Australian Politics Forum - Typical regressive left gets it wrong again

FD

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 100366

Re: Typical regressive left gets it wrong again
Reply #105 - Aug 4^th, 2016 at 4:38pm

moses wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 3:37pm:

gandalf wrote: Quote:

Thats you dictating what my beliefs are. Well guess what? Its my religion, my beliefs - not yours. And I say it has no place in modern society. And I can give you a whole stack of quotes to back up my belief that the ruling on polygyny has nothing to do with inherent inequality of the sexes, and that the default position is monogomy based on mutual respect and consent.

But the quotes don't matter - all you should be worried about is that my beliefs, and the beliefs of millions of muslims is that Islam is all about equality, peace and goodwill to mankind. And you should be cheering me on, not undermining me. What does it matter to you? I mean you don't even believe in God, so you're in no position to dictate what is and what isn't sensible in Islamic doctrine. Its all nonsense to you anyway.

Yes but what exactly are you going to do about the myriad of teachings, commands and verses, which millions of muslims absolutely believe gives them the sacred right to rape torture and slaughter their fellow man?

Maybe G could apply Sam Harris' account of Judaism to his own religion:

Quote:

Let me remind you that parts of Hebrew Bible—books like Leviticus and Exodus and Deuteronomy—are the most repellent, the most sickeningly unethical documents to be found in any religion. They’re worse than the Koran. They’re worse than any part of the New Testament. But the truth is, most Jews recognize this and don’t take these texts seriously. It’s simply a fact that most Jews and most Israelis are not guided by scripture—and that’s a very good thing.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 55629
Gender: male

Re: Typical regressive left gets it wrong again
Reply #106 - Aug 4^th, 2016 at 6:11pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 12:52pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2016 at 10:24pm:

While permitted there is every chance of regression. And it has ramifications on liberal Values even if the situation may not arise. Simply put, having a clause that allows polygyny still highlights men in a superior light to women as the provider figure in a family situation.

Thats you dictating what my beliefs are. Well guess what? Its my religion, my beliefs - not yours. And I say it has no place in modern society. And I can give you a whole stack of quotes to back up my belief that the ruling on polygyny has nothing to do with inherent inequality of the sexes, and that the default position is monogomy based on mutual respect and consent.

But the quotes don't matter - all you should be worried about is that my beliefs, and the beliefs of millions of muslims is that Islam is all about equality, peace and goodwill to mankind. And you should be cheering me on, not undermining me. What does it matter to you? I mean you don't even believe in God, so you're in no position to dictate what is and what isn't sensible in Islamic doctrine. Its all nonsense to you anyway.

You should say that your quotes don't matter to hundreds of millions of Muslims.

THAT'S where your work is, pal, not here, haranguing the infidel who thinks you are all the same because. You are here arguing in a safe place whereas you should be haranguing the Muslims who would wring your neck for blasphemy.

Go and be a missionary among Muslim, Gandalf. Don't like contemporary Islam? Convert your fellow Muslims, don't waste your breath on the infidels - we don't like Islam by definition. Go and make a difference WHERE IT MATTERS.

Kvetching here day in day out just shows how afraid you are of the people that matter to your faith's shape. Be reminded: Do not be afraid.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 55629
Gender: male

Re: Typical regressive left gets it wrong again
Reply #107 - Aug 4^th, 2016 at 6:18pm

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 4:38pm:

moses wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 3:37pm:

gandalf wrote: Quote:

Thats you dictating what my beliefs are. Well guess what? Its my religion, my beliefs - not yours. And I say it has no place in modern society. And I can give you a whole stack of quotes to back up my belief that the ruling on polygyny has nothing to do with inherent inequality of the sexes, and that the default position is monogomy based on mutual respect and consent.

But the quotes don't matter - all you should be worried about is that my beliefs, and the beliefs of millions of muslims is that Islam is all about equality, peace and goodwill to mankind. And you should be cheering me on, not undermining me. What does it matter to you? I mean you don't even believe in God, so you're in no position to dictate what is and what isn't sensible in Islamic doctrine. Its all nonsense to you anyway.

Yes but what exactly are you going to do about the myriad of teachings, commands and verses, which millions of muslims absolutely believe gives them the sacred right to rape torture and slaughter their fellow man?

Maybe G could apply Sam Harris' account of Judaism to his own religion:

Quote:

Let me remind you that parts of Hebrew Bible—books like Leviticus and Exodus and Deuteronomy—are the most repellent, the most sickeningly unethical documents to be found in any religion. They’re worse than the Koran. They’re worse than any part of the New Testament. But the truth is, most Jews recognize this and don’t take these texts seriously. It’s simply a fact that most Jews and most Israelis are not guided by scripture—and that’s a very good thing.

Jews =25 million? Non proselytising. Orthodox? Say 30% = 8 Million non-proselytising.

Muslims = 1,600 million. Proselytising. Orthodox? Say 30 % = 480 million proselytising.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Typical regressive left gets it wrong again
Reply #108 - Aug 4^th, 2016 at 6:21pm

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:26am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:24am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:20am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:19am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:15am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:13am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:16am:

Gordon wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 7:25am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2016 at 11:47pm:

FD wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2016 at 11:36pm:

Ever read the Old Testament?

And yet, Israel is one of the world’s more liberal societies.

I blame Yehova, but that’s just me.

A great article on Judiasm.

But alas, you won't read it will you Sad

. It's okay karnal, you can listen to it too!

Https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/why-dont-I-criticize-Israel

I tried to put KaKa onto Sam Harris once. She considers him similar to Jihad Watch

Yes it's a terrible problem for karnal. He tends to not read anything that isn't some kind of pacifist like Robert Fisk. It's a shame that he refuses to read Sam Harris, by far the most rational voice (alive) in all of this.

I'd love to read your links. If you can put up something I can read, it would be much appreciated.

Was the english version not okay, karnal?

Is it a podcast or something I can read?

Copy the link and see for yourself, karnal

Will this be in the test, Doctor?

Quote:

Let me remind you that parts of Hebrew Bible—books like Leviticus and Exodus and Deuteronomy—are the most repellent, the most sickeningly unethical documents to be found in any religion. They’re worse than the Koran. They’re worse than any part of the New Testament. But the truth is, most Jews recognize this and don’t take these texts seriously. It’s simply a fact that most Jews and most Israelis are not guided by scripture—and that’s a very good thing.

Of course, there are some who are. There are religious extremists among Jews. Now, I consider these people to be truly dangerous, and their religious beliefs are as divisive and as unwarranted as the beliefs of devout Muslims. But there are far fewer such people.

Oh goodie, youre reading

Is this your final argument, Alevine?

Judaism is based on far more barbarous texts than Islam, and there are a few extremist religious Jews, but there are less of them than the Muselman?

The final argument karnal is that while the Torah has barbaric text the difference is that many Jewish people recognise this and don't go about trying to live by those words. There aren't Jewish states imposing the words on people. And when I talk with a "moderate" Jewish person they tend to agree that polygyny is not welcome in the modern world unless polyandry is also allowed. Or they disagree with both. But they never tell me polygyny is okay but polyandry is prohibited. But even our moderate Muslim, as you have called him, on this forum can't bring himself to say this. Yet apparently Islam fits with modern liberal ideas. There are verses! It can be proved! Wink

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 4^th, 2016 at 6:46pm by sir prince duke alevine »

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Typical regressive left gets it wrong again
Reply #109 - Aug 4^th, 2016 at 6:30pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 12:52pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2016 at 10:24pm:

While permitted there is every chance of regression. And it has ramifications on liberal Values even if the situation may not arise. Simply put, having a clause that allows polygyny still highlights men in a superior light to women as the provider figure in a family situation.

Thats you dictating what my beliefs are. Well guess what? Its my religion, my beliefs - not yours. And I say it has no place in modern society. And I can give you a whole stack of quotes to back up my belief that the ruling on polygyny has nothing to do with inherent inequality of the sexes, and that the default position is monogomy based on mutual respect and consent.

But the quotes don't matter - all you should be worried about is that my beliefs, and the beliefs of millions of muslims is that Islam is all about equality, peace and goodwill to mankind. And you should be cheering me on, not undermining me. What does it matter to you? I mean you don't even believe in God, so you're in no position to dictate what is and what isn't sensible in Islamic doctrine. Its all nonsense to you anyway.

What another silly argument. I don't need to believe in Allah in order to be able to criticise the ideas that have supposedly come from his mouth. What part of this is hard for you to grasp, as it's the second time you have tried to make this point but it isn't actually a compatible viewpoint with the society we live in, because in our society we have what is called freedom of speech where of course I can be critical of any ideas that are presented, including religious ones.

And I'm not dictating to you what your beliefs should be, I'm simply saying that the belief that polygyny is not necessary in the modern world because we have states that look after orphans is not a liberal belief and is not compatible with a liberal country. The liberal belief has to include equality on this subject.

Anyway, I think your attempt at transposing a few words in the verse is foolish. For one, Muslim countries do not adhere to your interpretation. Secondly, this fruitless aim is doing nothing more than trying to rationalise why a man can have many wives and a woman can't have many husbands in the modern world. Whereas what is really needed is a bit of rational, admitting that these are not the words of Allah in the modern world but rather in historical context, and being able to say that the words were spoken at a time where many Arabian men had orphan girls and married many wives because they were the providers in the household. Given this is not the situation in the modern world then it is okay for a Muslim to forgo these words and still live a life that is deemed good by Allah. that would be a much more valid, rational interpretation, as opposed to "the state looks after orphans so men, fear not, you don't need to spread your wealth over many poor helpless second class women, of your choosing of course!"

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Gordon

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21561
Gordon
Gender: male

Re: Typical regressive left gets it wrong again
Reply #110 - Aug 4^th, 2016 at 7:07pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 6:21pm:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:26am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:24am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:20am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:19am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:15am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:13am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:16am:

Gordon wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 7:25am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2016 at 11:47pm:

FD wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2016 at 11:36pm:

Ever read the Old Testament?

And yet, Israel is one of the world’s more liberal societies.

I blame Yehova, but that’s just me.

A great article on Judiasm.

But alas, you won't read it will you Sad

. It's okay karnal, you can listen to it too!

Https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/why-dont-I-criticize-Israel

I tried to put KaKa onto Sam Harris once. She considers him similar to Jihad Watch

Yes it's a terrible problem for karnal. He tends to not read anything that isn't some kind of pacifist like Robert Fisk. It's a shame that he refuses to read Sam Harris, by far the most rational voice (alive) in all of this.

I'd love to read your links. If you can put up something I can read, it would be much appreciated.

Was the english version not okay, karnal?

Is it a podcast or something I can read?

Copy the link and see for yourself, karnal

Will this be in the test, Doctor?

Quote:

Let me remind you that parts of Hebrew Bible—books like Leviticus and Exodus and Deuteronomy—are the most repellent, the most sickeningly unethical documents to be found in any religion. They’re worse than the Koran. They’re worse than any part of the New Testament. But the truth is, most Jews recognize this and don’t take these texts seriously. It’s simply a fact that most Jews and most Israelis are not guided by scripture—and that’s a very good thing.

Of course, there are some who are. There are religious extremists among Jews. Now, I consider these people to be truly dangerous, and their religious beliefs are as divisive and as unwarranted as the beliefs of devout Muslims. But there are far fewer such people.

Oh goodie, youre reading

Is this your final argument, Alevine?

Judaism is based on far more barbarous texts than Islam, and there are a few extremist religious Jews, but there are less of them than the Muselman?

The final argument karnal is that while the Torah has barbaric text the difference is that many Jewish people recognise this and don't go about trying to live by those words. There aren't Jewish states imposing the words on people. And when I talk with a "moderate" Jewish person they tend to agree that polygyny is not welcome in the modern world unless polyandry is also allowed. Or they disagree with both. But they never tell me polygyny is okay but polyandry is prohibited. But even our moderate Muslim, as you have called him, on this forum can't bring himself to say this. Yet apparently Islam fits with modern liberal ideas. There are verses! It can be proved! Wink

The way I heard it reduced to a fine point.
All the bad stuff in the Bible and Torah are stories.
The quran and hadith are style guides on how Momo lived, and how Muslims should live.

Back to top

IBI

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Typical regressive left gets it wrong again
Reply #111 - Aug 4^th, 2016 at 7:22pm

Gordon wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 7:07pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 6:21pm:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:26am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:24am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:20am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:19am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:15am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:13am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:16am:

Gordon wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 7:25am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2016 at 11:47pm:

FD wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2016 at 11:36pm:

Ever read the Old Testament?

And yet, Israel is one of the world’s more liberal societies.

I blame Yehova, but that’s just me.

A great article on Judiasm.

But alas, you won't read it will you Sad

. It's okay karnal, you can listen to it too!

Https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/why-dont-I-criticize-Israel

I tried to put KaKa onto Sam Harris once. She considers him similar to Jihad Watch

Yes it's a terrible problem for karnal. He tends to not read anything that isn't some kind of pacifist like Robert Fisk. It's a shame that he refuses to read Sam Harris, by far the most rational voice (alive) in all of this.

I'd love to read your links. If you can put up something I can read, it would be much appreciated.

Was the english version not okay, karnal?

Is it a podcast or something I can read?

Copy the link and see for yourself, karnal

Will this be in the test, Doctor?

Quote:

Let me remind you that parts of Hebrew Bible—books like Leviticus and Exodus and Deuteronomy—are the most repellent, the most sickeningly unethical documents to be found in any religion. They’re worse than the Koran. They’re worse than any part of the New Testament. But the truth is, most Jews recognize this and don’t take these texts seriously. It’s simply a fact that most Jews and most Israelis are not guided by scripture—and that’s a very good thing.

Of course, there are some who are. There are religious extremists among Jews. Now, I consider these people to be truly dangerous, and their religious beliefs are as divisive and as unwarranted as the beliefs of devout Muslims. But there are far fewer such people.

Oh goodie, youre reading

Is this your final argument, Alevine?

Judaism is based on far more barbarous texts than Islam, and there are a few extremist religious Jews, but there are less of them than the Muselman?

The final argument karnal is that while the Torah has barbaric text the difference is that many Jewish people recognise this and don't go about trying to live by those words. There aren't Jewish states imposing the words on people. And when I talk with a "moderate" Jewish person they tend to agree that polygyny is not welcome in the modern world unless polyandry is also allowed. Or they disagree with both. But they never tell me polygyny is okay but polyandry is prohibited. But even our moderate Muslim, as you have called him, on this forum can't bring himself to say this. Yet apparently Islam fits with modern liberal ideas. There are verses! It can be proved! Wink

The way I heard it reduced to a fine point.
All the bad stuff in the Bible and Torah are stories.
The quran and hadith are style guides on how Momo lived, and how Muslims should live.

Exactly.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Gordon

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21561
Gordon
Gender: male

Re: Typical regressive left gets it wrong again
Reply #112 - Aug 4^th, 2016 at 7:33pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 7:22pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 7:07pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 6:21pm:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:26am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:24am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:20am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:19am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:15am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:13am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:16am:

Gordon wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 7:25am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2016 at 11:47pm:

FD wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2016 at 11:36pm:

Ever read the Old Testament?

And yet, Israel is one of the world’s more liberal societies.

I blame Yehova, but that’s just me.

A great article on Judiasm.

But alas, you won't read it will you Sad

. It's okay karnal, you can listen to it too!

Https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/why-dont-I-criticize-Israel

I tried to put KaKa onto Sam Harris once. She considers him similar to Jihad Watch

Yes it's a terrible problem for karnal. He tends to not read anything that isn't some kind of pacifist like Robert Fisk. It's a shame that he refuses to read Sam Harris, by far the most rational voice (alive) in all of this.

I'd love to read your links. If you can put up something I can read, it would be much appreciated.

Was the english version not okay, karnal?

Is it a podcast or something I can read?

Copy the link and see for yourself, karnal

Will this be in the test, Doctor?

Quote:

Let me remind you that parts of Hebrew Bible—books like Leviticus and Exodus and Deuteronomy—are the most repellent, the most sickeningly unethical documents to be found in any religion. They’re worse than the Koran. They’re worse than any part of the New Testament. But the truth is, most Jews recognize this and don’t take these texts seriously. It’s simply a fact that most Jews and most Israelis are not guided by scripture—and that’s a very good thing.

Of course, there are some who are. There are religious extremists among Jews. Now, I consider these people to be truly dangerous, and their religious beliefs are as divisive and as unwarranted as the beliefs of devout Muslims. But there are far fewer such people.

Oh goodie, youre reading

Is this your final argument, Alevine?

Judaism is based on far more barbarous texts than Islam, and there are a few extremist religious Jews, but there are less of them than the Muselman?

The final argument karnal is that while the Torah has barbaric text the difference is that many Jewish people recognise this and don't go about trying to live by those words. There aren't Jewish states imposing the words on people. And when I talk with a "moderate" Jewish person they tend to agree that polygyny is not welcome in the modern world unless polyandry is also allowed. Or they disagree with both. But they never tell me polygyny is okay but polyandry is prohibited. But even our moderate Muslim, as you have called him, on this forum can't bring himself to say this. Yet apparently Islam fits with modern liberal ideas. There are verses! It can be proved! Wink

The way I heard it reduced to a fine point.
All the bad stuff in the Bible and Torah are stories.
The quran and hadith are style guides on how Momo lived, and how Muslims should live.

Exactly.

The thing I like about Sam is he rephrases and clarifies a lot of thoughts I have on a subject.

I had a notion about conservative Islam being the tide and violent jihad being the boat raised by the tide.
He came up with the concentric circles idea

Back to top

IBI

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Typical regressive left gets it wrong again
Reply #113 - Aug 4^th, 2016 at 8:10pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 6:30pm:

What another silly argument. I don't need to believe in Allah in order to be able to criticise the ideas that have supposedly come from his mouth. What part of this is hard for you to grasp

Alevine, you are not merely criticising the texts, you are going out of your way to attack muslims like me and the Khans by insisting that if we want to be "compatible" as a muslim in the modern world, then the only option is to reject the Quran as the word of God. Thats what is so hard for me to grasp - this shoving of beliefs down my throat and screaming "this is the only way to be a 'good' muslim". Its really not far behind Yadda and moses' good ol' "you are either an honest murderer/terrorist - or your a liar" mantra. Really, the argument over specifics like orphans is rather irrelevant when your starting point is that not only it is a fact that the Quran is incompatible with modern liberal values - but that it is inconceivable that muslims don't know and understand this (see the rant in the OP). You simply refuse to allow muslims the freedom of deciding their own beliefs (at least not without attacking them as insincere), and thats why we won't get any traction on this. But don't worry, you're in good company here.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

FD

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 100366

Re: Typical regressive left gets it wrong again
Reply #114 - Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:03pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 6:21pm:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:26am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:24am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:20am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:19am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:15am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:13am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:16am:

Gordon wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 7:25am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2016 at 11:47pm:

FD wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2016 at 11:36pm:

Ever read the Old Testament?

And yet, Israel is one of the world’s more liberal societies.

I blame Yehova, but that’s just me.

A great article on Judiasm.

But alas, you won't read it will you Sad

. It's okay karnal, you can listen to it too!

Https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/why-dont-I-criticize-Israel

I tried to put KaKa onto Sam Harris once. She considers him similar to Jihad Watch

Yes it's a terrible problem for karnal. He tends to not read anything that isn't some kind of pacifist like Robert Fisk. It's a shame that he refuses to read Sam Harris, by far the most rational voice (alive) in all of this.

I'd love to read your links. If you can put up something I can read, it would be much appreciated.

Was the english version not okay, karnal?

Is it a podcast or something I can read?

Copy the link and see for yourself, karnal

Will this be in the test, Doctor?

Quote:

Let me remind you that parts of Hebrew Bible—books like Leviticus and Exodus and Deuteronomy—are the most repellent, the most sickeningly unethical documents to be found in any religion. They’re worse than the Koran. They’re worse than any part of the New Testament. But the truth is, most Jews recognize this and don’t take these texts seriously. It’s simply a fact that most Jews and most Israelis are not guided by scripture—and that’s a very good thing.

Of course, there are some who are. There are religious extremists among Jews. Now, I consider these people to be truly dangerous, and their religious beliefs are as divisive and as unwarranted as the beliefs of devout Muslims. But there are far fewer such people.

Oh goodie, youre reading

Is this your final argument, Alevine?

Judaism is based on far more barbarous texts than Islam, and there are a few extremist religious Jews, but there are less of them than the Muselman?

The final argument karnal is that while the Torah has barbaric text the difference is that many Jewish people recognise this and don't go about trying to live by those words. There aren't Jewish states imposing the words on people. Wink

Then we agree.

Polygamy, on the other hand, is supported as an aspect of liberalism in a few places. Mormons often use liberalism to defend polygamy (along with their guns). Back in the good old days of the sexual revolution, studs like Jack Thompson became the talk of the town for having two "wives". The Women’s Weekly loved him for it.

It sold plenty of magazines, you see - women’s magazines.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Typical regressive left gets it wrong again
Reply #115 - Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:41pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 8:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 6:30pm:

What another silly argument. I don't need to believe in Allah in order to be able to criticise the ideas that have supposedly come from his mouth. What part of this is hard for you to grasp

Alevine, you are not merely criticising the texts, you are going out of your way to attack muslims like me and the Khans by insisting that if we want to be "compatible" as a muslim in the modern world, then the only option is to reject the Quran as the word of God. Thats what is so hard for me to grasp - this shoving of beliefs down my throat and screaming "this is the only way to be a 'good' muslim". Its really not far behind Yadda and moses' good ol' "you are either an honest murderer/terrorist - or your a liar" mantra. Really, the argument over specifics like orphans is rather irrelevant when your starting point is that not only it is a fact that the Quran is incompatible with modern liberal values - but that it is inconceivable that muslims don't know and understand this (see the rant in the OP). You simply refuse to allow muslims the freedom of deciding their own beliefs (at least not without attacking them as insincere), and thats why we won't get any traction on this. But don't worry, you're in good company here.

Gandalf, a very simple yes or no is fine here: do you agree that the notion of polygyny for the sake of supporting many women and their "orphaned" children (which makes no sense as how can an orphan have their birth mother present in the first place) but then not allowing the vice versa of a woman to support many men and their "orphaned" children is fundamentally not a liberal value?

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Typical regressive left gets it wrong again
Reply #116 - Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:43pm

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:03pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 6:21pm:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:26am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:24am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:20am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:19am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:15am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:13am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:16am:

Gordon wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 7:25am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2016 at 11:47pm:

FD wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2016 at 11:36pm:

Ever read the Old Testament?

And yet, Israel is one of the world’s more liberal societies.

I blame Yehova, but that’s just me.

A great article on Judiasm.

But alas, you won't read it will you Sad

. It's okay karnal, you can listen to it too!

Https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/why-dont-I-criticize-Israel

I tried to put KaKa onto Sam Harris once. She considers him similar to Jihad Watch

Yes it's a terrible problem for karnal. He tends to not read anything that isn't some kind of pacifist like Robert Fisk. It's a shame that he refuses to read Sam Harris, by far the most rational voice (alive) in all of this.

I'd love to read your links. If you can put up something I can read, it would be much appreciated.

Was the english version not okay, karnal?

Is it a podcast or something I can read?

Copy the link and see for yourself, karnal

Will this be in the test, Doctor?

Quote:

Let me remind you that parts of Hebrew Bible—books like Leviticus and Exodus and Deuteronomy—are the most repellent, the most sickeningly unethical documents to be found in any religion. They’re worse than the Koran. They’re worse than any part of the New Testament. But the truth is, most Jews recognize this and don’t take these texts seriously. It’s simply a fact that most Jews and most Israelis are not guided by scripture—and that’s a very good thing.

Of course, there are some who are. There are religious extremists among Jews. Now, I consider these people to be truly dangerous, and their religious beliefs are as divisive and as unwarranted as the beliefs of devout Muslims. But there are far fewer such people.

Oh goodie, youre reading

Is this your final argument, Alevine?

Judaism is based on far more barbarous texts than Islam, and there are a few extremist religious Jews, but there are less of them than the Muselman?

The final argument karnal is that while the Torah has barbaric text the difference is that many Jewish people recognise this and don't go about trying to live by those words. There aren't Jewish states imposing the words on people. Wink

Then we agree.

Polygamy, on the other hand, is supported as an aspect of liberalism in a few places. Mormons often use liberalism to defend polygamy (along with their guns). Back in the good old days of the sexual revolution, studs like Jack Thompson became the talk of the town for having two "wives". The Women’s Weekly loved him for it.

It sold plenty of magazines, you see - women’s magazines.

Polygamy yes. Polygyny and no polyandry, no. What is so hard to understand here, karnal?

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Typical regressive left gets it wrong again
Reply #117 - Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:53pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:41pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 8:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 6:30pm:

What another silly argument. I don't need to believe in Allah in order to be able to criticise the ideas that have supposedly come from his mouth. What part of this is hard for you to grasp

Alevine, you are not merely criticising the texts, you are going out of your way to attack muslims like me and the Khans by insisting that if we want to be "compatible" as a muslim in the modern world, then the only option is to reject the Quran as the word of God. Thats what is so hard for me to grasp - this shoving of beliefs down my throat and screaming "this is the only way to be a 'good' muslim". Its really not far behind Yadda and moses' good ol' "you are either an honest murderer/terrorist - or your a liar" mantra. Really, the argument over specifics like orphans is rather irrelevant when your starting point is that not only it is a fact that the Quran is incompatible with modern liberal values - but that it is inconceivable that muslims don't know and understand this (see the rant in the OP). You simply refuse to allow muslims the freedom of deciding their own beliefs (at least not without attacking them as insincere), and thats why we won't get any traction on this. But don't worry, you're in good company here.

Gandalf, a very simple yes or no is fine here: do you agree that the notion of polygyny for the sake of supporting many women and their "orphaned" children (which makes no sense as how can an orphan have their birth mother present in the first place) but then not allowing the vice versa of a woman to support many men and their "orphaned" children is fundamentally not a liberal value?

Simple answer: neither is a "liberal" value. It was a provision for a very particular scenario - a decidedly illiberal scenario. And a scenario, i might add, in which the women were not the bread winners. But don't mistake that for some sort of "Quranic endorsement" of such conditions, merely a sobre statement of what was the reality. Now its not the reality, so it doesnt apply.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

FD

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 100366

Re: Typical regressive left gets it wrong again
Reply #118 - Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:54pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:43pm:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:03pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 6:21pm:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:26am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:24am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:20am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:19am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:15am:

FD wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:13am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:16am:

Gordon wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 7:25am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2016 at 11:47pm:

FD wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2016 at 11:36pm:

Ever read the Old Testament?

And yet, Israel is one of the world’s more liberal societies.

I blame Yehova, but that’s just me.

A great article on Judiasm.

But alas, you won't read it will you Sad

. It's okay karnal, you can listen to it too!

Https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/why-dont-I-criticize-Israel

I tried to put KaKa onto Sam Harris once. She considers him similar to Jihad Watch

Yes it's a terrible problem for karnal. He tends to not read anything that isn't some kind of pacifist like Robert Fisk. It's a shame that he refuses to read Sam Harris, by far the most rational voice (alive) in all of this.

I'd love to read your links. If you can put up something I can read, it would be much appreciated.

Was the english version not okay, karnal?

Is it a podcast or something I can read?

Copy the link and see for yourself, karnal

Will this be in the test, Doctor?

Quote:

Let me remind you that parts of Hebrew Bible—books like Leviticus and Exodus and Deuteronomy—are the most repellent, the most sickeningly unethical documents to be found in any religion. They’re worse than the Koran. They’re worse than any part of the New Testament. But the truth is, most Jews recognize this and don’t take these texts seriously. It’s simply a fact that most Jews and most Israelis are not guided by scripture—and that’s a very good thing.

Of course, there are some who are. There are religious extremists among Jews. Now, I consider these people to be truly dangerous, and their religious beliefs are as divisive and as unwarranted as the beliefs of devout Muslims. But there are far fewer such people.

Oh goodie, youre reading

Is this your final argument, Alevine?

Judaism is based on far more barbarous texts than Islam, and there are a few extremist religious Jews, but there are less of them than the Muselman?

The final argument karnal is that while the Torah has barbaric text the difference is that many Jewish people recognise this and don't go about trying to live by those words. There aren't Jewish states imposing the words on people. Wink

Then we agree.

Polygamy, on the other hand, is supported as an aspect of liberalism in a few places. Mormons often use liberalism to defend polygamy (along with their guns). Back in the good old days of the sexual revolution, studs like Jack Thompson became the talk of the town for having two "wives". The Women’s Weekly loved him for it.

It sold plenty of magazines, you see - women’s magazines.

Polygamy yes. Polygyny and no polyandry, no. What is so hard to understand here, karnal?

I’m not sure, Alevine. I don’t know what those terms are.

Are you deliberately avoiding providing definitions? You like to do that with your references.

Shurely shome mishtake, no?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Typical regressive left gets it wrong again
Reply #119 - Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:00pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:53pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:41pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 8:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 6:30pm:

What another silly argument. I don't need to believe in Allah in order to be able to criticise the ideas that have supposedly come from his mouth. What part of this is hard for you to grasp

Alevine, you are not merely criticising the texts, you are going out of your way to attack muslims like me and the Khans by insisting that if we want to be "compatible" as a muslim in the modern world, then the only option is to reject the Quran as the word of God. Thats what is so hard for me to grasp - this shoving of beliefs down my throat and screaming "this is the only way to be a 'good' muslim". Its really not far behind Yadda and moses' good ol' "you are either an honest murderer/terrorist - or your a liar" mantra. Really, the argument over specifics like orphans is rather irrelevant when your starting point is that not only it is a fact that the Quran is incompatible with modern liberal values - but that it is inconceivable that muslims don't know and understand this (see the rant in the OP). You simply refuse to allow muslims the freedom of deciding their own beliefs (at least not without attacking them as insincere), and thats why we won't get any traction on this. But don't worry, you're in good company here.

Gandalf, a very simple yes or no is fine here: do you agree that the notion of polygyny for the sake of supporting many women and their "orphaned" children (which makes no sense as how can an orphan have their birth mother present in the first place) but then not allowing the vice versa of a woman to support many men and their "orphaned" children is fundamentally not a liberal value?

Simple answer: neither is a "liberal" value. It was a provision for a very particular scenario - a decidedly illiberal scenario. And a scenario, i might add, in which the women were not the bread winners. But don't mistake that for some sort of "Quranic endorsement" of such conditions, merely a sobre statement of what was the reality. Now its not the reality, so it doesnt apply.

but that's not even correct in its historical context! It was never about looking after orphans by marrying the mother (again makes no sense) it was about the epidemic of Arabian men who took up orphan girls and slept with them.

Anyway, I'm not asking you whether the scenario actually exists in today's world, as you have chosen to interpret the verse. I'm asking you whether you agree with the notion that Allah believes a man should be a good provider and look after many women, but a woman can't do the reverse role.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged