What the "Holy Book" permits . . .

[LuisDantas]

Why not just drop the act and allow trained ulema to compile more ahadiths.

Far as I know, apparently because that would be "trusting man over God".

Of course, I don't have a lot of respect for such a perspective, because it is so plainly obvious that whatever meaning the Quran or the Bible may have it is entirely lent by the understanding of men. But many people hold onto the fantasy that Scripture Heals Faith.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Far as I know, apparently because that would be "trusting man over God".

Of course, I don't have a lot of respect for such a perspective, because it is so plainly obvious that whatever meaning the Quran or the Bible may have it is entirely lent by the understanding of men. But many people hold onto the fantasy that Scripture Heals Faith.

To me if you just add the honesty it adds credibility. You trust the works of scholarly journals why not treat religious texts this way. Teach them as ethical systems. Sure you can have ritualism and all that but you can also make them practical.
Most of Islamic theology is written by other men and phased through the eyes of scholars Muslims respected.
This is how the Maliki, Hanafi, Han'bali and other schools get formed

 

[LuisDantas]

To me if you just add the honesty it adds credibility. You trust the works of scholarly journals why not treat religious texts this way. Teach them as ethical systems. Sure you can have ritualism and all that but you can also make them practical.
Most of Islamic theology is written by other men and phased through the eyes of scholars Muslims respected.
This is how the Maliki, Hanafi, Han'bali and other schools get formed

Am I misreading things, or do most Christians and most of all Muslims hate the idea that those scholars may be introducing their own readings into the scriptures?

Isn't that why Hadiths are so often maligned in Islam, and why a Quranist movement even exists?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Am I misreading things, or do most Christians and most of all Muslims hate the idea that those scholars may be introducing their own readings into the scriptures?

They always add their own rhetoric in scriptures they just refuse to admit it. LBGT Islam is entirely unethical by Islamic standards yet it exists.

Isn't that why Hadiths are so often maligned in Islam, and why a Quranist movement even exists?

The Qur'an hold the illusion that the Qur'an is divine though. That is the issue. The Qur'an is formed no differently than ahadith.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is LBGT Islam?

 

[Spiderman]

This is my big complaint. The fact that holy books are just cultural pieces that are for the most part like old folk stories collected into a book makes them valuable alone. Making them holy and perfect just destroys any possible purpose they could have.
I love the Bible as it is and the same for the Qur'an. Adding this divine nonsense to it just destroys its validity.
Look at the Qur'an and how additional texts are constantly added to it. They are added to it though through gimmicks and pseudo historical relevancy.
Why not just drop the act and allow trained ulema to compile more ahadiths.

Exactly! I wish I could kiss your nostril for that one!

stop quoting an ancient text for a far a way nation along time ago in a middle eastern region far far away to justify cutting off hands and heads, stoning harlots, and waging death against infidels today!

 

[Sha'irullah]

What is LBGT Islam?

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual

 

[gsa]

I have noticed a new trend amongst religious reformists. When they bring forth often radical or heterodox opinions they always try backing it with their religious text that is the core of their religion. The issue is that very few progressive ideas have any place in many religions. Homosexuality, peace, or even marrying a person outside of one's faith is disliked by many religions.

Why is it that the religious can never back their assertions with reason instead of appeals to a holy book? Is it that the religious are intellectually bankrupt that they cannot be reasoned with?

There are a few reasons why.

First, there is the issue of legitimacy. The intended audience for these arguments will include traditional believers who have been taught that these concepts are prohibited, and given scriptural evidence as proof of the establishment position. Finding justification in religious texts allows the reformist to undermine traditional interpretations, and also doesn’t foreclose an argument based on reason.

Second, there is a potential theological justification for it. If you assume that God is omniscient, that means that inspired text is presumably written for universal application across different times, and the meaning may be “discerned” more clearly in later times than it has been in the past. This is particularly true if the text makes claims that cannot be squared with modern knowledge; a more “elevated” reading of the text can reconcile scripture with science and reason. Using the LGBT example, we know that there is something called sexual orientation and that it is relatively fixed by early adolescence at the latest, which seems to contract the claims of Paul (by conservative tradition) that people were “delivered” from these “evil tendencies” through the justifying and sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit. There are two modernist approaches, one conservative (i.e., these individuals must remain celibate but their orientation is not itself blameworthy) and one liberal (i.e., Paul was not talking about people with deep seated homosexual attractions).


Third, in Christian history there were plenty of reform movements that adopted Enlightenment principles in rejecting the traditional view of revelation. The Unitarian movement, for example, did not blindly accept the scriptures. That approach is problematic for Protestantism, however, because the tradition of sola scriptura provides the Protestants with their authority, while tradition is equal to scripture in Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I asked that same question, only in so many words. Here is a couple answers I received.

I was talking to a lady in a chat room who said she was isolated from the city. Her family was not religious and the only way she knew God was from the Bible. So, when I asked her to back up her own thoughts in her own words she could not because all of her thoughts on faith rested in the only text she depended on, scripture.

While another person who does not back up his scripture quoting by any wording of his own, continuously believes the more people hear (or read) his Holy Book somehow they will somehow understand the context to which that person is speaking (or knowing his point when he posts scripture)

Even if it is not backed up by "reason" that everyone agrees with, their opinions at least should be backed up with their own words. For if the prophets, disciples, and apostles can talk without their Holy Book to others, why can't we?

Also, many define reason differently. My friend believes that God is common sense. She cannot function or see objective reasoning because to her, God is all there is and all that exists. So, sometimes it's just people of faith it's not that they don't want to step out of their box, it's because they can't. That is all they know.

Our reality is all we know. We used to think the world is flat and now we know it's round. I guess we need to accept people where they are and hope they are nice about how they come across when quoting their faith rather than discussing it.

I have noticed a new trend amongst religious reformists. When they bring forth often radical or heterodox opinions they always try backing it with their religious text that is the core of their religion. The issue is that very few progressive ideas have any place in many religions. Homosexuality, peace, or even marrying a person outside of one's faith is disliked by many religions.

Why is it that the religious can never back their assertions with reason instead of appeals to a holy book? Is it that the religious are intellectually bankrupt that they cannot be reasoned with?

 

[Spiderman]

just so all know when I call somebody infidel it is it done so in a joking manner

 

[Deidre]

They always add their own rhetoric in scriptures they just refuse to admit it. LBGT Islam is entirely unethical by Islamic standards yet it exists.


The Qur'an hold the illusion that the Qur'an is divine though. That is the issue. The Qur'an is formed no differently than ahadith.

Not just in Islam but sadly, all the Abrahamic faiths take issue with homosexuality.

 

[LuisDantas]

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual

I have no doubt that there are Muslim LGBT, but I always felt that they were under strong pressure to keep covert.

Am I mistaken?

 

[DawudTalut]

I have no doubt that there are Muslim LGBT, but I always felt that they were under strong pressure to keep covert.

Am I mistaken?

Yes grossly mistaken, as soon as one breaks clear commandment, one is opposing Allah.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes grossly mistaken, as soon as one breaks clear commandment, one is opposing Allah.

How does that imply that I am mistaken? At first glance it seems to confirm what I just said.

 

[Spiderman]

"LuisDantagive h, post: 4135211, member: 16218"]How does that imply that I am mistaken? At first glance it seems to confirm what I just said.

Allah refuses to give homosexuals a healthy sexuality when they pray and travail and beg to not be that way.

Allah leaves them homosexual.It Iis not ttheir fault, nearly all dont want to be that way.

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course homosexuality is not anyone's fault, regardless of whether anyone wants to have it or not.

I'm asking about how Islam deals with it, though.

 

[Spiderman]

""Yes grossly mistaken, as soon as one breaks clear commandment, one is opposing Allah."""


this was the post I was supposed to be quoting...he is speaking about how homosexuals opposed alla...I'm saying they are not at fault...

I must have sounded stupid saying that when you thought I was responding to your post

 

[LuisDantas]

Uh, not that I am not stupid, but I still fail to see what you both mean.

 

[Spiderman]

I don't like the way he and other religious people blame homosexuals as being at war with God.

As if it is their fault.

I feel sorry for them and people should be trying to help them​

 

[ImaTroll]

Why is it that the religious can never back their assertions with reason instead of appeals to a holy book? Is it that the religious are intellectually bankrupt that they cannot be reasoned with?

that's about the gist of it.