren't a catholic.

Given what you are saying here in respect to these scum calling themselves muslim and what that other guy is saying about people calling themselves catholic, I can only assume you account has been hacked.

I may be very stupid, but I'm not seeing any inconsistency between the two positions you mention. Can you spell it out clearly?

Catholicism: The Catholic church does have an authority structure though which it can decree that someobody is not a Catholic. You and I are not that authority structure, however, and therefore we cannot decree that somebody is not a Catholic.

If it were the case that the Catholic church authority structure had decreed that somebody who thinks the pope is a douche, supports SSM, etc, is not Catholic, then we could certainly point that out. However the Catholic authorities have made no such decree. Therefore, we cannot point to it.

Islam: Islam has no similar authority structure.

Where's the inconsistency in pointing out these two things?

recedite · 23-11-2015 11:52AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Catholicism: The Catholic church does have an authority structure though which it can decree that someobody is not a Catholic. You and I are not that authority structure, however, and therefore we cannot decree that somebody is not a Catholic.

Mr.P's point was about people being allowed and even encouraged to call themselves catholic, when clearly they are in breach of certain doctrines.
If you agree this happens, then there is nothing further to discuss.
We can all agree that in the religion game, turning away members is bad for business.

robindch · 23-11-2015 12:11PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Catholic church does have an authority structure though which it can decree that someobody is not a Catholic.

Yes, they certainly give that impression - but the reality is quite different and the RCC generally uses whatever interpretation is most immediately useful, or what avoids the greatest degree of responsibility.

The RCC defines a concept called the "Primacy of Conscience" which states that each person must decide for themselves what they wish to do + not do, believe + reject - and that this concept stands over all others. They also state that baptism plus some other religious rituals confer the state of "catholicism" upon a believer - but the rituals beyond baptism appear to be necessary or optional, depending on what document one reads. Baptism itself isn't really defined very clearly either in canon law. The RCC also defines that once one is a catholic, one can never stop being one - hence the arguments about removal from the baptismal register and things like that - depending on the religious authority doing the talking, one can learn that the baptismal register is just a recording of an event and that the event can't "unhappen", or that the state of catholicism so-conferred is ontological in nature and can't be undone, or some variation.

In any case, according to the RCC, one can believe and do what one wants and still believe, with the full support of the RCC, that one is a catholic in good standing.

Jesus, who was - let us not forget - jewish and not catholic, and who (if he really were who he is said to have been) could have perhaps foreseen this issue and dealt with it, is conveniently dead and not in a position to pronounce on the Vatican's pronouncements.

Peregrinus · 24-11-2015 01:16AM

robindch wrote: »

Yes, they certainly give that impression - but the reality is quite different and the RCC generally uses whatever interpretation is most immediately useful, or what avoids the greatest degree of responsibility.

The RCC defines a concept called the "Primacy of Conscience" which states that each person must decide for themselves what they wish to do + not do, believe + reject - and that this concept stands over all others. They also state that baptism plus some other religious rituals confer the state of "catholicism" upon a believer - but the rituals beyond baptism appear to be necessary or optional, depending on what document one reads. Baptism itself isn't really defined very clearly either in canon law. The RCC also defines that once one is a catholic, one can never stop being one - hence the arguments about removal from the baptismal register and things like that - depending on the religious authority doing the talking, one can learn that the baptismal register is just a recording of an event and that the event can't "unhappen", or that the state of catholicism so-conferred is ontological in nature and can't be undone, or some variation.

In any case, according to the RCC, one can believe and do what one wants and still believe, with the full support of the RCC, that one is a catholic in good standing.

Jesus, who was - let us not forget - jewish and not catholic, and who (if he really were who he is said to have been) could have perhaps foreseen this issue and dealt with it, is conveniently dead and not in a position to pronounce on the Vatican's pronouncements.

But how is any of that inconsistent with what I wrote about Islam?

(Yes, Robin, I realise it was Mr P who suggested I was being inconsistent, not you. You're under no obligation to defend his position. But I note that, though both yourself and rec have come in on this, neither of you has done so in a way that lends any support to Mr P's position, or even helps to explain it. Is he totally isolated?)

silverharp · 24-11-2015 08:27AM

in the end it comes to the Islamic texts. If you look at every Protestant sect, the worst they can come up with is the Westboro gang, they might treat certain minorities badly but thats about it. Contrast that with the clusterfk of the Qur'an , if you want to mimic Mohammed, kill a Jew.

Peregrinus · 24-11-2015 08:42AM

silverharp wrote: »

in the end it comes to the Islamic texts. If you look at every Protestant sect, the worst they can come up with is the Westboro gang, they might treat certain minorities badly but thats about it.

Well, not really, no. It's not at all difficult to find much worse examples of oppression and violence perpetrated in the name of Christianity than anything done by the Westboro bunch.

silverharp wrote: »

Contrast that with the clusterfk of the Qur'an , if you want to mimic Mohammed, kill a Jew.

When you say "it all comes to the Islamic texts", do you actually mean "it all comes down to this one line selected from the texts because it suits my purpose, but I ignore all the rest of the texts, most of which I have never read"?

silverharp · 24-11-2015 09:31AM

UV

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, not really, no. It's not at all difficult to find much worse examples of oppression and violence perpetrated in the name of Christianity than anything done by the Westboro bunch.

When you say "it all comes to the Islamic texts", do you actually mean "it all comes down to this one line selected from the texts because it suits my purpose, but I ignore all the rest of the texts, most of which I have never read"?

I'm sure they have but as you said you don't have to take them seriously. You can always revert to hippy Jesus.
What's this one line nonsense and the you haven't read the book argument. That seems to be a shutting down debate, impune the source approach? I have no wish to be an Islamic scholar but I can take a view on the religion based on what critics who have studied the Quran or ex Muslims views on the religion they were brought up in.
What exactly is your point ? That it doesnt matter what the foundational books of a religion actually say?

Peregrinus · 24-11-2015 09:50AM

My point is that you don't know what the foundational books of the religion say. If you have taken your view of Islam "based on what critics who have studied the Quran or ex Muslims views on the religion they were brought up in", doesn't that rather suggest that you took your view first, and then sought to reinforce it by carefully consulting only sources that were likely to conform the negative view you already held?

silverharp · 24-11-2015 10:39AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

My point is that you don't know what the foundational books of the religion say. If you have taken your view of Islam "based on what critics who have studied the Quran or ex Muslims views on the religion they were brought up in", doesn't that rather suggest that you took your view first, and then sought to reinforce it by carefully consulting only sources that were likely to conform the negative view you already held?

My only starting position was that something seems quite funky when you compare islam to other poor parts of the world that have different religions. So the hypotheses becomes are all religions the same or does the specific beliefs cause people to behave differently. My view so far is that the nature of Islam reinforces intolerances. Take apostacy as a simple enough thing . does the Anglican church have a similar position to Islam? Can I not have a view on this until I have passed a theological degree in Islamic studies? If you are going to keep reverting to my alleged motivations I'll keep suggesting you are trying to shame me into not discussing these issues and is a cheap debating tactic unbecoming of your good self.

Nodin · 24-11-2015 12:35PM

silverharp wrote: »

in the end it comes to the Islamic texts. If you look at every Protestant sect, the worst they can come up with is the Westboro gang, they might treat certain minorities badly but thats about it. Contrast that with the clusterfk of the Qur'an , if you want to mimic Mohammed, kill a Jew.

There's a line between criticism and demonisation and this would seem to be on the wrong side of it. Muslims don't in general round around killing jews.

silverharp · 24-11-2015 01:27PM

Nodin wrote: »

There's a line between criticism and demonisation and this would seem to be on the wrong side of it. Muslims don't in general round around killing jews.

christians have a book that says you cant murder anybody. Islam has a book that says punishing apostates or unbelievers in an earthly way is possible to the point of death. the fact that most dont is because people in general have their own ethics or they leave those kind of issues to whatever authorities are in place. However to claim that Islam is the religion of peace is a nonsense and it ought to be pointed out.

robindch · 24-11-2015 01:47PM

Andrew Neil launches forth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eP_9kMmOO0

Absolam · 24-11-2015 10:44PM

silverharp wrote: »

christians have a book that says you cant murder anybody. Islam has a book that says punishing apostates or unbelievers in an earthly way is possible to the point of death. the fact that most dont is because people in general have their own ethics or they leave those kind of issues to whatever authorities are in place. However to claim that Islam is the religion of peace is a nonsense and it ought to be pointed out.

Don't Christians also have a book that says apostates should be punished by death?
6 “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend who is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers
7 (namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth),
8 thou shalt not consent unto him nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him;
9 but thou shalt surely kill him. Thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die, because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
By and large, most Christians don't seem to go around killing apostates though.

silverharp · 24-11-2015 11:09PM

Absolam wrote: »

Don't Christians also have a book that says apostates should be punished by death?
6 “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend who is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers
7 (namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth),
8 thou shalt not consent unto him nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him;
9 but thou shalt surely kill him. Thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die, because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
By and large, most Christians don't seem to go around killing apostates though.

it still comes back to the fact that hippy Jesus supersedes all this right? the most any christians seem to be able to get away with is making a few digs at the gheys by using the OT

recedite · 24-11-2015 11:13PM

Absolam wrote: »

Don't Christians also have a book that says apostates should be punished by death?
6 “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend who is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers
7 (namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth),
8 thou shalt not consent unto him nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him;
9 but thou shalt surely kill him. Thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die, because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
By and large, most Christians don't seem to go around killing apostates though.

Old Testament, and also part of the Torah. Probably also incorporated into Muslim holy verses in some way.

But neither Christians nor Jews are obliged by their religion to obey that stuff. Mainly because it has been superseded by newer stuff.
Muslims are obliged to follow "the way" shown to them by the Koran, and the newer stuff in the Koran is even worse than the old stuff.

Absolam · 25-11-2015 12:13AM

silverharp wrote: »

it still comes back to the fact that hippy Jesus supersedes all this right?

Did that hippy Jesus not say
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
and also
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

silverharp wrote: »

the most any christians seem to be able to get away with is making a few digs at the gheys by using the OT

I imagine the Muslims being massacred by Christians in Africa find that very comforting.....

Absolam · 25-11-2015 12:24AM

recedite wrote: »

Old Testament, and also part of the Torah. Probably also incorporated into Muslim holy verses in some way.
But neither Christians nor Jews are obliged by their religion to obey that stuff. Mainly because it has been superseded by newer stuff.
Muslims are obliged to follow "the way" shown to them by the Koran, and the newer stuff in the Koran is even worse than the old stuff.

Hmm. I suspect that some Christians (and some Jews) would say they are obliged to obey that stuff. And some Muslims don't feel obliged to follow all their stuff. Like a certain Muslim pal of mine who clears out my bacon and black pudding every other Sunday morning, after a night on the whiskey. Or just any of the one and a half billion Muslims that aren't busy butchering or oppressing people the same as their Christian and Atheist counterparts aren't, I suppose.

kylith · 25-11-2015 11:12AM

If Christians aren't supposed to follow the OT why is it in every bible? And why do clerics use the OT to justify their stance on homosexuality? If only the NT is relevant to Christians then the OT should have been discarded, surely?

Pawwed Rig · 25-11-2015 11:17AM

The old testament is still valid scripture as Jesus said that the old laws had not changed so smash as many babies against rocks as you like.

The Hazards of Belief

Comments