< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7216 OF 7216 ·
|Jul-01-15|| ||diceman: <Jim Bartle: <It's fascinating how religious fundamentalists think it's their business what other people do in bed.> Such as when the daughter of a famous person is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to preach abstinence to unmarried people, then gets pregnant while still unmarried (for a second time)?>|
All she needed to preach was:
"A roach infested slum tenement, and food stamps in every pot."
Jim would have been all over it.
|Jul-01-15|| ||diceman: Today Obama announced he would take responsibility for all his actions.|
...through a sign on his desk
<Approximately 2-1/2" x 13" in size and mounted on walnut base, the painted glass sign has the words "I'm From Chicago" on the reverse side.>
...the front says:
"The 18 trillion bucks stop here."
|Jul-01-15|| ||al wazir: <arifattar: And yet both Sunnis and Shias have exactly the same Quran.> Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox have the same Bible (modulo translations). Yet they disagree about its meaning and what behaviors it censures or encourages. Most of the wars in Christendom, right up to and including the Balkan War of the 1990s and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine have been between peoples divided by sectarian differences. And most of the fighting now raging in the Mideast is similarly between groups that claim to accept the Koran, but disagree in their interpretations. (In both instances the real *causes* of conflict may be unrelated to doctrinal differences, but those differences are nevertheless prominent.)|
The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that religion, or at least religious differences, cause strife. But there is another, less obvious, implication. Isn't it likely that religious disputation occurred during Mohamed's time? I reject miracles, so I believe that the Koran was composed by human beings without supernatural intervention. If that part of the legend is false, what else is? Just as the Successors of Alexander began fighting over the pieces of his empire as soon as he died, just as the story that Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill came to straightforward amicable agreement at Yalta is now regarded as a fairy tale, so the account of all the Companions being in lovey-dovey unanimity after Mohamed's death sounds like a myth.
|Jul-01-15|| ||Jim Bartle: <.or spending trillions on a "Great Society" we call the ghetto/slum.>|
Once again, totally irrelevant to the subject of what people do in private.
|Jul-01-15|| ||arifattar: <al wazir: so the account of all the Companions being in lovey-dovey unanimity after Mohamed's death sounds like a myth.>
That's exactly the point I am making. The Companions were not in lovey-dovey unanimity. Civil war took place during the Caliphate of Ali (RA). The wife of the Prophet (saw), Aa'isha (RA) went to battle with Ali (RA). There were Companions, whose lives were transformed by the Prophet (saw), who were on either side of that divide. It was a very, very ugly time. And Muslims, particularly among us Sunnis don't like to bring up these issues, precisely because it wasn't pleasant. |
And yet, and yet, the Quran is identical.
|Jul-01-15|| ||Petrosianic: <arifattar>: <And yet, and yet, the Quran is identical.>|
Identical on the page, not necessarily in people's minds. We still have people like Jamal Badawi, a respected scholar, telling us flat out that it means the opposite of what it says in some places.
|Jul-01-15|| ||Jim Bartle: < Same sex marriage was already legal in a majority of states, while the rest recognized civil unions instead.>|
Is that true? All 50 states already had gay marriage or civil unions? That's a surprise to me.
|Jul-01-15|| ||arifattar: <Petrosianic> Sorry I have been ignoring your posts. I have seen a few lectures by Jamal Badawi long time back in the 90s. I really have no context to the issue you are raising. I will have to watch what you have watched.|
|Jul-01-15|| ||arifattar: <Petrosianic> And the issue was about the preservation of the text of the Quran from additions and deletions after the time of the Prophet (saw).|
Of course the interpretations could be many. And many.
I will shortly post an example of a modern (and this is really a modern phenomena I think in Quranic exegesis) interpretation of verses.
|Jul-01-15|| ||Jim Bartle: From findlaw. Seems <tpstar>'s claim that all states had gay marriage or civil unions is incorrect.|
<As of April 2015, the list of states that allow civil unions (as distinct from marriage) stands at four: New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii and Colorado. Other states, including Rhode Island and Vermont, converted all civil unions to legal marriages. Same-sex couples in states offering civil unions or domestic partnerships also may legally wed. It is also important to note that each state's definition of a civil union and its effects may vary.
A growing number of states (along with the District of Columbia) currently allows same-sex marriage, including Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, and Minnesota. California rejoined this list in light of the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which effectively legalized gay marriage in the state.
On the other hand, 13 states (as of April 2015) have laws on the books banning same-sex marriages or civil unions, most of which are being challenged in the courts. Complicating matters, even some cities and municipalities are diving into the debate by passing local same-sex marriage ordinances.
- See more at: http://family.findlaw.com/domestic-...>
|Jul-01-15|| ||arifattar: Chapter 54 (The Moon) Verse 1:
The Hour has come near, and the moon has split [in two].
The standard interpretation of this verse talks about an incident during the life of the Prophet (saw) when asked for a miracle, he pointed towards the moon and it split into two and joined back.
This standard interpretation is really the recognised interpretation of this verse.
But then you have people in the modern era who like to play around with numbers and this is the result:
<The Hour (of Doomsday) has drawn near and the Moon has split. (Surat al-Qamar, 1)
The word “Qamar” means “Moon,” and the word “Moon” appears in the first verse of Surat al-Qamar. There are 1390 verses from that verse to the end of the Qur’an. The year 1390 in the Islamic calendar corresponds to 1969 AD, the date of the lunar landings. This, one of the greatest landmarks in human history, was indicated 14 centuries beforehand. (Allah knows the truth.)
In addition, the word “inshakka,” meaning “split,” is used in this verse. The word is derived from the root “shakka,” meaning “to plow, dig up, to turn the soil...” In the same way, the Apollo 11 spacecraft that went to the Moon also took specimens of lunar dust back to Earth. In that sense, the term “the Moon has split” is consistent with developments in the present day.
Number of verses from the first verse of Surat al-Qamar to the end of the Qur’an = 1390
Date of the lunar landings (Islamic calendar) = 1390>
of course these are eccentric 'interpretations', if you can call them that. And they are not taken seriously.
But just to bring home the point that these exist.
|Jul-01-15|| ||al wazir: <arifattar: That's exactly the point I am making. The Companions were not in lovey-dovey unanimity. Civil war took place during the Caliphate of Ali (RA). [...] And yet, and yet, the Quran is identical.> I think you missed my point. According to you, thirty years passed between Mohamed's death and the date at which the Koran was frozen in its present form. (I'm not disputing that. I don't know enough to have an opinion one way or the other.) Yet in all that time those opinionated, contentious, bellicose people refrained from trying to alter any of the text of the book, which was preserved only in memory and on scraps of parchment. In other words, religious disputation, which is now rife in the Muslim world and has been throughout the history of Islam, failed to cause so much as a syllable to be altered from when it was first recorded, according to you.|
That seems almost as unlikely as a visit from the angel Gabriel.
|Jul-01-15|| ||tpstar: <13 states (as of April 2015) have laws on the books banning same-sex marriages or civil unions>|
Thank you for the correction. This makes the Supreme Court overreach even worse, as same sex marriage was clearly not covered in the Constitution.
We may see some states challenge this with a referendum, probably Texas leading the way. Other states may choose to pass a resolution covering the specific service industry angle being forced upon the public.
|Jul-01-15|| ||Marmot PFL: Open the Koran, which is perfect in its every syllable, and simply read it with the eyes of faith. You will see how little compassion need be wasted on those whom God himself is in the process of "mocking," "cursing," " shaming," "punishing," "scourging," "judging," "burning," "annihilating," "not forgiving," and "not reprieving." <God, who is infinitely wise, has cursed the infidels with their doubts. He prolongs their life and prosperity so that they may continue heaping sin upon sin and all the more richly deserve the torments that await them beyond the grave. In this light, the people who died on Sept. 11 were nothing more than fuel for the eternal fires of God's justice. >|
It could be that taking selected sections out of context distorts their true meaning.
|Jul-01-15|| ||john barleycorn: <al wazir: ...
That seems almost as unlikely as a visit from the angel Gabriel.>
I agree and one must simply have one point in mind: never a story is told with the exact same words with the same emphasis etc. etc..
|Jul-01-15|| ||pawn to QB4: <Other states may choose to pass a resolution covering the specific service industry angle being forced upon the public>.. just out of interest...I know a number of the states back in Mediaeval America used to have laws banning marriage between people of different races. I take it these laws were ruled out of order at some point...I vaguely remember a couple with the apt name of Love were some sort of test case. So what happened when, presumably, "specific service industry" folk got challenged, say, when a couple of different races demanded some disapproving church marry them? Who would the law back on your side of the pond? And did anyone come up with this same line that couples of different races were now the intolerant ones because they wouldn't tolerate other folks' sincerely and deeply held racist principles?|
|Jul-01-15|| ||pawn to QB4: Thanks for that, Marmot. Shocking stuff, really, and I'd be interested in a defence of it by any Muslims on the forum. |
That beautiful passage about how saving an innocent life will be counted as if the person had saved the whole of humanity - can I ask where I stand, as an unbeliever who did once save an innocent life? It might be of interest to my opponent in the other debate: in the event that the Qu'ran is correct. I believe he's a medical man and for all I know he's saved many lives. Doesn't look like much hope for either of us in the eyes of whoever wrote those verses Marmot links.
|Jul-01-15|| ||Big Pawn: <pawn to QB4: Read on. Chap tells us that the pro-gay side pin their entire argument on that. I don't, so straw man.>|
There is a difference between genuinely disagreeing on an argument and setting up a sham argument to be defeated.
You are arguing against <petrosianac's> premise, and you think it's false, but that doed not make a straw man argument.
I say: it's wrong to live a homosexual lifestyle.
Now you can set up a straw man to be defeated (rather than engage in the real argument or premise(s):
Straw man: oh, so you think anyone that is gay is a horrible person? Well I can prove that (straw man) wrong. Just watch me...
This is not what petrosianac is doing. In this example the pro homo side doesn't want to debate my statement, so a straw man is invented just to be defeated.
|Jul-01-15|| ||Jim Bartle: In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled all interracial marriage bans unconstititiomal in Loving v Virginia.
|Jul-01-15|| ||pawn to QB4: BP, it's unusual for you to miss the point so completely.|
I was not arguing against petrosianic's premise. My case for gay equality rests on what I called the argument for freedom. Petrosianic originally told us that he knew what argument the pro gay side used: they talk about genetic behaviour being okay. But that is not my line, it's a weaker line than the argument I wish to make, so the term "straw man" is appropriate.
Petrosianic got it. Why haven't you?
|Jul-01-15|| ||ljfyffe: After over 50 years, Cuba at last recognizes the USA. The American flag will now be permitted to fly over an embassy in Havana, but in return the US President must allow its citizens to have more freedom to travel abroad.
That US citizens now have access to better health care, closer to that already available in Cuba,
may have helped thaw the diplomatic impasse
between the two nations, and bring the US back into the community of nations. Only time will tell.
|Jul-01-15|| ||Check It Out: <BP: NEXT!>
You have missed the point (as with <pawn to QB4>.)
You have also tried to sidetrack the conversation with banal arrogance.
Here's the cliffs notes so you can understand:
My original comment was to the effect that I knew a teen girl who committed suicide after her parents enforced conversion therapy and shock therapy on her for coming out as gay. The parents were crushed and regretted their approach because all they were left with was a dead body.
It is a tale of caution.
Your remarks were to the effect that you would have taught her the power of reason over feelings. That's fine, it sounds good in theory.
It misses the point though. Conversion therapy, shock therapy, messages that your gay teen is broken, wrong, an abomination, etc. These are dangerous approaches and messages that call for caution.
|Jul-01-15|| ||Check It Out: This guy designed an energy net-positive community. If he could do this then couldn't we set these up all over the place producing enough extra energy to eliminate oil dependency?|
|Jul-01-15|| ||perfidious: <CIO....Here's the cliffs notes so you can understand....>|
There is no breaching those bastions of arrogance and intolerance.
|Jul-01-15|| ||perfidious: One voice for the dinosaurs of the far right:
Citing religious belief, clerk in Sioux County, Nebraska, refuses to issue same-sex marriage licenses.
<Sioux County Clerk Michele Zimmerman says she will not issue a same-sex marriage license on religious grounds. The rest of her fellow county clerks say they may or may not like the high court’s decision on gay marriage, but they are sworn to uphold the law and either they or someone else in their office will issue the license.>
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7216 OF 7216 ·