Support NeoGAF

[Ashes]

As someone who clearly knows what they're talking about, you mean?

Of course they do. By their own admission, they know so so much.

I was so so wrong about the facade that they stepped into this debate with; clearly they have applied due diligence around the nuances of debate.

 

[Diffense]

I have no intention of reading yet another equivocating religious document back to front. I'll believe the believers who say thay are acting with support of their scriptures. If their scriptures actually consistently and unequivocally forbid what they do, then I'd certainly absolve Islam of any blame. I'm reasonable.

But I'm not going to get into pointless theological debates. The Bible straight-up says to stone homosexuals yet it's possible to find ways to say that this does not justify anti-gay violence given other scriptures. The problem is that, taken a a whole, the Bible equivocates, AT BEST, leaving a whole lot of justification for people who want to be true to what they consider explicit commands.

Theological debates occur because the "holy" (or should I say holey) scriptures are often not completely internally consistent so the different sects make different decisions about how to interpret texts.
But the bottom line is that if justification for vile or intolerant acts can be found in the scriptures then the religion is culpable as far as I am concerned.

 

[Ashes]

But, of couse, you would resort to thinly veiled character assassinations when I refuse to handwave away the pernicious influence of Islam on the laws of some countries and the behavior of a significant number of people.
EXPLAIN HOW THE ISLAMIC HOLY TEXTS CONSISTENTLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY FORBID VIOLENCE AGAINST OR HARASSMENT OF UNBELIEVERS AND WELCOMES CRITICISM OF MOHAMMED and I will agree that Islam is being "twisted" by the mentally imbalanced. If you can't do that, please desist from drive-by "oh you're such a terrible person" shitposts just because you don't like the fact that I can't ignore the obvious.

The traditions are an ongoing debate. You're welcome to take part in that debate, so that you may decide for yourself.

With Jesus, we do much of the filling in. With Muhammed, we have the traditions. Witness statements from his wives, his friends, his apprentices, witnesses, his critics and enemies, propaganda and fabrications. And how will you know which hadith to trust and why? And which to reject and why? For that you can't bypass the Ulema. They have been talking about this from when he was alive to today. And much of that knowledge is lost by shallow readings and a blog style dialogue by muslims and non-muslims alike.

I mean try this for size:

https://youtu.be/rX6F1AY-Z9M

Even if you disagree, at least know that people who have made it their life's work to study this, have combed through the library of texts; this is their opinion. Look at the detail here:

https://youtu.be/YR9DFDMboXA

 

[Diffense]

With Jesus, we do much of the filling in. With Muhammed, we have the traditions. Witness statements from his wives, his friends, his apprentices, witnesses, his critics and enemies, and fabrications. And how will you know which hadith to trust and why? And which to reject and why? For that you can't bypass the Ulema. They have been talking about this from when he was alive to today. And much of that knowledge is lost by shallow readings and a blog style dialogue by muslims and non-muslims alike.

I know. If you want to kill infidels and gays and critics, trust the ones that tell you to do so and teach it to others. That might sound glib, but as long as the support is there it is extremely difficult to unring that bell.
There are always scholarly debates about texts and their meaning and authorship and I am sure that occurs in the Muslim world as well. However, there must also be a grassroots understanding of what is canon.

Quite frankly, I don't understand why it has to be a huge "debate" to determine that unsavoury things haven't been commanded.
It seems that in their attempts to "guide" us gods and prophets are particularly adept at leaving ambiguous information that does more harm than good.
However, given where most Muslim countries fall on the issues of women's rights, gay rights, and (un)religious freedom, I have to assume the Mohammed's guidance isn't quite as unclear as you suggest.

 

[dapperbandit]

So the FBI searched computers of both the shooter and the guys who claimed he was with them and says theres no evidence he was on gay apps or had a secret gay life interacting with any of those leads. They so far think the leads they've dealt with are confusing him for others they've seen or are flat out not credible leads

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...ting-gay-evidence-lacking-20160623-story.html

Might catch some flak for this, but I had trouble taking this interpretation too seriously. It never seemed like more than hearsay, it felt more like this is what people wanted to believe because it somewhat supersedes the "radical islamist" angle which people are uncomfortable with.

 

[tanooki27]

Those "religions of peace" clearly DO NOT exert a braking force on man's most base tendencies but are entirely compatible with them so I'm quite frankly fucking tired of their being placed on some kind of pedestal that they do not deserve

interesting and true. religion offers a way to mask the act of murder with selflessness and sanctimony

 

[Christopher]

So there's nothing to substanciate this man was gay...no evidence at all

Interesting