DescentBB

In religion?

Religion is nothing but compulsion. Since birth \"Believe in [diety] or BBBBBBUUUUUUUURRRRRRRNNNNNN!\"

Thanks for all those options!

She was pretty enough to watch the whole thing, but I'm not familiar with any of the terms, and am not really interested.

load of bs.

Misogyny and genocidal hatred has a home in our univerities.

Ferno wrote:load of bs.

..bloody hell, me and Ferno agree!!!

I don't know nearly enough about the Muslim religion to know about what's real. But I do know that she isn't being prosecuted for having her own view, unlike what a number of forumers here would make it sound like.

Flabby Chick wrote:

Ferno wrote:load of bs.

..bloody hell, me and Ferno agree!!!

Bloody hell, here come the jerries! Man the flak guns, lets show those jerries not to fook with England!

It's common for religions to revise their interpretations of their texts to suit modern times. This can happen because of new scientific information, e.g. Christians now know that the Bible meant that the universe was created in six \"figurative\" days. They now know that the Bible meant that Noah built an ark for a \"local\" flood, and they now know that the Bible meant that the earth has four \"figurative\" corners, and so on. This happens too with issues of morality. Some things, like homosexuality, we don't think are evil, because we really cannot find anything bad in them.

Christians, though, have created clever and sophisticated ad-hoc explanations to exegetically reconcile their text with the modern world. I don't see this as happening so much with the Muslims. Fundamentalist Muslims' beliefs are in constant discord with reality, as they're promised that they will be blessed and that the infidels will be cursed, but the exact opposite occurs in reality. I think that the Muslims would be wise to let some of the Christians' craftiness rub off onto them.

Jeff250 wrote:It's common for religions to revise their interpretations of their texts to suit modern times. This can happen because of new scientific information, e.g. Christians now know that the Bible meant that the universe was created in six "figurative" days. They now know that the Bible meant that Noah built an ark for a "local" flood, and they now know that the Bible meant that the earth has four "figurative" corners, and so on. This happens too with issues of morality. Some things, like homosexuality, we don't think are evil, because we really cannot find anything bad in them.

You should be very careful when putting words in other people's mouths. You might be very surprised. Don't listen to the TV so much.

Jeff,

didn't you used to try to engage in dialog? What's with the trolling recently?

You're right Lothar--forgive my trolling. But here's my point: although the intention of the video was somewhat unclear, one of the things that it seemed to disapprove of was the Muslim interviewees willingness to modernize her religion, which involves taking a different kind of interpretation of her religious text, one that might not always be able to be textually justified. The part about it not always being textually justified is probably a bad thing, but the Christian religion has done a good job of rationalizing what some might accuse of being some pretty big blunders in their text as well, of both the scientific and ethical type. I don't always approve of their rationalizations, but the Muslims are going to have to come up with the same kinds of ones if their religion is going to survive modernity.

Jeff250 wrote:forgive my trolling.

Of course; forgiveness granted.

Might I request that you disengage your trolling in the future?

one of the things that it seemed to disapprove of was the Muslim interviewees willingness to modernize her religion, which involves taking a different kind of interpretation of her religious text, one that might not always be able to be textually justified.

If it's not textually justified, then from an Islamic perspective, it's appropriate to disapprove. Of course, from a non-Islamic perspective, anything people do to shy away from what Muhammed actually taught and move toward a more reasonable interaction with the world is a Good Thing (TM).

the Christian religion has done a good job of rationalizing what some might accuse of being some pretty big blunders in their text as well, of both the scientific and ethical type.

I think the Christian religion, as a whole, has done an incredibly POOR job of understanding their text, which led to many of those blunders in the first place. We don't so much need to "modernize" or "rationalize" (ie, ignore the text and replace it with modern ideals and then force those back onto the text) as we need to work on understanding the original intent. A move more toward what Jesus actually taught and away from the garbage that we've built traditions around would also be a Good Thing (TM).

Lothar wrote:If it's not textually justified, then from an Islamic perspective, it's appropriate to disapprove.

Where is this perspective coming from? Their text? Then it's subject to interpretation too. If it's from tradition or elsewhere, it can also be reevaluated.

Lothar wrote:as we need to work on understanding the original intent

Muslims could work under a similar flag, and if their conclusions just-so-happen to have no gaping discords with modern science or ethics, then all the better. It's going to take a paradigm shift at this point, because they've got some catching up to do.

Lothar wrote:Might I request that you disengage your trolling in the future?

I can't make any promises, but I'll see what I can do.

I'd disagree to some extent with the claim that Christians have modified their beliefs over time. I attend a \"reformed\" church- the beliefs that we follow where further developed during the 16th century, and haven't significantly changed since. That's not to say that most of the beliefs don't date back to Bible times, it's to say that interpretation decisions of \"this part is literal\" and \"this part is figurative\" haven't significantly changed since the 16th century.

Lothar wrote:I think the Christian religion, as a whole, has done an incredibly POOR job of understanding their text, which led to many of those blunders in the first place. We don't so much need to "modernize" or "rationalize" (ie, ignore the text and replace it with modern ideals and then force those back onto the text) as we need to work on understanding the original intent. A move more toward what Jesus actually taught and away from the garbage that we've built traditions around would also be a Good Thing (TM).

Bingo. Too many modern Christians are more interested in twisting the Bible to agree with what they want rather than attempting to understand it in the proper historical and cultural context.

Religion is just organized mass psychosis in a socially acceptable form.

tunnelcat wrote:Religion is just organized mass psychosis in a socially acceptable form.

No... those are called "taverns".