Page 8 of 8

Re: An opinion regarding Islam

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:51 pm
by JPCusickSr
outhouse wrote: First nothing is holy, it is considered holy by some.
Being considered as holy by some is quite enough for me to give it my respectful due.
outhouse wrote: In historical context the term is called TEXT not scripture or divine or holy. That is not an academic understanding, TEXT is.
In this case the terminology of "holy" is emotional and provocative and much more fun than being academic, and so is scripture and Divine.

Religion for me is very enjoyable, even when it is trying and difficult then religious application is usually a fun adventure - IMO.

I concede that being academic can be enjoyable too ~ if a person has that kind of an attitude.
outhouse wrote: NEXT, why would a god have to copy mythology and fiction and tell others factual fiction was real ?
God can use anything to reach out to ignorant humans, but none of that means that God would ever truly lie.

Fake stories like Superman and Batman and Harry Potter and King Arthur and etc etc, are all fictional stories which inspire people to a better perspective.

Many people demand that the story of Adam and Eve were factually real, while they completely miss the hard hitting message which that story delivers to me.

I do not blame God for what ignorant people do or believe.

Re: An opinion regarding Islam

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:54 pm
by outhouse
JPCusickSr wrote:Being considered as holy by some is quite enough for me to give it my respectful due.
.
In a historical sense we only deal with text
so is scripture and Divine.
No, scripture is said to be divinely inspired.

But it factually remains unsubstantiated, and all research points to mans hands only.
but none of that means that God would ever truly lie.

If you believe in divine inspiration, then you have to also believe the god was literally stupid and repeated and sold fictional myths, as real events MOST theist believe as real events.

Events which you understand have no historical basis.

The whole term Abrahamic faith is telling because Abraham is a fictional character who factually never existed. And it was obvious the self proclaimed prophets in islam believed these were literal events.

Try getting any muslim to accept the true Israelite history even the factual aspects, is impossible.

Re: An opinion regarding Islam

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:39 pm
by JPCusickSr
outhouse wrote: In a historical sense we only deal with text
That would be leaving out the better parts, and I will never go along with that restriction.

Sourcing only bland and dull history is not for me.
outhouse wrote:
If you believe in divine inspiration, then you have to also believe the god was literally stupid and repeated and sold fictional myths, as real events MOST theist believe as real events.
I reject what most Theist claim.

Technically ~ literally stupid fictional myths are not really lies.

And speaking in metaphors use to be very common for human language, and still today people do love a clever metaphor.
outhouse wrote: Events which you understand have no historical basis.

I will give you the credit that many people feel that way - but I do not.

When I go to any scriptures then I do not look for any historical basis.

Even if (if) Jesus or Muhammad did not ever exist - their words of wisdom certainly do live onward.
outhouse wrote: The whole term Abrahamic faith is telling because Abraham is a fictional character who factually never existed. And it was obvious the self proclaimed prophets in islam believed these were literal events.
No one knows if there was a real Abraham or not, but the message given through that name is the important part of the story.

It is told that Abraham put an end to human sacrifice by obeying God, so who cares if the name or person is real when the human sacrifices stopped?

Priorities sir: Genesis 22:10-14
outhouse wrote: Try getting any muslim to accept the true Israelite history even the factual aspects, is impossible.
[ Repeat statement = Repeat response: ]
The Muslims and the Jews are far more open to such things then are the Christians.

If it were allowed then I would be burned at the stake by all three of the Abrahamic faiths.

The real question here is if you can accept what I say on your own terms, as like I have on my own terms.

I do not need the Muslims to agree with me just as I do not need any Christian or anyone to agree with me, or any of them to use as a reference.

My faith stands all alone - otherwise known as - a personal relationship with God.

Personal relationship mean one-n-one and not a group relationship as in a church or religious group.

I embrace all religions and philosophies, but do not belong to any.

Thereby I am the ultimate infidel.

Re: An opinion regarding Islam

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:19 am
by outhouse
JPCusickSr wrote:
That would be leaving out the better parts, and I will never go along with that restriction.

.

Not up for debate, in an academic setting it is text not scripture

Re: An opinion regarding Islam

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:26 am
by outhouse
JPCusickSr wrote: When I go to any scriptures then I do not look for any historical basis.

.
To me that is missing the complete beauty of the text. As an atheist I often see more beauty then any theist because I understand why and where the text came from, and the true inspiration which factually is 100% human inspired showing the true beauty of humanity which does not need to rely on some made of divinity.

All these authors were doing was describing their thoughts and feeling and emotions in the ONLY terms they knew. Aristotelean prose and myths that had no idea were not real due to their ignorance of the natural world around them. These are epic pieces and the text is not the problem of fanaticism, it factually is the ignorance of theist who attribute their imagination to said text, and have no context of moderation.

Re: An opinion regarding Islam

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:31 am
by iskander
iskander wrote:Timeline: The Ottomans and the Balkans
Chronology :
1300s:
Turkic tribe known as Ottomans forms small state in western Anatolia.

1352:
Ottomans invade and begin to occupy Bulgaria.

1371:
Ottomans defeat Serbs and their allies at Battle of Maritsa.

1389:
Ottomans inflict second defeat on Serbs, now led by Prince Lazar, at the Battle of Kosovo, beginning slow conquest of Serbia.

1402:
Ottomans move their capital from Asia Minor to Edirne (Adrianople) in Europe, signaling their intention to become a major European power.

1453:
Ottomans encircle and conquer Constantinople, ending the Byzantine Empire.

1459:
Fall of Smederevo liquidates last remnant of independent Serbian state.

1463:
Ottomans almost complete conquest of Bosnia, executing last king of Bosnia, Stjepan Tomasevic, at Jajce.

1468:
Albanian warrior prince Skenderbeg dies. Within a decade of his death, Ottomans overrun most of Albania.

1493:
Croatian nobility annihilated at Battle of Krbava in Lika, opening way to Ottoman conquest of much of Croatia.

1526:
Hungarian army crushed at Battle of Mohacs, opening way for Ottoman conquest of Hungary.

1557:
Sultan decrees restoration of Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate, vacant since the 1460s. Return of Patriarchs to Pec stimulates revival of Serbian identity within Ottoman Empire.

1683-1699:
Habsburgs conquer Ottoman-ruled Hungary and Croatia, forging new frontier between “Austrian” and “Turkish” empires. Failed uprising among Serbs in Kosovo results in mass emigration of Serbs to Habsburg Slavonia and Vojvodina.

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article ... -in-europe
Later on, during the conquest of the Balkans, the Turks, with the religious sanction of the grand mufti, took as tribute from the Christian population a percentage of the male children. These became the "slaves" of the sultan. Completely severed from their Christian families, these children were brought up as Moslems and imbued with religious devotion to Islam and loyalty to the sultan.
http://www.theottomans.org/english/camp ... ndex_3.asp

Re: useful information about Islamic manuscripts

Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:24 am
by bskeptic
JPCusickSr wrote:
Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:49 pm
outhouse wrote: Faith is what flew large jet planes into tall buildings.
Their faith may well have sustained each individual, but it was politics which flew into the buildings.

The American propaganda is not very savvy.

If it had been a religious attack then they would have struck religious targets.

I know this is years old, and the posters are possibly long gone, but this is rather foolish...

You can't logically know from the target what the motivation is!! It could just be, that they are religiously motivated, that their religion contains a political dimension to it, and they were religiously motivated to strike a non-religious target.

Re: useful information about Islamic manuscripts

Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:32 am
by bskeptic
JPCusickSr wrote:
Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:05 am
outhouse wrote: I would say [xxx] to say what "real" Christianity is ?
Since I am foremost a Christian then I see that as sufficient for me to judge Christianity.

And that certainly gives me more leverage then you have for judging the great religion of Islam.

:popcorn:

Yeah, not so sure. Thing is, is that people inside of a religion will often be heavily biased for it, which may distort their judgment. Of course people outside of a religion can be biased also, either for or against. I guess we should just look at the arguments, and not worry that much about the person giving them.

Re: useful information about Islamic manuscripts

Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:43 am
by bskeptic
neilgodfrey wrote:
Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:01 pm
outhouse wrote: These genocidal maniacs have been murdering each other since this religion began and have been nothing short of cancer to humanity.
Funny how I never heard of anything barbaric in the news related to the Muslim religion per se until the last two decades. It used to be those "commie" bastards, the Reds, who were all evil. Christians were the ones who had been murdering each other since their religion began. Suicide bombings were as likely to be carried out by socialists, nationalists.... what have you. Suddenly some Islamic terrorists emerge and carry the day and the next thing we know the religion of Muhammad has "always" been such a monstrous evil and will be until it is obliterated from the planet.

This is also a silly line of argument. You didn't hear anything in the news until recently... so what?

Critics of Islam base their case on things like the quran, hadith, behaviour of the early Muslims, mainstream traditional forms of Islamic teaching, and the behaviour of Muslims historically being arguably influenced by that teaching. Yes, they do also point to modern examples of Islamic "extremism".

What modern news reporting has been interested in, just doesn't tell you that much here.

Re: An opinion regarding Islam

Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:21 am
by bskeptic
neilgodfrey wrote:
Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:09 pm
outhouse wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:None of the above proves anything about Islam

.

Just genocide BY islam in the last 100 years. to the tune of millions murdered over sectarian violence
"genocide BY Islam"???? Crack open a history book. Learn a little about the history of the people involved. Don't be misled by such simplistic ignorance of how the world works. Open a book by serious researchers on the causes of Islamist terrorism. Open a book by a serious journalist or scholar on the very human tragedy of current conflicts and the powers responsible. By remaining ignorant of history and the causes of the conflicts you are repeating something akin to fanatical bigotry and misplaced hatred.

But I presume you say that all the wars and genocides committed by the Christian west have been waged and committed "BY Christianity".
Quoting from-

https://institute.global/policy/their-o ... hates-west


"In the new issue of ISIS’ English-language propaganda magazine Dabiq, the group makes its position on the role of Western foreign policy in the Middle East abundantly clear: it is a "secondary" factor.

In a piece entitled “Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You,” the group sets out six points explaining the justifications for their hatred of the West. It mentions, in order, the West’s disbelief in Islam, the prevalence of secularism, atheism, ‘transgressions’ against Islam, military operations, and territorial incursions.

While this ordering alone spells out what ISIS considers the most significant reasons for its actions, the group insists it is “important to understand” that “foreign policies” occupy only a secondary position. “The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam,” the article says."


"Western foreign policy in the region is often presented as the root cause of the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq and for the increase in attacks linked to the group. Not only does this take agency and responsibility away from the group but, as this latest edition of Dabiq illustrates, it ignores the centrality of religious ideology to ISIS’ worldview. This emphasis on ideology is ever-present in ISIS’ propaganda, but the latest issue of its English-language magazine goes to great lengths, adopting a number of approaches, to spell out its disparagement of the West and of Christianity."



Now of course, an academic can still argue, that regardless of what the group(s) themselves say about their motivations and actions, the *real* underlying cause is poverty, or the real underlying cause is Western foreign policy, or whatever else, to downplay the influence of religion. I mean, religion couldn't be responsible for bad things could it be? No, no one is ever *really* influenced by religion; it's all socio-economic-political-whatever, but *not* the "religion of peace" that motivates people to mass murder, and take slaves, and impose "strict" religious law. There has to be a non religious reason for that "strict" religious law that they are so into...

So yes, you can still argue that there is really some other reason for it, and it's not religion that motivates them; but I think we should give quite a bit of weight to what the Islamic terrorists themselves say about their motivations. ISIS hates us basically because we don't share their religion. A group like Hamas hates Israel, because as they see it, once Islam steals your land, it belongs to the Muslims forever. (See the Hamas charter.)