Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Dee.

What is your POV on theism and vice versa?

Recommended Posts

Cyper

 

Only if they want funding from the state. Both are beliefs in one single question - the existance of something.

 

Then, of course, they are free to believe what they want. In the same way as racists are free to believe white people are superiour over black people. My point is simply that racism ought to be destroyed as well as racism since they are on a moral point of view equally bad. Any democratic state has a responsibility against it citizens to destroy both racism and homophobia. Muslims are unfortunately posioning the wells of my society.

What?

 

Anyways, you're just making a bunch of baseless assumptions with nothing to back it up.

 

P.S. it's humorous that you're complaining about intolerance when you are guilty of the same thing TENFOLDS.

 

 

What I meant was that someone who holds the view that marriage is reserved only between a man and a women does not behave morally better than someone who believes that marriage is reserved for white people only. The first claim belief has its basis in skin color, the second on sexuality. Both is equally bad. Both is discrimination.

 

Then;

 

1: Do you mean to say that wanting to destroy racism or homophobia is an act of intolerance?

 

2. Do you believe that the state has any responsibility to treat its citizens equally and protect them from harm?

 

3: You are to tell me what baseless assumptions I have just made - or else that is just what you have made yourself.

Edited by Cyper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flesh-n-Bone

Do you mean to say that wanting to destroy racism or homophobia is an act of intolerance?

No, but the fact that you're generalizing an entire group of people for something that you have no date to back-up with is an act of intolerance and prejudice. Furthermore, fighting intolerance with intolerance is completely ineffective. You cannot force people to change their mind on something, it has to come from within. Racism is a problem in Sweden because of people like you who generalize everyone who is Muslim as bad. Homophobia is a complete non-issue here. Gays have their rights and I haven't heard any stories of them being harassed or harmed for that mere fact in eons. I have plenty of Muslim friends and while most of them wouldn't actively voice their support for gay rights, their actual stance is complete indifference. They don't care about it and they wont protest it. Which is all one could ask for. I happen to be in the same boat where I wont show any support but I'm not opposed to gays either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slam_Jones

Personally, I'm more agnostic than atheist. Maybe there's a God, maybe not. Either way, in my opinion, it doesn't affect us, so why bother worrying about it?

 

You can worship your God or Gods as much as you want, and I won't care. Do you. But try to suck me into it, and I'll let you know how I really feel about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

I'm unfortunately having to post on my phone which was/is already a pain in the arse to construct a contribution of which meets your apparent desired standards in Gen Chat, let alone dealing with baiting trolls like make total destruction with their insufferable, antagonising and exhausted inputs, but all my intention was was to put something to sivispacem, which I'd like to think I did in a reasonable fashion to express my observation of how the so-called progressives seem to be vocally silent in their condemnation of Islamic extremism- an ideology which completely conflicts with the principles these so-called progressives claim to champion.

Didn't we just establish that Communists lead the fight against ISIS? I can't speak for 'progressives' because I'm not one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

I'm unfortunately having to post on my phone which was/is already a pain in the arse to construct a contribution of which meets your apparent desired standards in Gen Chat, let alone dealing with baiting trolls like make total destruction with their insufferable, antagonising and exhausted inputs, but all my intention was was to put something to sivispacem, which I'd like to think I did in a reasonable fashion to express my observation of how the so-called progressives seem to be vocally silent in their condemnation of Islamic extremism- an ideology which completely conflicts with the principles these so-called progressives claim to champion.

Didn't we just establish that Communists lead the fight against ISIS? I can't speak for 'progressives' because I'm not one.

 

That's just dishonest. The idea that communists are leading the fight against ISIS is pretty tenuous given the fact that Shiite militia groups and Shiite government of Iraq/Syria which are supported by Iran, a theocracy, are the leaders in the fight against ISIS. Though there are communists fighting, you're giving them way too much credit. That whole idea just entirely brushes over the complexity of the conflict anyway, given you basically have a 3 sided war going on in both countries.

 

 

sivis-

 

 

 

Irv, I never claimed that Islam didn't condemn homosexuality. I stated that the Koran is much less explicit in its condemnation and the punishments for it than other major Abrahamic holy books. That the Koran doesn't call for the execution of homosexuals is inarguable; it doesn't. Hadiths are a different story but I never actually claimed Islam itself, or any other associated holy works, were more accepting of homosexuality, or that it was accepting at all, and aside from misreading what I've posted I'm not sure how you could think I was.

Yes, Hadiths are a different story insofar as they are not the direct word of God as is the Quran. That being said, they are highly important and carry significant weight in Islamic teachings, i.e. they are considered to be canon and to be correct in setting Islamic law. And again, take another look at my post and the relevant Quranic verses. It does call for the execution of homosexuals, as well as adulterers. Though I gave the relevant qualifications, it is in the book itself, i.e. coming from Allah. So I don't think I misread your post.

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

...where?

 

007.081

YUSUFALI: "For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds."

PICKTHAL: Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.

SHAKIR: Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people.

 

007.082

YUSUFALI: And his people gave no answer but this: they said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!"

PICKTHAL: And the answer of his people was only that they said (one to another): Turn them out of your township. They are folk, forsooth, who keep pure.

SHAKIR: And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves).

 

007.083

YUSUFALI: But we saved him and his family, except his wife: she was of those who legged behind.

PICKTHAL: And We rescued him and his household, save his wife, who was of those who stayed behind.

SHAKIR: So We delivered him and his followers, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind.

 

007.084

YUSUFALI: And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!

PICKTHAL: And We rained a rain upon them. See now the nature of the consequence of evil-doers!

SHAKIR: And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end of the guilty.

 

There's no explicit or even implicit reference to execution anywhere in that passage. "Rain upon them brimstone" is an idiom inherited from the Old Testament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

...where?

 

007.081

YUSUFALI: "For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds."

PICKTHAL: Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.

SHAKIR: Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people.

 

007.082

YUSUFALI: And his people gave no answer but this: they said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!"

PICKTHAL: And the answer of his people was only that they said (one to another): Turn them out of your township. They are folk, forsooth, who keep pure.

SHAKIR: And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves).

 

007.083

YUSUFALI: But we saved him and his family, except his wife: she was of those who legged behind.

PICKTHAL: And We rescued him and his household, save his wife, who was of those who stayed behind.

SHAKIR: So We delivered him and his followers, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind.

 

007.084

YUSUFALI: And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!

PICKTHAL: And We rained a rain upon them. See now the nature of the consequence of evil-doers!

SHAKIR: And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end of the guilty.

 

There's no explicit or even implicit reference to execution anywhere in that passage. "Rain upon them brimstone" is an idiom inherited from the Old Testament.

Yes it is, 007.084 is exactly where it orders the execution in the form of stoning. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Stoning#Qur.27an --- Islamic scholars have determined since Mohammed's time what the brimstone refers to, and actually it is seen elsewhere in the Quran as a punishment.

 

The same applies to adulterers in the Quran. All 3 of the Abrahamic religions have a code to execute adulterers and homosexuals. All 3 of them are pretty f*cking poor in their treatment of gays, equally.

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

 

Do you mean to say that wanting to destroy racism or homophobia is an act of intolerance?

No, but the fact that you're generalizing an entire group of people for something that you have no date to back-up with is an act of intolerance and prejudice. Furthermore, fighting intolerance with intolerance is completely ineffective. You cannot force people to change their mind on something, it has to come from within. Racism is a problem in Sweden because of people like you who generalize everyone who is Muslim as bad. Homophobia is a complete non-issue here. Gays have their rights and I haven't heard any stories of them being harassed or harmed for that mere fact in eons. I have plenty of Muslim friends and while most of them wouldn't actively voice their support for gay rights, their actual stance is complete indifference. They don't care about it and they wont protest it. Which is all one could ask for. I happen to be in the same boat where I wont show any support but I'm not opposed to gays either.

 

 

First off, while I can't give you statistics for it, there is two things to say. The first is that many muslims are part of religious organisations that do not allow samesex marriage. This is comparable to being a part of an organisation who does not allow marriage between black people. It is equally moral blame worthy.

 

Secondly, any muslims who believe that marriage is reserved only between a man and a women is homophobic. There is no way to get around this. It's the same for someone who believe that marriage is reserved for white people only. There is no way to get away from the fact that it is based on intolerance. While I do not have statistics for this I would assume it is safe to say that the majority of muslims in Sweden do not support samesex marriage or samesex relationships in Islam. If there ever was a survey venturing into this subject is is safe to say that it would be the result. If you have any argument against that claim you're free to present it.

 

Third, 'fighting intolerance with intolerance'. This is nothing more than tongue-twisting. It is not intolerant not stand up and fight racism and homophobia. If that was true you may aswell say that the declaration of humans rights is intolerant because it infringes on other peoples ''right'' to murder, offend, and harm others.

 

Fourth, homophobia is a problem in Sweden. This isn't even a question open for discussion. I can send you a load of sources for this claim PM if you wish. The fact that there is laws restricting it does not make it less of a problem. Homohpboia cause both physical and mental harm to people. There is no logical progression going from saying that since there is gay rights, there is no discrimination. By your own logic, I cannot be islamophobic myself - because there is laws restricting it, meaning it islamophobia does not exist. But even if that argument was correct, homophobia among muslims remains a problem.

Edited by Cyper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

Do you mean to say that wanting to destroy racism or homophobia is an act of intolerance?

No, but the fact that you're generalizing an entire group of people for something that you have no date to back-up with is an act of intolerance and prejudice. Furthermore, fighting intolerance with intolerance is completely ineffective. You cannot force people to change their mind on something, it has to come from within. Racism is a problem in Sweden because of people like you who generalize everyone who is Muslim as bad. Homophobia is a complete non-issue here. Gays have their rights and I haven't heard any stories of them being harassed or harmed for that mere fact in eons. I have plenty of Muslim friends and while most of them wouldn't actively voice their support for gay rights, their actual stance is complete indifference. They don't care about it and they wont protest it. Which is all one could ask for. I happen to be in the same boat where I wont show any support but I'm not opposed to gays either.

 

 

First off, while I can't give you statistics for it, there is two things to say. The first is that many muslims are part of religious organisations that do not allow samesex marriage. This is comparable to being a part of an organisation who does not allow marriage between black people. It is equally moral blame worthy.

 

Secondly, any muslims who believe that marriage is reserved only between a man and a women is homophobic. There is no way to get around this. It's the same for someone who believe that marriage is reserved for white people only. There is no way to get away from the fact that it is based on intolerance. While I do not have statistics for this I would assume it is safe to say that the majority of muslims in Sweden do not support samesex marriage or samesex relationships in Islam. If there ever was a survey survey venturing into this subject is is safe to say that it would be the result. If you have any argument against that claim you're free to present it.

 

Third, 'fighting intolerance with intolerance'. This is nothing more than tongue-twisting. It is not intolerant not stand up and fight racism and homophobia. If that was true you may aswell say that the declaration of humans rights is intolerant because it infringes on other peoples ''right'' to murder, offend, and harm others.

 

Fourth, homophobia is a problem in Sweden. This isn't even a question open for discussion. I can send you a load of sources for this claim PM if you wish. The fact that there is laws restricting it does not make it less of a problem. Homohpboia cause both physical and mental harm to people. There is no logical progression going from saying that since there is gay rights, there is no discrimination - and even if that was the case - the homophobia among muslims remains a problem.

 

I don't get why this is targeted specifically at Muslims though? Lots of people are opposed to homosexuality. A NASCAR fan group will probably be mostly opposed to gay marriage, for example. I'm not seeing your correlation that since Muslims may be intolerant of gay people (I would argue assimilated Western Muslims are actually quite tolerant of gays, moreso than many Baptist Christians), they are a societal ill?

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

 

 

 

Do you mean to say that wanting to destroy racism or homophobia is an act of intolerance?

No, but the fact that you're generalizing an entire group of people for something that you have no date to back-up with is an act of intolerance and prejudice. Furthermore, fighting intolerance with intolerance is completely ineffective. You cannot force people to change their mind on something, it has to come from within. Racism is a problem in Sweden because of people like you who generalize everyone who is Muslim as bad. Homophobia is a complete non-issue here. Gays have their rights and I haven't heard any stories of them being harassed or harmed for that mere fact in eons. I have plenty of Muslim friends and while most of them wouldn't actively voice their support for gay rights, their actual stance is complete indifference. They don't care about it and they wont protest it. Which is all one could ask for. I happen to be in the same boat where I wont show any support but I'm not opposed to gays either.

 

 

First off, while I can't give you statistics for it, there is two things to say. The first is that many muslims are part of religious organisations that do not allow samesex marriage. This is comparable to being a part of an organisation who does not allow marriage between black people. It is equally moral blame worthy.

 

Secondly, any muslims who believe that marriage is reserved only between a man and a women is homophobic. There is no way to get around this. It's the same for someone who believe that marriage is reserved for white people only. There is no way to get away from the fact that it is based on intolerance. While I do not have statistics for this I would assume it is safe to say that the majority of muslims in Sweden do not support samesex marriage or samesex relationships in Islam. If there ever was a survey survey venturing into this subject is is safe to say that it would be the result. If you have any argument against that claim you're free to present it.

 

Third, 'fighting intolerance with intolerance'. This is nothing more than tongue-twisting. It is not intolerant not stand up and fight racism and homophobia. If that was true you may aswell say that the declaration of humans rights is intolerant because it infringes on other peoples ''right'' to murder, offend, and harm others.

 

Fourth, homophobia is a problem in Sweden. This isn't even a question open for discussion. I can send you a load of sources for this claim PM if you wish. The fact that there is laws restricting it does not make it less of a problem. Homohpboia cause both physical and mental harm to people. There is no logical progression going from saying that since there is gay rights, there is no discrimination - and even if that was the case - the homophobia among muslims remains a problem.

 

I don't get why this is targeted specifically at Muslims though? Lots of people are opposed to homosexuality. A NASCAR fan group will probably be mostly opposed to gay marriage, for example. I'm not seeing your correlation that since Muslims may be intolerant of gay people (I would argue assimilated Western Muslims are actually quite tolerant of gays, moreso than many Baptist Christians), they are a societal ill?

 

 

Well, because this thread is about religion and I offered my views the on Islamic and Christian deprivations such as its organized homophobia particular in my own country. Homophobia is just one example how religion prevents people to catch up to ordinary morality. Then this discussion wnt on going about whether muslims belong to the most homophobic group in Sweden or not. Along with members of Pingstkyrkan and Jehovah's witnesses they belong to the enemies of my society.

 

But of course, you could speak about NASCAR aswell, or the american christians preaching hatred in Africa fueling Africas 'war against homosexuality'. Or the Russian ortodox church and its gangsters attacking gay parades i Russia. Or the religious skunk Mark Regnerus and the religious fascists in Russia such as the skunk Vitaly Milonov who used Regnerus, and the morons at 'Family Institute', to present false studies to enforce the 'Anti-gay law in russia'. Or you could speculate how many LBGT people Islam either kills or seriously harm for life worldwide. Or how Christianity is killing over 70,000 women every year by their implemented 'anti abortion laws.' You see, religion poisons not only morality but politics. Its a pest to society.

Edited by Cyper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

That's just dishonest.

 

No, it's hyperbole. And it's you who is being dishonest: 'there are Communists fighting' think it's a bit more significant of a contribution than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Yes it is, 007.084 is exactly where it orders the execution in the form of stoning. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Stoning#Qur.27an --- Islamic scholars have determined since Mohammed's time what the brimstone refers to, and actually it is seen elsewhere in the Quran as a punishment.

I don't disagree with the fact that the Hadiths retrospectively claimed stoning was mentioned in the Koran, but the pages became lost. I don't disagree with the notion that some Islamic scholars interpret "raining brimstone" as stoning, though this isn't a universal interpretation as you seem to imply.

 

Nothing you've just posted contradicts the fact there is no actual explicit or implicit reference to stoning homosexuals in the Koran itself. If it requires external interpretation, it's not explicit of implicit. If it's in a Hadith, it isn't in the Koran. That was my point; I didn't think it would be anywhere near as hard to grasp as it seems to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyName'sJeff

 

...where?

 

007.081

YUSUFALI: "For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds."

PICKTHAL: Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.

SHAKIR: Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people.

 

007.082

YUSUFALI: And his people gave no answer but this: they said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!"

PICKTHAL: And the answer of his people was only that they said (one to another): Turn them out of your township. They are folk, forsooth, who keep pure.

SHAKIR: And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves).

 

007.083

YUSUFALI: But we saved him and his family, except his wife: she was of those who legged behind.

PICKTHAL: And We rescued him and his household, save his wife, who was of those who stayed behind.

SHAKIR: So We delivered him and his followers, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind.

 

007.084

YUSUFALI: And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!

PICKTHAL: And We rained a rain upon them. See now the nature of the consequence of evil-doers!

SHAKIR: And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end of the guilty.

 

There's no explicit or even implicit reference to execution anywhere in that passage. "Rain upon them brimstone" is an idiom inherited from the Old Testament.

Yes it is, 007.084 is exactly where it orders the execution in the form of stoning. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Stoning#Qur.27an --- Islamic scholars have determined since Mohammed's time what the brimstone refers to, and actually it is seen elsewhere in the Quran as a punishment.

 

The same applies to adulterers in the Quran. All 3 of the Abrahamic religions have a code to execute adulterers and homosexuals. All 3 of them are pretty f*cking poor in their treatment of gays, equally.

 

You're f*cking stupid. I'm not even surprised because you're from America, congratulations. That quote doesn't even tell you to kill non-muslim homosexuals so why do you keep insisting it does? My point from the beginning wasn't that there was NO violence in Islam, but the quotes you've posted are referring to Muslims being homosexual. That's why I said Islam doesn't allow homosexuality not only because the religion says that man and women were naturally made for each other which is TRUE even scientifically which makes you look even less intelligent than before, and it also sees it as a sin in the religion so why do YOU have an issue if Muslims are not allowed to commit this act? NO hadith or quotes from the Qur'an tells you to go out and kill any homosexuals out there, but prohibits Muslims not to do it which makes sense, and punishments are in place for them, however it also says in the Qur'an that if you repent to Allah, sincerely, then any sins that you've done will be forgiven. When was the last time anyone saw a gay Muslim and get stoned or killed? So stop talking sh*t. A lot of atheists don't give a sh*t or directly support homosexuality, does that mean they're homophobic and want to see people get killed/stoned? Actually, I doubt you even read the Qur'an because you've already made the mistake of accusing the book of instructing Muslims to kill non-muslim homosexuals which is a massive mistake.

Edited by MyName'sJeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

The best thing with Islam as with any other religion is that you can cherry pick verses, interpret them without any rules or restrictions, and then claim that your actions are Godly warranted. If you're about to debate interpretation of the Quran you are literally wasting your time.

Edited by Cyper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

The best thing with Islam as with any other religion is that you can cherry pick verses, interpret them without any rules or restrictions, and then claim that your actions are Godly warranted

You literally cannot do that in any major religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

The best thing with Islam as with any other religion is that you can cherry pick verses, interpret them without any rules or restrictions, and then claim that your actions are Godly warranted. If you're about to debate interpretation of the Quran you are literally wasting your time.

Good thing I'm not debating interpretation then, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

...where?

 

007.081

YUSUFALI: "For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds."

PICKTHAL: Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.

SHAKIR: Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people.

 

007.082

YUSUFALI: And his people gave no answer but this: they said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!"

PICKTHAL: And the answer of his people was only that they said (one to another): Turn them out of your township. They are folk, forsooth, who keep pure.

SHAKIR: And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves).

 

007.083

YUSUFALI: But we saved him and his family, except his wife: she was of those who legged behind.

PICKTHAL: And We rescued him and his household, save his wife, who was of those who stayed behind.

SHAKIR: So We delivered him and his followers, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind.

 

007.084

YUSUFALI: And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!

PICKTHAL: And We rained a rain upon them. See now the nature of the consequence of evil-doers!

SHAKIR: And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end of the guilty.

 

There's no explicit or even implicit reference to execution anywhere in that passage. "Rain upon them brimstone" is an idiom inherited from the Old Testament.

Yes it is, 007.084 is exactly where it orders the execution in the form of stoning. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Stoning#Qur.27an --- Islamic scholars have determined since Mohammed's time what the brimstone refers to, and actually it is seen elsewhere in the Quran as a punishment.

 

The same applies to adulterers in the Quran. All 3 of the Abrahamic religions have a code to execute adulterers and homosexuals. All 3 of them are pretty f*cking poor in their treatment of gays, equally.

 

You're f*cking stupid. I'm not even surprised because you're from America, congratulations. That quote doesn't even tell you to kill non-muslim homosexuals so why do you keep insisting it does? My point from the beginning wasn't that there was NO violence in Islam, but the quotes you've posted are referring to Muslims being homosexual. That's why I said Islam doesn't allow homosexuality not only because the religion says that man and women were naturally made for each other which is TRUE even scientifically which makes you look even less intelligent than before, and it also sees it as a sin in the religion so why do YOU have an issue if Muslims are not allowed to commit this act? NO hadith or quotes from the Qur'an tells you to go out and kill any homosexuals out there, but prohibits Muslims not to do it which makes sense, and punishments are in place for them, however it also says in the Qur'an that if you repent to Allah, sincerely, then any sins that you've done will be forgiven. When was the last time anyone saw a gay Muslim and get stoned or killed? So stop talking sh*t. A lot of atheists don't give a sh*t or directly support homosexuality, does that mean they're homophobic and want to see people get killed/stoned? Actually, I doubt you even read the Qur'an because you've already made the mistake of accusing the book of instructing Muslims to kill non-muslim homosexuals which is a massive mistake.Yeah sorry bro if you can't read the hadiths that I posted that clearly state to kill homosexuals, then you're the one with the problem here. They're posted all over the last two pages with the relevant links. If you're a Muslim, great. Fess up about your religion's beliefs and stop being a jackass. I'm a Catholic and readily admit that Catholicism is terrible scripturally in its treatments of gays.

 

As for a gay Muslim being stoned or killed, it happens all over the region pretty frequently.

 

Yes it is, 007.084 is exactly where it orders the execution in the form of stoning. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Stoning#Qur.27an --- Islamic scholars have determined since Mohammed's time what the brimstone refers to, and actually it is seen elsewhere in the Quran as a punishment.

I don't disagree with the fact that the Hadiths retrospectively claimed stoning was mentioned in the Koran, but the pages became lost. I don't disagree with the notion that some Islamic scholars interpret "raining brimstone" as stoning, though this isn't a universal interpretation as you seem to imply.

 

Nothing you've just posted contradicts the fact there is no actual explicit or implicit reference to stoning homosexuals in the Koran itself. If it requires external interpretation, it's not explicit of implicit. If it's in a Hadith, it isn't in the Koran. That was my point; I didn't think it would be anywhere near as hard to grasp as it seems to be.

How can you say that the requiring of an interpretation invalidates its existence in the Quran? Most Islamic scholar out there other than small sects of Islam state that the brimstone refers to execution. How is that not implicit? Using hadiths to interpret what is written in the Quran is how you find out the meaning of a pretty good chunk of the entire book. You're grasping at straws here with this argument dude. Islam says to kill homosexuals and adulterers. Christianity says to kill homosexuals and adulterers. Judaism says to kill homosexuals and adulterers. Give me a break that Islam isn't as "explicit" in its condemnation... Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

The best thing with Islam as with any other religion is that you can cherry pick verses, interpret them without any rules or restrictions, and then claim that your actions are Godly warranted. If you're about to debate interpretation of the Quran you are literally wasting your time.

Good thing I'm not debating interpretation then, isn't it?

 

How can you say that the requiring of an interpretation invalidates its existence in the Quran?

...because it isn't actually in the Koran. I don't particularly care how most scholars interpret it because I'm not arguing about interpretation. How many times must I repeat that before you understand it?

 

Personally you'd also argue that the bible doesn't actually advocate executing homosexuals because most scholars disregard the verses about it too?

 

Most Islamic scholar out there other than small sects of Islam state that the brimstone refers to execution. How is that not implicit?

...becauae "most" does not constitute "all", for one. Also. Because I'm not talking about interpretation. And it's not implicit because the verse doesn't imply death or execution as well as not explicitly referring to stoning.

 

The rest of your post is utterly meaningless because despite my best efforts you still seem completely unable to grasp the actual point I've made and insudt on creating straw men to argue against. I suggest you go back and actually read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IlIIlIlIIlIlIIlI

Someone do me a favor, and end this debate, and prove there is a God? Please? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

Someone do me a favor, and end this debate, and prove there is a God?

One word bruh: alcohol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs
...because it isn't actually in the Koran. I don't particularly care how most scholars interpret it because I'm not arguing about interpretation. How many times must I repeat that before you understand it?

 

Personally you'd also argue that the bible doesn't actually advocate executing homosexuals because most scholars disregard the verses about it too?

No, I would argue that the bible, specifically old testament, does advocate executing homosexuals since that is exactly what is written there. You're the one playing games here. The verse states something that is widely agreed upon by Islamic scholars to mean stoning i.e. execution. The hadiths back this up. Why is this so difficult for you? Because you backed yourself into a corner on the last page when you said there's not a single thing in the Quran about punishing homosexuality? This is not a debate on the interpretation of the verse. The verse is written right there, and it states implicitly that homosexuals are to be executed, which is supported by Hadith on the matter and the meaning of the verse is agreed upon by Islamic scholars. I question by the way this idea that since it is not exactly written and translateable to modern English, then you can't take it at face value. The Bible, Torah, Quran, are all written in archaic languages and translated into modernity, then scholars of the religions look to practices of the time and to teachings of the figures involved in the creation of the texts to understand what it means. Why are you going to such lengths here to argue that the Quran doesn't condemn homosexuality?

 

 

 

...becauae "most" does not constitute "all", for one. Also. Because I'm not talking about interpretation. And it's not implicit because the verse doesn't imply death or execution as well as not explicitly referring to stoning.

 

The rest of your post is utterly meaningless because despite my best efforts you still seem completely unable to grasp the actual point I've made and insudt on creating straw men to argue against. I suggest you go back and actually read it.

 

The verse does imply death because the ones before and after it imply that it is the end of the guilty. The Quran is to be read and taken as a whole. You simply don't know how to read it and you're the one who is creating straw men here. Just f*cking admit that Islam calls for the execution of gays just like the other two Abrahami faiths and move on ffs. The fact that the Quranic verse does not explicitly state stoning, and the fact that we look to Hadith and practices at the time on the matter to understand what the verse means, does not mean that there is no equal condemnation of homosexuals in the Quran.The Quran is the direct word of God just like Jesus is the direct word of God in Christianity as his son. Mohammed, as the Prophet, occupies a lower level than Jesus or the Quran. He's considered to be a gem amongst rocks per se; that said, he is the one who could communicate directly with Allah, and he carried out plenty of "showers of brimstone" himself and taught similar things which are reflected in Hadiths. This is a stupid argument - it's in the f*cking book to kill gays. Next?

 

 

 

Furthermore, let me pose this question to you - What do you think they're talking about when they say a rain of brimstone? A f*cking dance party?

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slam_Jones

 

Furthermore, let me pose this question to you - What do you think they're talking about when they say a rain of brimstone? A f*cking dance party?

 

 

Clearly, they're referring to quartz, a shiny mineral that is often thrown in the air, where it sparkles and reflects the light before falling back to earth. It's often considered the first form of "glitter." People would often dance and f*ck each other while this occurred, often while chanting something along the lines of "suck my dick, I'm a shark."

 

 

 

No, I'm not serious at all.

Edited by Slam_Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyName'sJeff

 

...because it isn't actually in the Koran. I don't particularly care how most scholars interpret it because I'm not arguing about interpretation. How many times must I repeat that before you understand it?

 

Personally you'd also argue that the bible doesn't actually advocate executing homosexuals because most scholars disregard the verses about it too?

No, I would argue that the bible, specifically old testament, does advocate executing homosexuals since that is exactly what is written there. You're the one playing games here. The verse states something that is widely agreed upon by Islamic scholars to mean stoning i.e. execution. The hadiths back this up. Why is this so difficult for you? Because you backed yourself into a corner on the last page when you said there's not a single thing in the Quran about punishing homosexuality? This is not a debate on the interpretation of the verse. The verse is written right there, and it states implicitly that homosexuals are to be executed, which is supported by Hadith on the matter and the meaning of the verse is agreed upon by Islamic scholars. I question by the way this idea that since it is not exactly written and translateable to modern English, then you can't take it at face value. The Bible, Torah, Quran, are all written in archaic languages and translated into modernity, then scholars of the religions look to practices of the time and to teachings of the figures involved in the creation of the texts to understand what it means. Why are you going to such lengths here to argue that the Quran doesn't condemn homosexuality?

 

 

 

You still don't understand do you? I already know that Islam condemns homosexuality, I already talked about this on the last page ffs. However, there is NOTHING in the Qur'an or hadith that tells you to go kill NON-MUSLIM homosexuals whether its stoning, beheading or any sort of killing at all. The punishments stated in specific hadiths are designed for Muslims and Muslims only, how stupid can you get? If you're not a Muslim, why the hell are you worried about this considering you aren't even a Muslim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyName'sJeff

 

...because it isn't actually in the Koran. I don't particularly care how most scholars interpret it because I'm not arguing about interpretation. How many times must I repeat that before you understand it?

 

Personally you'd also argue that the bible doesn't actually advocate executing homosexuals because most scholars disregard the verses about it too?

No, I would argue that the bible, specifically old testament, does advocate executing homosexuals since that is exactly what is written there. You're the one playing games here. The verse states something that is widely agreed upon by Islamic scholars to mean stoning i.e. execution. The hadiths back this up. Why is this so difficult for you? Because you backed yourself into a corner on the last page when you said there's not a single thing in the Quran about punishing homosexuality? This is not a debate on the interpretation of the verse. The verse is written right there, and it states implicitly that homosexuals are to be executed, which is supported by Hadith on the matter and the meaning of the verse is agreed upon by Islamic scholars. I question by the way this idea that since it is not exactly written and translateable to modern English, then you can't take it at face value. The Bible, Torah, Quran, are all written in archaic languages and translated into modernity, then scholars of the religions look to practices of the time and to teachings of the figures involved in the creation of the texts to understand what it means. Why are you going to such lengths here to argue that the Quran doesn't condemn homosexuality?

 

 

 

You still don't understand do you? I already know that Islam condemns homosexuality, I already talked about this on the last page ffs. However, there is NOTHING in the Qur'an or hadith that tells you to go kill NON-MUSLIM homosexuals whether its stoning, beheading or any sort of killing at all. The punishments stated in specific hadiths are designed for Muslims and Muslims only, how stupid can you get? If you're not a Muslim, why the hell are you worried about this considering you aren't even a Muslim? And lastly, the reason why its a sin in the religion is because of the amount of risk of disease that comes from homosexual intercourse, as well as the belief of men and women being naturally connected.

 

...because it isn't actually in the Koran. I don't particularly care how most scholars interpret it because I'm not arguing about interpretation. How many times must I repeat that before you understand it?

 

Personally you'd also argue that the bible doesn't actually advocate executing homosexuals because most scholars disregard the verses about it too?

No, I would argue that the bible, specifically old testament, does advocate executing homosexuals since that is exactly what is written there. You're the one playing games here. The verse states something that is widely agreed upon by Islamic scholars to mean stoning i.e. execution. The hadiths back this up. Why is this so difficult for you? Because you backed yourself into a corner on the last page when you said there's not a single thing in the Quran about punishing homosexuality? This is not a debate on the interpretation of the verse. The verse is written right there, and it states implicitly that homosexuals are to be executed, which is supported by Hadith on the matter and the meaning of the verse is agreed upon by Islamic scholars. I question by the way this idea that since it is not exactly written and translateable to modern English, then you can't take it at face value. The Bible, Torah, Quran, are all written in archaic languages and translated into modernity, then scholars of the religions look to practices of the time and to teachings of the figures involved in the creation of the texts to understand what it means. Why are you going to such lengths here to argue that the Quran doesn't condemn homosexuality?

 

 

 

You still don't understand do you? I already know that Islam condemns homosexuality, I already talked about this on the last page ffs. However, there is NOTHING in the Qur'an or hadith that tells you to go kill NON-MUSLIM homosexuals whether its stoning, beheading or any sort of killing at all. The punishments stated in specific hadiths are designed for Muslims and Muslims only, how stupid can you get? If you're not a Muslim, why the hell are you worried about this considering you aren't even a Muslim or believe in any deity at all? And lastly, the reason why its a sin in the religion is because of belief of men and women being naturally connected, as well as the incredibly high risk of diseases when being a homosexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IlIIlIlIIlIlIIlI

There is no God, and man is his witness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoreyDog2014

Someone do me a favor, and end this debate, and prove there is a God? Please? Thanks.

First they need to establish which 'god' they think they have evidence for.

 

Ra? Thor? Zeus? Yahweh? Vishnu? Mars? Lucifer? Etc..

 

Over 3000 to choose from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flesh-n-Bone

First off, while I can't give you statistics for it, there is two things to say. The first is that many muslims are part of religious organisations that do not allow samesex marriage. This is comparable to being a part of an organisation who does not allow marriage between black people. It is equally moral blame worthy.

Don't know about any organizations but it's been established that homosexuality is a sin in Islam as well as the other major religions, so what are you trying to point out here? And no, it's not the same thing as marriage between black people because marriage does not have a skin color. You're just like any other gay sympathizer that tries to prove a point by making the exact same statement and replacing gay/homo/same-sex/whatever term being used with black as if that will make you look smarter. Firstly, I've never heard of anyone who was against black marriage. If someone was against black people in any shape or form, then marriage would probably be one of the last things on their mind. Secondly, why do you keep bringing it up when it's totally unrelated to the subject? "It's like saying marriage is only for Christians", "it's like saying marriage is only for people with Down Syndrome"... sounds silly, just stop.

 

 

 

Secondly, any muslims who believe that marriage is reserved only between a man and a women is homophobic. There is no way to get around this. It's the same for someone who believe that marriage is reserved for white people only. There is no way to get away from the fact that it is based on intolerance. While I do not have statistics for this I would assume it is safe to say that the majority of muslims in Sweden do not support samesex marriage or samesex relationships in Islam. If there ever was a survey venturing into this subject is is safe to say that it would be the result. If you have any argument against that claim you're free to present it.

 

 

And why are you specifying muslims only? I bet there are atheists out there who believe marriage is between man and woman only. And you admitted it yourself, you have no statistics to prove anything you say so most of your statements are a load of garbage with no basis to them other than your biased prejudice.

 

 

Third, 'fighting intolerance with intolerance'. This is nothing more than tongue-twisting. It is not intolerant not stand up and fight racism and homophobia. If that was true you may aswell say that the declaration of humans rights is intolerant because it infringes on other peoples ''right'' to murder, offend, and harm others.

 

 

No, "intolerance" in this context is the fact that you try to force people to change their opinions. If someone doesn't agree with same-sex marriage, it's their right. As long as they are not trying to actively cause any harm then it's a complete non-issue. Your totalitarian approach simply doesn't work. Racism was not foght against with dictatorship back in the day, it was a long progress and even with all of that, racism continues to exist. Same will be said for "homophobia". There will always be people who think less of homosexuals and you cannot do anything to change that. The most you can ask for is they don't actively harm gay people physically/mentally and that much progress has been made in most 1st world countries. And that's pretty nice, trying to stand up against racism! Now ain't that the pot calling the kettle black? You should start with looking in the mirror.

 

 

Fourth, homophobia is a problem in Sweden. This isn't even a question open for discussion. I can send you a load of sources for this claim PM if you wish. The fact that there is laws restricting it does not make it less of a problem. Homohpboia cause both physical and mental harm to people. There is no logical progression going from saying that since there is gay rights, there is no discrimination. By your own logic, I cannot be islamophobic myself - because there is laws restricting it, meaning it islamophobia does not exist. But even if that argument was correct, homophobia among muslims remains a problem.

 

 

If gays had it so hard, I can guarantee you the slightest suspicion of hate crime would be posted all over the newspapers country-wide, so I will stand by what I said. Gay-hate is a problem in Saudi or Jamaica where you can get killed for merely being one. Over here in Sweden, you're allowed to be whatever you want and no one will bat an eye. "Homophobia" is only a problem if it causes legitimate safety concern. I couldn't care less if my neighbor thinks two men holding hands is disgusting and that they shouldn't be able to get married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

You're the one playing games here.

I'm really not. You just keep assuming I'm staying things I've not actually said, and then getting massively flustered and rambling about how I don't know how to interpret the Koran even though it's utterly f*cking irrelevant to the point I'm actually making. I'm genuinely at a loss as to how I can explain myself more simply than I already have and I'm left concluding that you're just entirely incapable of comprehending what I would consider fairly basic English. Please, stop assuming I'm making arguments I'm actually not.

 

The verse states something that is widely agreed upon by Islamic scholars to mean stoning

Which, as I've pointed out numerous times, is irrelevant as my entire point was that there was no specific mention of executing homosexuals in the Koran in and of itself, ignoring interpretation and Hadiths. For a person whose demonstrated themselves to be fairly intelligent elsewhere I simply cannot fathom why you seem to find this so impenetrable a concept.

 

Because you backed yourself into a corner on the last page when you said there's not a single thing in the Quran about punishing homosexuality?

Yet another straw man. I never said implied anything of the sort. If you can't compose an argument without intentionally misquoting me please don't f*cking bother.

 

TThe verse is written right there, and it states implicitly that homosexuals are to be executed

Except, sans interpretation derived from the Hadiths, it just doesn't. In isolation, "raining brimstone" does not imply stoning and the rest of the verse doesn't imply execution either. It's commonly interpreted as such, but yet again I must stress the point that I'm ignoring everything except for the verse- as I quite clearly caveated my very first comment and which you still fail to grasp despite me explaining it numerous times.

 

Why are you going to such lengths here to argue that the Quran doesn't condemn homosexuality?

...I'm not? I don't know if you're intentionally trolling or have somehow genuinely missed the point what four, maybe five times now, but I'm saying nothing of the sort and, to be quite frankly, it's borderline idiotic thst you think I am.

 

Just f*cking admit that Islam calls for the execution of gays

For f*cks sake, I never said it didn't. This is exactly what I mean regarding straw men. The entire weight of your responses on the subject revolve around arguing against a point I never actually made and the fact you've managed to keep it up for so long now would be impressive if it weren't so utterly ridiculous.

 

What do you think they're talking about when they say a rain of brimstone?

I would say the same allegorical meaning it has in both the Torah and Bible- a symbolic representation of God's wrath, personified as a volcanic eruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

Sivis, let's take a step back here because I think I'm understanding the issue we are having here -

 

 

 

 

hich, as I've pointed out numerous times, is irrelevant as my entire point was that there was no specific mention of executing homosexuals in the Koran in and of itself, ignoring interpretation and Hadiths. For a person whose demonstrated themselves to be fairly intelligent elsewhere I simply cannot fathom why you seem to find this so impenetrable a concept.

Ok, your argument is that "there is no specific mention of executing homosexuals in the Quran". We can debate what the shower of brimstone means all day. You've posted what you interpret it to mean, and that's fine, but I'll rest assured that I'm on the same side as the majority of Islamic scholars, both Shiite and Sunni, Hanbali and Hanafi, whatever the f*ck else, that believe it to be stoning. With that being said, and here is where I think we are getting confused with one another, the Quran does not to a great extent teach a Muslim HOW or WHY to do anything or how to go about what it teaches. That's why I am getting so flustered with you when you are saying that Islam is less explicit in its condemnation of homosexuals. Which you said on the last page (or one before it?) - that compared to Christianity and Judaism, Islam is less explicit in its condemnation of homosexuals.

 

 

 

Except, sans interpretation derived from the Hadiths, it just doesn't. In isolation, "raining brimstone" does not imply stoning and the rest of the verse doesn't imply execution either. It's commonly interpreted as such, but yet again I must stress the point that I'm ignoring everything except for the verse- as I quite clearly caveated my very first comment and which you still fail to grasp despite me explaining it numerous times.

This once again personifies the issue the two of us are having. By your stating "sans interpretation derived from the Hadiths" - you are stating the impossible. The Quran is never to be interpreted without aid from Hadith. The Hadith is just as important as the Quran. The Quran says "Salat" - Muslims need to pray. It doesn't teach them how to pray, where to pray towards, or any of that. That's all from the Hadith. This is why I take such great issue with you saying that there is no explicit or implicit order for execution of homosexuals within the Quran. The Quran says something, then you look to Hadith to understand it further and how to put it into practice. They do not operate independent of one another. That is what I'm trying to get at with you here. And that, I believe, is why we've been having such a rough time these last few posts.

 

 

 

Jeff-

 

 

 


You still don't understand do you? I already know that Islam condemns homosexuality, I already talked about this on the last page ffs. However, there is NOTHING in the Qur'an or hadith that tells you to go kill NON-MUSLIM homosexuals whether its stoning, beheading or any sort of killing at all. The punishments stated in specific hadiths are designed for Muslims and Muslims only, how stupid can you get? If you're not a Muslim, why the hell are you worried about this considering you aren't even a Muslim or believe in any deity at all? And lastly, the reason why its a sin in the religion is because of belief of men and women being naturally connected, as well as the incredibly high risk of diseases when being a homosexual.

 

This is purely backtracking on your part - some quotes from you on the last page

 

 


However, the Qur'an doesn't say anything that would make a Muslim be homophobic or violent to homosexuals

 

 


The Qur'an andthe religion suggests NOTHING to the Muslims to be homophobic in any shape or form in the first place, so there is nothing to be homophobic about.

 

 


NO hadith or quotes from the Qur'an tells you to go out and kill any homosexuals out there, but prohibits Muslims not to do it which makes sense, and punishments are in place for them,

 

You hadn't mentioned non-Muslims until later on in the discussion. You first claimed that there is no Hadith or Quranic verse that teaches Muslims to be homophobic (there are PLENTY), then you are now saying that there is nothing that tells them to treat non-Muslim homosexuals with disdain, which is debatable but nevertheless an arguable point, as opposed to what you've been saying, i.e. the Quran is not homophobic or violent to homosexuals (a direct quote from you), or that it suggests NOTHING to Muslims to be homophobic.

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pockings

Can you have (a)theist friends?

 

Do you judge someone strictly on their beliefs?

 

I for one being an agnostic theist, I don't care about what someone believes. As long as they don't shove it down my throat.

 

I haven't read all 13 pages of responses. But to answer the OP, yes, one can have (a)theist friends. And I don't judge anyone strictly on their beliefs. Just like the OP, as long as they don't force their beliefs on me, we can all be friends :).

 

I consider myself agnostic and tends to agree with George :D. Warning: NSFW language below.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.