Gunman's father: "It's up to God to punish the homosexuals"

[DrewStevens 5,249]

2 hours ago, Didymus said:

And you're going to decide what the doctrine is, then?  If there's anything uniting holy books it's their lack of consistent doctrine or systematic explanation of it. And then you have passages blatantly contradicting each other.

Look at the history of theology for all monotheistic religions. There is no doctrine. People decide the doctrines, usually completely at random, like how some council decided that the Holy Trinity was a thing hundreds of years after Christ supposedly died. Which is why I actually don't think you can generalize, esp. when you have so much segments within just one religion, Christianity being the most dramatic example.

And then I don't really agree about that last thing either. Believe in one of the books? What does that mean? Adherents of religions are notorious for picking and choosing and explaining away bits they don't like. So I think that's again an unwarranted generalization, esp. when there are no two identical individuals and history again speaks against you. When you have centuries of tolerance towards homosexual behavior in perfectly Islamic areas while that exact same behavior was met with an unambiguous death penalty in Christian ones (despite there being no prohibition against homosexuality in the New Testament), then what does that tell you?

It's just a lot more complicated. The very idea of "religion" vs. "something else" shows Enlightenment bias. All underlying cognitive mechanisms are the same for people who believe in God and people who believe that their life is given a purpose when they work hard and make something of themselves. I agree that some of the material religious believers can find is fuel for abuse when it suits the individual, but I think it's a lot more valuable to look at the total interplay of dynamics instead of just singling out a religion and claiming it's the source of all the trouble. That, to me, is like mistaking symptoms for the cause of the disease   People will always find reasons to kill each other, and they don't need ones as inventive as ancient divine commands.

Well that wasn't my point. I said atheists are just as capable of harming as religious people.

All three Abrahamic books contain justifications for hate and murder. Yes, they contradict themselves and people pick the things they want to believe like if it was a Lucky Charms cereal, but religion itself is fuel for hate and compassion. 

Again, I'm not talking a it individuals, I'm talking about religion. Religion can't pick or decide, it's something that changes only when people change it, it doesn't change by itself. Most (if not all) religions tell you to dislike or despise a group of people.

There can't be tolerance towards homosexuals in a perfectly Islamic area. It's just impossible to be perfectly Islamic and gay friendly. It's just like being a perfect liberal and a white supremacist. A Muslim can choose to believe only some parts of what Islam says and still be a Muslim, but it's not following true Islam, it's following his/her version of Islam, same thing with Christians and Jews.

Christians as not only supposed to follow the New Testament. Christians are supposed to still follow the moral laws from the Mosaic Law because Jesus said he wasn't abolishing those laws but fulfilling them, so homosexuality may fall in that category for many.

No where I said religion is the cause of all trouble and no where I singled out a religion. I only said religion in general was fuel for crazy people to commit hate crimes and that's something atheists lack. Atheists only have their cultures and own thoughts to commit such atrocities, religious people have their cultures, their own thoughts and the influence from some old books. I'm not saying anyone is worse or better, but just pointing out that and atheists lacks of something religious people have and that will always be a factor for how they act, good or bad but a factor.

[lego 44,165]

9 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

And how the absolute **** did US immigration officials let a guy in from Afghanistan that supports the f*cking Taliban publicly?!?!?!?!?! 

 

Well they used to be the "good guys" to the U.S. remember?

 

 

[Didymus 34,380]

10 minutes ago, DrewStevens said:

Well that wasn't my point. I said atheists are just as capable of harming as religious people.

All three Abrahamic books contain justifications for hate and murder. Yes, they contradict themselves and people pick the things they want to believe like if it was a Lucky Charms cereal, but religion itself is fuel for hate and compassion. 

Again, I'm not talking a it individuals, I'm talking about religion. Religion can't pick or decide, it's something that changes only when people change it, it doesn't change by itself. Most (if not all) religions tell you to dislike or despise a group of people.

There can't be tolerance towards homosexuals in a perfectly Islamic area. It's just impossible to be perfectly Islamic and gay friendly. It's just like being a perfect liberal and a white supremacist. A Muslim can choose to believe only some parts of what Islam says and still be a Muslim, but it's not following true Islam, it's following his/her version of Islam, same thing with Christians and Jews.

Christians as not only supposed to follow the New Testament. Christians are supposed to still follow the moral laws from the Mosaic Law because Jesus said he wasn't abolishing those laws but fulfilling them, so homosexuality may fall in that category for many.

No where I said religion is the cause of all trouble and no where I singled out a religion. I only said religion in general was fuel for crazy people to commit hate crimes and that's something atheists lack. Atheists only have their cultures and own thoughts to commit such atrocities, religious people have their cultures, their own thoughts and the influence from some old books. I'm not saying anyone is worse or better, but just pointing out that and atheists lacks of something religious people have and that will always be a factor for how they act, good or bad but a factor.

See, I don't like it when people pretend there's religion just "out there" apart from the people who claim to believe in it. You won't find it. It doesn't exist and all scholars of religion are in agreement about that. There's no Islam, there's no Christianity, there are just different beliefs that focus on shared symbols, doctrines, but there are as much versions of those religion as there are people believing in it, that's the only sensible way of approaching the topic.

So I am absolutely appalled by the statement that you're going to pit a "true" Islam (what the ****'s that might I ask) which is apparently inherently homophobic (absolutely problematic statement) against Muslims tolerant of homosexuality. You'll wipe out centuries of tolerance towards same-s*x behavior in Islamic countries just so it doesn't negate your own opinion? That's the logic of terrorists, who claim that only the earliest form is the authentic one. Religion is in constant motion and is being reinterpreted in every single individual. Christianity today is NOTHING like the early Christian movements, but clearly that doesn't stop us from being faced with 20+ centuries of what's referred to everywhere as Christianity. Should we call all those varieties illegitimate (as atheists, mind you) as if we're suddenly the Church Fathers?

Why are you engaging in theology  There are many interpretations about the passage in the New Testament you're referring to. Again, you're simplifying things to a quite dramatic degree imo. Now you're telling Christians and Muslims what to do and what to believe? Why? Makes no sense. Self-defeating at best.

Anyway, the last paragraph is clear and I don't disagree with it completely but I think you're also ignoring the fact that atheists can have cultural myths to their disposal as well as patriotic values etc. etc. that can influence them towards violence, as has clearly been the case many times throughout history. So it doesn't work quite well imo.

[MJHolland 12,725]

13 minutes ago, YourSweet666 said:

 

Well they used to be the "good guys" to the U.S. remember?

 

 

When he immigrated to this country, Afghanistan was conquered by the Taliban and they instilled a reign of fear. How did this man go undetected? 

[lego 44,165]

2 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

When he immigrated to this country, Afghanistan was conquered by the Taliban and they instilled a reign of fear. How did this man go undetected? 

 

How do you know when he immigrated? His son was born in '86 NY, so he was already there in the 80s. 

And Americans were funding and training Taliban at the time, against the Soviet Union.

 

[MJHolland 12,725]

1 minute ago, YourSweet666 said:

 

How do you know when he immigrated? His son was born in '86 NY, so he was already there in the 80s. 

And Americans were funding and training Taliban at the time, against the Soviet Union.

 

There is still little to no evidence that the US supported the Taliban directly. We gave arms to freedom fighters who were fighting off soviet invasions in Afghanistan, and those arms eventually ended up in Taliban control. This guys father was supporting the taliban even after their reign of terror in the country. 

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

9 hours ago, sexfashionfame said:

What he said is in accordance with his beliefs. I don't think he is horrible for saying that it is up to God to punish the homosexuals. I disagree with him but he disagrees with me and that's just as important. We have our differences, but he is in a horrible circumstance that none of us could ever fathom and I'm sure he's trying to mourn the best he can. I see nothing hateful here. 

Except it's the fact that his beliefs are the reason why LGBTQ in his homeland live in fear... This is so much bigger than having a difference in opinion. 

[uo111 5,282]

32 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Except that's not what I did. Don't pull stuff I said out of context. Besides, if you disagree then offer counterarguments  If not, don't ****ing quote me, 'cause you're clearly not interested in having a conversation. 

This coming from someone who says "if you don't understand/think x, then it's not worth having a discussion with you."

You kept making false equivalencies about laws and religious passages. You said both of those things, there is nothing context sensitive about them. I refuted them, and then you said I just didn't understand you, and I'm the one who doesn't want a conversation? Please.

[DrewStevens 5,249]

4 minutes ago, Didymus said:

See, I don't like it when people pretend there's a religion just "out there" apart from the people who claim to believe in it. You won't find it. It doesn't exist and all scholars of religion are in agreement about that. There's no Islam, there's no Christianity, there are just different beliefs that focus on shared symbols, doctrines, but there are as much versions of those religion as there are people believing in it.

So I am absolutely appalled by the statement that you're going to pit a "true" Islam (what the ****'s that might I ask) which is apparently inherently homophobic (absolutely problematic statement) against Muslims tolerant of homosexuality. You'll wipe out centuries of tolerance towards same-s*x behavior in Islamic countries just so it doesn't negate your own opinion?

Also, why are you engaging in theology  There are many interpretations about the passage in the New Testament you're referring to. Again, you're simplifying things to a quite dramatic degree imo. Now you're telling Christians and Muslims what to do and what to believe? Why? Makes no sense. 

Anyway, the last paragraph is clear and I don't disagree with it completely but I think you're also ignoring the fact that atheists can have cultural myths to their disposal as well as patriotic values etc. etc. that can influence them towards violence, as has clearly been the case many times throughout history. So it doesn't work quite well imo.

I think you are either too much into what I say it you are not comprehending what I say.

You either believe in something or you don't. You are telling me religion doesn't exit because you can't find it. Can you find God? No. Does it mean God doesn't exist? Who knows. It's impossible to know.

I'm pretty sure your statement about all scholars agreeing that religion doesn't exist is just an assumption. I doubt you did a global research to find that all scholars say religions don't exist and that everything is just classified as a belief. You can say religion can be interpreted as more than one thing and that it is hard to comprehend what it is, but it definitely exist according to religious studies which is what religious scholars study. It even has three possible meanings so it definitely exist for them.

I never said what Christians and Muslims should do or believe. I clearly said "Christians are not only supposed to... They are supposed to". The word supposed is not the same as the word must or should. 

I'm engaging in theology only because you said that there's no prohibition against homosexuality in the New Testament, which is true but it didn't support your argument since Christians are only supposed to obey the New Testament. And I'm completely aware that the Bible can be interpreted differently that's why I said "homosexuality may fall in that category".

I never pit any Muslims against other Muslims. You can read again and try to find where I pit them against each other and where I supposedly wiped out centuries of tolerance. I didn't. I even said that a Muslim can surely be gay friendly without being less of a Muslim. What I meant is that perfect or true Islam is when the Qur'an is obeyed in its entirety but that doesn't mean it's wrong to not obey some of the Qur'an and it doesn't mean you're not a true Muslim. People  say all the time that terrorism isn't true Islam but if I say that being gay friendly is not true Islam either suddenly it's a problematic statement? I disagree, it's not problematic to label a thing, I'm not even labeling a person. I never said Muslims were half Muslims or false Muslims for not following each rule in the Qur'an.

I clearly said atheists are influenced by their culture which would obviously include myths since myths are cultural. Religious people are also influenced by those myths the same way. Both atheists and religious people can be patriotic. So it doesn't change anything. Religious people still have another factor to influence their behavior and atheists will always lack of that factor as long as hey are still atheists.

[Didymus 34,380]

1 minute ago, uo111 said:

You said both of those things, there is nothing context sensitive about them.

"I don't want to compare democratic societies to dictatorships, the main mechanism of obeying or excommunication is still largely the same"

You claim to have refuted that when you completely ignored my arguments in that post just to then ask me: "What even are you saying? Governments and religions are the same thing?" (as if that was even a reply to my post which should've told you I wasn't saying they were the same thing, where the hell did that fiction come from). I directly gave a negative answer to that question and explained what I was talking about, and then you went on this route, so no, you did zero refutation. What the **** are you doing to act like you did  This is why I'm saying that I don't think you understand the dynamic of the conversation at all. You just make **** up.

I can't even find a post where I stated that atheists don't think about their beliefs critically, I simply stated that what Chic was describing as religious logic (filtering out undesirable facts because they don't match your values) was actually just universal cognitive functioning. I'm not targeting atheists, I'm only targeting the idea that there is a significant difference between the way religious people approach the world and atheists. You're free to disagree about that, but then come up with counterarguments  

[VOLANTIS 16,503]

9 hours ago, ZiggyZiggs said:

Honestly, its kind of hypocritical. Pre-marital sex is also a sin according to Islam but I don't see no Muslim teens actually following that. Most of em are not even virgins. So what is this homosexuality is a sin ****?

And has Zayn not even acknowledged the attack

I actually have to ask. Is Zayn a homophobe or is everyone assuming this because of his beliefs? I'm seriously asking because Idk much about him.

[Didymus 34,380]

33 minutes ago, DrewStevens said:

You either believe in something or you don't. You are telling me religion doesn't exit because you can't find it. Can you find God? No. Does it mean God doesn't exist? Who knows. It's impossible to know.

That's a ludicrous comparison. We're not talking about God here, we're talking about things like "true Islam" etc. Surely we should be able to find that, otherwise why are you speaking for it.

I'm telling you that "religion" is a category Western scholars came up with in the Enlightenment to pit it against other cultural domains. But that category is hugely problematic because the very idea of separating cultural domains is based on biased ideas about what those domains should ideally look like. 

I'm telling you that therefore the idea of a single, static "Islam" or "Christianity" is just a phantom that's disguising all the differences between sects and even individuals. Like I said there are as many Christianities as there are Christians and scholars have known for quite a long time now that people who claimed to have been Jesus' followers from the first century onwards have been very different in even matters of simple doctrine (example: the first "Christians", which we shouldn't call them according to your logic, probably didn't even believe in Jesus' resurrection, the absolute pinnacle of Christian belief since the Christian canon was officialized).

That's not something I come up with to defend religious believers or whatever. It's common sense. Only people who want to simplify (and thus manipulate) history swing the words "religion", "Islam" etc. around. No respect for actual historical facts and developments, no objective validity whatsoever and it's time people realized that. It's like talking about "science". Like what are you talking about. Nothing, that's right.

33 minutes ago, DrewStevens said:

I'm pretty sure your statement about all scholars agreeing that religion doesn't exist is just an assumption. I doubt you did a global research to find that all scholars say religions don't exist and that everything is just classified as a belief. You can say religion can be interpreted as more than one thing and that it is hard to comprehend what it is, but it definitely exist according to religious studies which is what religious scholars study. It even has three possible meanings so it definitely exist for them.

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you but I've been studying religion academically for three years at the University of Amsterdam now and I can tell you genuinely that in my first week it was unambiguously impressed upon me that there is no, I repeat no agreed upon scholarly definition of religion to even use. Every decent scholar knows the term is hugely problematic, but it's just a legacy we're stuck with, and we're forced to choose our definitions for pragmatic reasons. Only a fool in the academy would use a term like "Islam" in a way that implies it's a single, static entity that exists by itself. 

Three possible meanings? What the **** are you talking about? Where are you getting this from? Are you getting this from Wikipedia or something  Stop speaking for things you clearly know nothing about, whether they be religions or academic disciplines.

33 minutes ago, DrewStevens said:

I never said what Christians and Muslims should do or believe. I clearly said "Christians are not only supposed to... They are supposed to". The word supposed is not the same as the word must or should. 

I get that's what you think you said, but you didn't. You imagined this "true Islam" proclaiming its laws, when really, you're talking about nothing because there is no such magical authority we can access to explain what's Islamic and what's not to us. So in truth, you're the one proclaiming you know what Islam is and what Muslims should do according to "it", so yes you are saying what Muslims should do and believe, probably based on what little knowledge you have of the Qur'an, which is no doubt as unhistorical and prejudiced as your thoughts about religion in general are

33 minutes ago, DrewStevens said:

What I meant is that perfect or true Islam is when the Qur'an is obeyed in its entirety but that doesn't mean it's wrong to not obey some of the Qur'an and it doesn't mean you're not a true Muslim. People  say all the time that terrorism isn't true Islam but if I say that being gay friendly is not true Islam either suddenly it's a problematic statement? I disagree, it's not problematic to label a thing, I'm not even labeling a person. I never said Muslims were half Muslims or false Muslims for not following each rule in the Qur'an.

Again: according to who?  It's like I'm reading a ****ing ISIS manual rn. I don't understand how you don't get that Islamic theologians have interpreted what the Qur'an is trying to command in different ways, hence Muslims can be perfectly gay friendly and still believe they're obeying the Qur'an in its entirety. What you're claiming to exist is an authoritative version (and translation, apparently) of the Qur'an that's indisputable. That does not exist. It's telling that the Salafist groups (who claim they need to return to an authentic Islam as it was in the time of Muhammad) are never in agreement with each other about what the Qur'an says about even very simple matters.

So that whole argument is just a crock of **** and I'm sick of it being used. You're claiming you understand the Qur'an better than Islamic theologians? Really? I don't. Not because I respect their opinions, but because I have no idea how to read it. And I don't think anyone does, which only gives more strength to my point, and less to yours.

And tbh, this statement of yours: "A Muslim can choose to believe only some parts of what Islam says and still be a Muslim, but it's not following true Islam" could very easily be read as you saying they're not "real" Muslims. I mean, come on, it's almost so unambiguous I'm suspecting you're just covering your ass about it now. Muslims who do not follow true Islam are still real Muslims? I mean what kind of statement is that?

33 minutes ago, DrewStevens said:

Religious people still have another factor to influence their behavior and atheists will always lack of that factor as long as hey are still atheists.

That's only when you cling to the idea that religion is a separate factor  It shouldn't be. Belief is always seen as the central component of religion, so beliefs then should be that set of factors, not "religion", especially when it's so varied. There are so many conceptions of divinity, including ones that don't even permit of the possibility of individuals to understand the will of God at all (some going so far to say that God determines everything so strictly there's not even a free will, and there's nothing to be exceptionally good for because their fate's already decided; an ideology closely aligned with atheism actually when you think about it), so again that's simplification, that's manipulation and I don't think it makes us understand religious people any better.

It's a lot more wise, imo, to simply study the cognitive mechanisms behind belief in general, however it manifests. And the only reason why I suspect people would disagree with that is if they would want to push the spectre "religion" under the bus. I was like that in high school, so I perfectly remember what it's like to take up arms against religion, but I know better now, and I'll actively try to remove that same bias from other people, absolutely.

[Noir 17,810]

I just hate that people still think individuals can't be openly homosexual or part of the LGBTQ+ community and not also religious at the same time.

[DrewStevens 5,249]

5 minutes ago, Didymus said:

That's a ludicrous comparison. We're not talking about God here, we're talking about things like "true Islam" etc. Surely we should be able to find that, otherwise why are you speaking for it.

I'm telling you that "religion" is a category Western scholars came up with in the Enlightenment to pit it against other cultural domains. But that category is hugely problematic because the very idea of separating cultural domains is based on biased ideas about what those domains should ideally look like. 

I'm telling you that therefore the idea of a single, static "Islam" or "Christianity" is just a phantom that's disguising all the differences between sects and even individuals. Like I said there are as many Christianities as there are Christians and scholars have known for quite a long time now that people who claimed to have been Jesus' followers from the first century onwards have been very different in even matters of simple doctrine (example: the first "Christians", which we shouldn't call them according to your logic, probably didn't even believe in Jesus' resurrection, the absolute pinnacle of Christian belief since the Christian canon was officialized).

That's not something I come up with to defend religious believers or whatever. It's common sense. Only people who want to simplify (and thus manipulate) history swing the words "religion", "Islam" etc. around. No respect for actual historical facts and developments, no objective validity whatsoever and it's time people realized that. It's like talking about "science". Like what are you talking about. Nothing, that's right.

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you but I've been studying religion academically for three years at the University of Amsterdam now and I can tell you genuinely that in my first week it was unambiguously impressed upon me that there is no, I repeat no scholarly definition of religion to even use. Every decent scholar knows the term is hugely problematic, but it's just a legacy we're stuck with, and we're forced to choose our definitions for pragmatic reasons. Only a fool in the academy would use a term like "Islam" in a way that implies it's a single, static entity that exists by itself. 

Three possible meanings? What the **** are you talking about? Where are you getting this from? Are you getting this from Wikipedia or something  Stop speaking for things you clearly know nothing about, whether they be religions or academic disciplines.

I get that's what you think you said, but you didn't. You imagined this "true Islam" proclaiming its laws, when really, you're talking about nothing because there is no such magical authority we can access to explain what's Islamic and what's not to us. So in truth, you're the one proclaiming you know what Islam is and what Muslims should do according to "it", so yes you are saying what Muslims should do and believe, probably based on what little knowledge you have of the Qur'an, which is no doubt as unhistorical and prejudiced as your thoughts about religion in general are

Again: according to who?  It's like I'm reading a ****ing ISIS manual rn. I don't understand how you don't get that Islamic theologians have interpreted what the Qur'an is trying to command in different ways, hence Muslims can be perfectly gay friendly and still believe they're obeying the Qur'an in its entirety. What you're claiming to exist is an authoritative version (and translation, apparently) of the Qur'an that's indisputable. That does not exist. It's telling that the Salafist groups (who claim they need to return to an authentic Islam as it was in the time of Muhammad) are never in agreement about each other. 

So that whole argument is just a crock of **** and I'm sick of it being used. You're claiming you understand the Qur'an better than Islamic theologians? Really? I don't. Not because I respect their opinions, but because I have no idea how to read it. And I don't think anyone does, which only gives more strength to my point, and less to yours.

And tbh, this statement of yours: "A Muslim can choose to believe only some parts of what Islam says and still be a Muslim, but it's not following true Islam" could very easily be read as you saying they're not "real" Muslims. I mean, come on, it's almost so unambiguous I'm suspecting you're just covering your ass about it now. Muslims who do not follow true Islam are still real Muslims? I mean what kind of statement is that?

That's only when you cling to the idea that religion is a separate factor  It shouldn't be. Belief is always seen as the central component of religion, so beliefs then should be that set of factors, not "religion", especially when it's so varied. There are so many conceptions of divinity, including ones that don't even permit of the possibility of individuals to understand the will of God at all (some going so far to say that God determines everything so strictly there's not even a free will, and there's nothing to be exceptionally good for because their fate's already decided; an ideology closely aligned with atheism actually when you think about it), so again that's simplification, that's manipulation and I don't think it makes us understand religious people any better.

It's a lot more wise, imo, to simply study the cognitive mechanisms behind belief in general, however it manifests. And the only reason why I suspect people would disagree with that is if they would want to push the spectre "religion" under the bus. I was like that in high school, so I perfectly remember what it's like to take up arms against religion, but I know better now, and I'll actively try to remove that same bias from other people, absolutely.

You clearly are expressing your opinion and how you feel about religion and I'm doing the same. Since you have agreed that religion does exist (after saying it didn't) and it's a problematic term amongst scholars which means that it's used then there's nothing to discuss.

I never said anyone should follow any rule or do certain thing to be considered religious. You called my point ambiguous so it means you aren't sure of what I meant because it wasn't clear. If you like to think I did it's fine by me but I didn't meant it that way.

I'm not interested in arguing if you're gonna keep acting like your version of things is the only acceptable true or if you're gonna keep the passive aggressive attitude to get your point across. I don't disagree with all your ideas but the way you are discussing them will never get people to understand them since you're basically mocking people's point of views.

[DrewStevens 5,249]

47 minutes ago, VOLANTIS said:

I actually have to ask. Is Zayn a homophobe or is everyone assuming this because of his beliefs? I'm seriously asking because Idk much about him.

I think it's just because he is the only trendy and well known Muslim celebrity. I have never seen anything about him being homophobic.