Yassine

A set of guidelines that falls within the norms established by particular post-biblical voices which I see as authoritative, setting behavioral standards.

It isn’t about not “feeling” bound. It is about recognizing authority. In the same way that I, as a Jew, don’t recognize the authority of the gospels to say anything, or of an Imam to tell me how to live,

a reform Jew doesn’t recognize the authority of an orthodox person to tell him what Judaism is and demands.

Which is why reform Jews have respect for reform authority. Not accepting the authority of group A doesn’t mean lacking acknowledgement of any authority.

Actually, that’s exactly what we are talking about.

To believe what you say about Judaism is to demonstrate an ignorance of Jewish history. The reform movement is a codification (19th century) of beliefs and sentiments that have much deeper roots. If you are rejecting the entire notion that reform Judaism sees itself as, foundationally, being a valid Abrahamic religion, just following a different authority, then there is nothing more to say.

This, coupled with the overstatement you made about the applicability and purpose of modest clothing (especially as it relates to the hair), makes it difficult to have a meaningful conversation.

No, claims of a member of a group are not feelings. Claims that the established authority of that group is binding is the same as the claim of binding authority from any other denomination unless you get to decide what counts and what doesn’t.

And how can you make a claim about religious authority and law and expect this not to be a discussion about the various authorities involved?

Welcome back. Don’t know you at all, I think I may have joined after you left. I like many of your topics. I have read English translations of the Quran twice, but not an expert by any means. I am LDS (Christian), and, although I’ve been in many countries in Europe and Asia, never in the Middle East.

I have a History Doctorate, but an Engineer (retired) by profession. I am fascinated by Middle eastern culture and have deep knowledge of ancient Egypt.

One of these days, I’d enjoy a debate. Might you be interested in a debate of preservation, or other subject, comparing the Quran to the Book of Mormon?

do you mind expanding a little more?

i know in the past it was normal for women to wear viels

  I have asked you why it cannot reform?  Are you suggesting  that it can?

Well to be honest, I don't know much about the specifics of Islam since I was raised as a christian. So, I just threw out there what I'm confident at. But I can go back through your list and see if there's something else there I'd be interested in

I am an orthodox Jew

But that isn’t debatable. It is a fact that not all Jews feel bound by what others claim is religious Jewish law.

But since not all Jews agree that the “authority” is the authority, some Jews would say that the rule isn’t in the religion.

Some Jews see none of these as an authority in the creation of the religion – some see the religion as a human construct inspired by the Torah text but codified by men, and most of those people would say that modest clothing and/or hair covering are not found in the religion.

This isn’t about feelings, but about understanding of how religion exists and develops.

A reform Jew, who claims that his understanding of Judaism is valid as a religion, would say that there is no mention in his code of any laws or texts of clothing, and any innovation by some other person whom he does not see as an authority is useless.

Thanks for the clarification. In your post, you wrote,

I can't speak about all Abrahamic faiths, but I can say that in Judaism, some Jews understand that there are rules governing dress including, for some people, some of the time, an obligation to cover the hair. All those "some" statements undermine any more general claim. If that's the case across other religions, then the claim is working backwards --

finding a common rule and then asserting the common thread as a function of membership in the Abrahamic group. That's a safe claim because it is self evident.

So it would seem that your topic is more precisely

"In all Abrahamic faiths, there are certain denominations which understand religious authority to have devised rules regarding covering the body and in certain cases, this includes covering hair, for a variety of reasons."

This ends up being a report (substantiated by the various codes of law, easily quotable), not a topic for debate (at least as it relates to Judaism) so I'm still not sure what the topic of the debate would be.

Yep.   Your own title reads :  "Who's in for some fun challenges?"  .

I'll debate you about the existence of god anytime man.

I just move slowly so give me a week for arguments and we can make it happen.

1. One assumes that GOD is the foundation of all popular Abrahamic religions....Or are you saying that there is more than one.

2. Stating things is what we do.

3. Everything relates to senses...Data in, data processing, data storage, data modification and data out.....Otherwise zero.

4a. So you can't then.

5. What isn't?....See 3.

6. See 3.

7. Nice English

8. There is more than one way to define unexplainable. See explain.....Though unexplainable was your choice.

Religious speak is hardly intelligent...Just the product of rote learning.

Intelligence advances material evolution....Theistic ideology stagnates.

Maybe conditioned theism is an inevitable and necessary counterbalance...Perhaps it would be foolish for humanity to peak to early.

1. Perhaps GOD is a delusion, and therefore belief in the delusion is arrogance.....So two possibilities then.

2. As far as we are able to know, all qualities are human concepts. Otherwise, things just are, and cannot be attributed quality.

3. Presumably there would be one GOD. To suggest otherwise would be to admit something.

4. How does one gain truth through the rote learning of another individuals social ideology, based upon an archaic and fantastical hypothesis.

The brutal enforcement of religious and social  ideology was once the standard....In fact, I think that it still is in certain places....And I also think that some people do rightly question this aspect of GOD.

And the "future" example is simply an irrelevant truism.

5. ?

6. Which word.

7. See above.

Or just ignore the written facts,  just as I* do. 

  You keep forgetting that I do not have a dog in the fight where religious bullshite is concerned.

 Who can ever forget the incitement over a novel in countries where the majority of the  population doesn't even speak English never mind read in their own  languages?

 Can you not see the question mark, Yassine? It looks just like  one of these >>   ?

Try telling that to all Muslims.

In all fairness, all the Muslim labelled humans that I know are peaceable, and in predominately Muslim countries, I have always been treated well.

Nonetheless, ideologies foster nutcases, and nutcases can incite the gullible....Look at the climax of the recent U.S. Presidential election for example.

Are these topics even “fun” at all?

Many of them are overused in DDO and here.

I'm still trying to understand. One cannot debate if one is speaking at cross purposes because grounds are not common. 

You wrote, " A religious duty is an act sanctioned by scripture &/or religious authority" but who decides what religious authority is binding?

And you also wrote that " The 'Hijab' is modest covering, which includes head covering" - are you saying that there is an obligation for any form of "modest covering" in any Abrahamic religion (who defines what is modest?) or that there is an obligation of a specific type/piece? Is everyone required to include head covering?

I could present the argument that everyone is required to X because the law of ?????? says so, and the law of ?????? is binding on everyone because that law says so. But that isn't really a persuasive argument because someone outside of ?????? would deny a basic premise -- the authority of that system and its laws.

Why cannot Islam reform?

Maybe because religion is such a serious subject.  As someone here once said to me;

" Do you have any conception of how dangerous religion is and in particular Christianity"? History shows otherwise. History shows how dangerous it is".    #153

There is nothing "fun" about ideologies that promote indoctrination and or oppression.

This would have made for a decent discussion on its own thread Intelligence_06.

One of the items you list is "The Hijab is a religious duty in all abrahamic religions" and I'm not sure on what basis you can even make that claim. How would you define "religious duty" and "abrahamic religions" and on the basis of what would you make that claim?

And as I have already said -   which is a parable about the judgment of god and only he will do the judging and punishing. 

And I have also readily agreed, that this all seems very contradictory to other verses in the NT but such in the nature of the jumbled ambiguous mess that is New Testament. 

 And this is exactly what I thought you would say. You are no different from the Christians that spout the same bullshite that one needs to understand the New Testament in its ancient language every time they too find themselves stuck for apologetic excuses. They are far too stupid to realise that every time they spout this shite that they render all bibles written in English, pointless and totally unreliable.

You are no different from they.

Does every one of the 1.8  billion adherents to Islam all speak Arabic?

Does it say "against MUSLIMS".  Or does it mean simply not believing in  Allah and his self appointed prophet,

  as most of the vile quranic verses all seem to be about.

What were the Muslims defending when they invaded Spain?

Or the Indian sub continent?

You are simply full of shite Yassine,

but no different to the Christian that wants us to believe the  god of the NT loves us when bible shows the clear opposite.  This is  what comes of adopting a god from a time and culture they knew nothing about.

 I think I am done here. We have gone full circle. 

Some might say that, "for they are arrogant" is itself pretty arrogant.

"What is a conscious GOD"......Not an unconscious GOD.

"What is a bothered GOD"......Not a disinterested GOD.

Presumably if one is a fairly strict adherent to a religious ideology, then one accepts a conscious and bothered GOD....(Correct me if I am wrong).

Otherwise how do ardent theists conclude that their prophets speak the truth?

"Is this a political description or a philosophical one"......

No, an attempt at a realistic one.....Politics and philosophy are derivatives of the aforementioned process.

As is an attempt at realism of course.....As is  everything I suppose  ...Including the assumption of the matter of the universe.

But for now, let's work with a basic tenet...I think therefore I am.

1. Of course you can what?.....Your Ebuccian equation proves zero.

2."Thus make partners" etc....Religious speak....This proves zero.

3. I asserted nothing...I made an observation.....Can you invalidate my observation?

4a. No just another observation....Can you actually invalidate my observation?

5. A cup is a cup......Though perception and data management allows you to come to this conclusion.

4b....In terms of everything, unexplainable is therefore unknowable. Yes indeed.

Yes...All my best English

Hypotheses that suggest a reason for the unknowable....Or unexplainable, depending upon how one chooses to split hairs.

But not on the direct command of their god the Christ Jesus. This is the point that you are purposefully ignoring and cannot accept.

The god of the Quran on the other hand commands that people die for him:

Quran (9:38-40) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place. ˹It does not matter˺ if you ˹believers˺ do not support him, for Allah did in fact support him when the disbelievers drove him out ˹of Mecca [...]" 

So we see clearly that even those Muslims that do believe in god  will BE PUNISHED for NOT waging holy jihad.

The god of the Quran orders people murdered simply for not believing in him:

Quran 8:12 - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them".

The Christian god of the New Testament

on the other hand commands " love thy neighbour" ,  "turn the other cheek".  "Love one another as I have loved you".

The Christian god is continually  pro life,

where-as the ever so`  loving and tolerant ` god the Quran , speaks for himself, doesn't he;

Quran 4:89 -  "They [Munafiqeen] wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper. Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you"

Quran 51 - You, who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.

 Is it correct that to truly understand the Quran in context one has to learn it in Arabic?

The Bible killed many Egyptians to free a smaller number of Hebrews, then defended slavery.

Sorry I didn’t respond to everything you said previously, but since I have many debates going on, forums don’t take priority.

I am from what is generally regarded as the British Isles.....Or the not so United Kingdom.

People have a tendency to think that they are different. Which in respect of individuality and acquired data concepts is obviously true.

Though tenuous lines on a map, which represent fictitious lines on the ground, still only separate in respect of acquired data concepts.

And sex and lust and sensuality and sin, are synonymous with procreation and the inherent and acquired internal data thereof.

And if there is a conscious GOD....I doubt that it is bothered by the whacky stuff that we get up to on this tiny bit of space rock.

And in terms of "making".

I would suggest that a GOD principle might be responsible for humans, and humans are definitely responsible for GODS. 

1. Popular Religions are huge claims..... And ultimately cannot be defended....You cannot prove the existence of a specific GOD.

2. For sure, people are easily programmed to be fanatical and more or less arrogant.

3. The weight of support rests upon social programming..... Social programming does not validate wording though.

4a. To assume to know the unknowable is arrogant....But magical blokes is a fantasy explanation, in the absence of knowledge....Doesn't matter how you dress it up.

5. Everything is an opinion....Or more precisely, subject to an individual data management process.

6. You follow, and I currently follow the Tour de France...Data input, process, store and variously output.

4b. And I cannot explain the unknowable....A GOD principle explains a universal purpose....Though everything might be pure chance.

Though there is the option of a chanceful and successive GOD principle....An idea that I find interesting.

Nonetheless, to prove any such hypothesis, one must first overcome the something from noting obstacle.

And the same applies to theistic hypotheses....To simply ignore is arrogant.

For me, it changes a lot, which is why I often contradict myself on religion.  But I believe God exists, yet I don't worship him because I strongly disagree with some things God has done.

That is what I find so disturbing. And it appears to me the you - the so called - House of Peace - also welcomes this.

But Islam cannot be reformed can it?  It cannot turn from violence "until all religion is for Allah", can it? Those are the instructions that come from the god of Islam.  

Stephen wrote;  "In the case of the Christians it is their own fault for adopting a god they didn't understand and knew absolutely nothing about, from a time they didn't understand and a culture that they didn't understand".

One will find much confusion in those that believe  in a supernatural events such as a being that can "fly to the moon on a donkey and split it in half"< Muslim .  OR donkey that speaks with the "voice of god".< Christian.

 Well done , very good.

NOW SEE bold above  and stop ignoring it.

You are forgetting who is supposed to be saying these words and who  the  -I - is. This is supposedly a god speaking about what HE has come for, what what HE intends .  

Your verses are not  clear outright instructions to HIS flowerers from HIM, to go out into the world and rape, murder, rob and enslave anyone that doesn't believe in HIM/ GOD , i.e  he is saying that HE god , god alone,  is the judge of mankind and not for man to judge. 

Unlike the vile and direct instructions given by the god of ISLAM to his adherents.

I will certainly grant you that your chosen biblical verses above do go against and contradict other statements that HE-  the Christian  god is also supposed to have said.  Such is nature of the bible. That is also why I have also said to you, if you have taken the time to read  :>>>>>

.....whereas the Christian New Testament is on the surface a jumble of ambiguous, anomalous and contradictory half stories that Christians  so hopelessly attempt to explain and defend.  Give them a few tough questions and LIKE YOU, they will say all kinds of lying shite in an attempt to defend the indefensible.

Then simply don't fkn read them, you clown.

Ok.

 

So based upon World geography, you have an acquired sense of race and difference, and an acquired data base....Same as us all I suppose.

And  you're from in or around the Arabian Peninsular which encompasses various States depending upon where one chooses to draw a line.

And you choose to label with the name of the divergent Abrahamic sect known as Islam.

Do you also sub-label in respect of a schismatic branch of Islam? 

I personally prefer the label realist, and attempt to be as realistic as is achievable....So obviously this negates a dependency on believe or faith in the unknowable.

I therefore see no intellectual value in naive 2000 year old creation hypotheses. Though there is obviously a sketchy historical record that can be appreciated.

For me GOD is the principle that gives purpose to everything, and popular religions are just old and out dated explanations of this.

Did a bloke chat with a GOD up a mountain?

And notwithstanding the chiselling logistics...You would at least expect GOD to provide at least a few paper copies.

And then an unspecified number of years later along came other blokes who decided to do things slightly differently.

And ever since then, other blokes (and women when allowed) came along, and again thought that doing things slightly differently would be better.

Such is the generational transfer of data and the slow modification thereof.

So GOD is never a lie.

God is variously an interpretation of that which is unknowable.

And ritualistic add-ons, are just some examples of the whacky things that hominids do to pass the time of day.

So go for it.

I prefer cycling and gardening.

And within the next 30 years I expect to die and be returned to the component parts of the Universe.

And I also expect, that this is what will eventually happen to you.

But who knows?

Certainly not you or I.

 Christians where as bad and ruthless as Muslims ever were and millions of Muslims still are.  If they are not taking part in this indiscriminate murder, many  support the actions of those that do.

 And if you haven't brought that good ol' SB excuse of  "Muslims only acting in self defence";   the crusades were the result of MUSLIM invasion into the holy land. 

You can play this bs tit-for -tat argument all day long. It doesn't alter that fact the Islam is not a religion of peace.

Or the fact that the Old Testament (written for the Hebrew and Israelite audience) and its god in particular starts with killing almost from the time of creation and the murder and slaughter  of the innocent on this gods commands   doesn't stop after  that.

You will be hard pushed to find a verse in the New Testament where the Christ himself orders the death of people that do not believe in him. 

Quran 9:29 - Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah

(jizyah = tax levied by Muslim on non- - believers or be killed on refusal to pay willingly while they are humbled.)

 Like I have said, I have heard all these type of bullshite apologetics from Muslims before as I have heard similar apologetics  from Christians that attempt to defend the murderous orders to slaughter, rape, rob and enslave from the god that they adopted.

 NOPE!. I mean MUSLIMS and well before a British Empire or the USA was even thought of.  

Yassine, you are no better than those demented fundamental Christians that believe that their god can do no wrong and is perfect in every way when both the bible and the Quran clearly prove for  themselves and anyone that cares to read them, that your gods are anything but. 

In the case of the Christians it is their own fault for adopting a god they didn't understand and knew absolutely nothing about, from a time they didn't understand and a culture that they didn't understand. 

I will say one thing for the Quran and that is:  as vile and violent and intolerant as it is,  it means exactly what it says and is true to itself.

Christianity, thankfully, went through a reformation, but the Abrahamic roots are still there and have been clung to,  to be highlighted and argued about for eternity. 

There seems to have been an attempted breakaway from the OT and the god of the Jews at one time

and I believe one can see this in Johns (the forth) gospel where John apparently is constantly referring to "the Jews" as if he was not a Jew himself and wanted no part of the Jew ideology/religion.

Anyway.  I have heard  the likes of all of your shite before as I have the attempted justification of the cruelty and unjustness of the Christian god that they now call Jesus the Christ..

Christianity has  extremely violent roots .

Islam has extremely violent roots, an extremally violent past and extremely violent present.

And I have already sad, that it is Muslims that are the biggest victims of Islam.

I mean, murder because of a cartoon!!?  A fatwa for writing a novel!!!  When the fk are you lot going to decide drag yourselves and you mentality  into the 21st century? 

 Yes, that really sells your violent ideology as the "religion of peace", doesn't it?

The US constitution doesn't kill atheists and it prohibits the death penalty except for high crimes and felonies.

and I think the Trump supporters were jailed for threatening politician's lives.

If someone breaks into my home, I might shoot them. I don't want to risk getting killed by some criminal, and if I have a gf, I don't want her getting raped.  I don't want my shit stolen.  This is why I would want to get a gun to protect myself.

Because your saying that if someone renounces their state in Islam, that they are put to death.

My point is that the US public didn't denounce Swoden for revealing the government's spying powers.

They don't get prosecuted for this.  Most people leave them alone.

As a rule, I try not to debate children. ;-)

Such is your limit then?

Conditionees are.

That said though, conditionees aren't necessarily right.

Who is to say what is actually right or wrong.......A fantasy guy?.....A charlatan?

Conditioned morality is just that.

And "she" is either conditioned or not.

Anyway it's refreshing....You that is.

And we're only here to argue.

Agreement is nice, but not as entertaining.

So where do you originate from, as your English is too good. 

I haven't seen the ol' "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort in quite a while!

Islam on the other hand has no such intentions.

I feel sorry for Muslims. They are the biggest victims of Islam.

Heard it all before. You are forgetting the biggest empire in the world was Islamic,

and I do not believe that those countries that MUSLIMS invaded were invited to do so  by the local populations to overthrow them.

How many was it now, Five Muslim empires?

You are being is very selective with your analysis of western foreign policy too. You have  ignored the intervention in Kosovo where the west (rightly) saved the lives of countless Muslims from Serbian ethnic cleansing.

You mention nothing  of the first Gulf War where, thanks to US-led intervention, Kuwaitis were spared the horrors of a protracted Iraqi occupation.

But for you to to acknowledge such complexity would be far too problematic for you. Why spoil a good narrative after all. Why let the facts get in the way of a good whine and whinge.

Who invaded Coptic Egypt lands and killed millions of Copts to become Arab majority?

Who invaded Iraq which was Assyrian Christian and killed millions to become Arab majority?

Who invaded Syria to kill Syriac Orthodox to become Arab majority?

 Bukhari[52:260] "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' ".  The Quran advocates the death penalty for those that leave Islam.

It's because of this that many people have a negative view of America, and they don't go to jail for it.

 The rest of this paragraph you claim that the penalty for leaving Islam is death according to the other schools you mentioned:

  Any victimless activity should be legal.

Quran 4:89 - "They [Munafiqeen] wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper. Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them."

Quran 51 - "You, who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you " then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people".

Quran 8:12 - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them".

Quran 8:60 - "And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows."

Surah 9:5 - "[This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists [who violated the treaty]. So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months [...] Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]. And when the inviolable months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give charity, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah [i.e., the Qur’ān]. Then deliver him to his place of safety." (Quran 9:1-6)

 And before anyone suggests it. I am not saying that ALL MUSLIMS are fanatics or terrorists. But considering that it only takes a novel written or a cartoon drawn to upset the Muslim world that will demand the head of anyone committing "blasphemy" , in my opinion, I think Muslims themselves need to have  a rethink about what they believe and preach to their own children  in the 21st century.

Such are your limitations then.

 I should accept your belief is true so I could get [1] truth, [2] peace, and [3] salvation? 

[1] circular reasoning

[2] peace can be had without your belief

[3] salvation from what?

Hi yasmine nice to see you back and causing trouble. Lol! 

Your logic is as bad as ever though. Islam has been demonstrated over and over as morally corrupt.

Muslim talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. Behind closed doors the truth is revealed and it is quite ugly. 

Domestic violence runs deep. Sexual violence runs deep. Hypocrisy runs deep.

The religion of peace is deeply violent and hate filled against the west. And against the Jews.

But hey nice to see you back. Perhaps this time you might be influenced to repent of your sins, dish the dead guy and turn over a new leaf.