Future of religion

[Lower Nubia]

So they can’t be pro-LGBT then. Can we have an example of a Hadith calling for gay marriage to equal out the ones calling for the death penalty?

The hadith calling for executing gay people are incredibly disputed, and it seems punishment for sodomy was historically only invoked infrequently in cases such as rape.

I’m also surprised to find that historians believe that homosexual relations, while Muhammad (S) looked down upon them, were not outright banned.

There’s a reason the burden of proof for homosexual intercourse is four unbiased witnesses who clearly saw the act of penetration (the same the burden of proof for heterosexual anal intercourse).

Basically, the idea is “you wanna do it? That’s your problem, not mine.”

That’s the problem though. You’ve already conceded the point. Disputed is not rejected. Disputed means acceptable to certain parties within Islam. So factions within Islam are either neutral to LGBT, or call for the death penalty. That’s not Islamic LGBT protection, at best they hate you with no action (including no marriage or openness about it), and the worst? They execute you, middle ground? They flog you.

[Sundiata]

Dominant religion of today is Liberalism. It's God is wealth. It's high church and priests are the United Nations. Espionage embassy and agents are the governments of the countries. Missionaries are the NGOs. If people don't want to accept this religion then at first they are put under financial pressure and if that doesn't work then they face military intervention.

Correct.

We're perpetuating a culture of death.

[Dowaesk]

The hadith calling for executing gay people are incredibly disputed, and it seems punishment for sodomy was historically only invoked infrequently in cases such as rape.

I’m also surprised to find that historians believe that homosexual relations, while Muhammad (S) looked down upon them, were not outright banned.

There’s a reason the burden of proof for homosexual intercourse is four unbiased witnesses who clearly saw the act of penetration (the same the burden of proof for heterosexual anal intercourse).

Basically, the idea is “you wanna do it? That’s your problem, not mine.”

That’s the problem though. You’ve already conceded the point. Disputed is not rejected. Disputed means acceptable to certain parties within Islam. So factions within Islam are either neutral to LGBT, or call for the death penalty. That’s not Islamic LGBT protection, at best they hate you with no action, and the worst? They execute you, middle ground? They flog you.

Hate with no action?
No. Its really up to the person to decide how he sees it. I dont hate gays. I dont support it, but no. I dont hate them. And if say a gay friend of mine were being deprived of his rights, I'd stand up for him.
Hate is entirely dependant on that person. Its really not for a non-Muslim to decide how Muslims shall intepret this heavily disputed topic.

[Lower Nubia]

Dominant religion of today is Liberalism. It's God is wealth. It's high church and priests are the United Nations. Espionage embassy and agents are the governments of the countries. Missionaries are the NGOs. If people don't want to accept this religion then at first they are put under financial pressure and if that doesn't work then they face military intervention.

Poverty, Famine, disease, and War are at an all time low across all of history. Thanks in part to Economic liberalism, distribution of wealth, the United Nations, and NGOs. Literacy, Wages, Quality of life, and happiness are at all time highs for the lowest strata of classes across the globe. Thanks again to the things you’ve listed. A “religion” more accurately described as an ideology, which creates these results is, although perhaps for some idolatrous, understood as virtuous causes, though we may validly criticise the means.

[Lower Nubia]

That’s the problem though. You’ve already conceded the point. Disputed is not rejected. Disputed means acceptable to certain parties within Islam. So factions within Islam are either neutral to LGBT, or call for the death penalty. That’s not Islamic LGBT protection, at best they hate you with no action, and the worst? They execute you, middle ground? They flog you.

Hate with no action?
No. Its really up to the person to decide how he sees it. I dont hate gays. I dont support it, but no. I dont hate them. And if say a gay friend of mine were being deprived of his rights, I'd stand up for him.
Hate is entirely dependant on that person. Its really not for a non-Muslim to decide how Muslims shall intepret this heavily disputed topic.

All you’ve listed is your opinion, which is no more bearing on Islam than an individual who wants flogging or executions. Again, you’ve conceded the point as Islam allows the spectrum of ideas: tolerance (without marriage, or allowing discrimination, which ain’t pro/neutral-lgbt) to punishment, to death. That’s not exactly the spectrum you were implying. I tell you what too, the latter in my list is what has the largest Islamic backing (the current laws of a Islamic nations, or Islamic schools of thought across the world) attests to.

[Dowaesk]

Hate with no action?
No. Its really up to the person to decide how he sees it. I dont hate gays. I dont support it, but no. I dont hate them. And if say a gay friend of mine were being deprived of his rights, I'd stand up for him.
Hate is entirely dependant on that person. Its really not for a non-Muslim to decide how Muslims shall intepret this heavily disputed topic.

All you’ve listed is your opinion, which is no more bearing on Islam than an individual who wants flogging or executions. Again, you’ve conceded the point as Islam allows the spectrum of ideas: tolerance (without marriage, or allowing discrimination, which ain’t pro/neutral-lgbt) to punishment, to death. That’s not exactly the spectrum you were implying. I tell you what too, the latter in my list is what has the largest Islamic backing (the current laws of a Islamic nations, or Islamic schools of thought across the world) attests to.

Allowing gays to be gay, isnt neutral to you?
What do you want? I bet, even if we were to kiss their feets it wont be enough for you.

All I've listed isnt just my opinions. There are imams and scholars and knowledgeable Muslims with the same views.

Implementations of Sharia across the Islamic World is not really a source tbh. Sharia can be interpreted in many ways. Most do consider Homosexual acts as immoral. As for the schools of thoughts. Maliki tends to go towards public interest, Hanbal goes for traditions, Shafi goes for logical reasoning, Hanafi goes for ordering hadith and using logical reasoning to choose what is most appropriate. So basically, all these schools of thoughts except for some aspects of Hanbal, can be reinterpreted with the new things and ways that we have learnt. I do respect you, since now I know that you actually know stuff and arent one of those people who just criticise Islam without any actual knowledge.

Because Islam can be intepreted in so many ways. I have full confidence that it'd be the dominant religion in the future. (There ya go. Now mods cant say we have diverted from topic)

[Insaanistan]

The hadith calling for executing gay people are incredibly disputed, and it seems punishment for sodomy was historically only invoked infrequently in cases such as rape.

I’m also surprised to find that historians believe that homosexual relations, while Muhammad (S) looked down upon them, were not outright banned.

There’s a reason the burden of proof for homosexual intercourse is four unbiased witnesses who clearly saw the act of penetration (the same the burden of proof for heterosexual anal intercourse).

Basically, the idea is “you wanna do it? That’s your problem, not mine.”

That’s the problem though. You’ve already conceded the point. Disputed is not rejected. Disputed means acceptable to certain parties within Islam. So factions within Islam are either neutral to LGBT, or call for the death penalty. That’s not Islamic LGBT protection, at best they hate you with no action (including no marriage or openness about it), and the worst? They execute you, middle ground? They flog you.

There are factions within Islam that say that we’re not supposed to do the five daily prayers because they aren’t described in the Qur’ân. However, Islam itself doesn’t support that view.

Homosexuality has been legal in the West Bank since ‘51. The Ottomans decriminalized it in 1858. Rumi was known for homoerotic poems. And so on and so on.

There’s almost no concept in Islam that isn’t “disputed”, no matter how small the party varying from the majority is.

[The State of Bangladesh]

Dominant religion of today is Liberalism. It's God is wealth. It's high church and priests are the United Nations. Espionage embassy and agents are the governments of the countries. Missionaries are the NGOs. If people don't want to accept this religion then at first they are put under financial pressure and if that doesn't work then they face military intervention.

Poverty, Famine, disease, and War are at an all time low across all of history.

I don't think Africa, Middle East and some other regions would agree.

[Lower Nubia]

All you’ve listed is your opinion, which is no more bearing on Islam than an individual who wants flogging or executions. Again, you’ve conceded the point as Islam allows the spectrum of ideas: tolerance (without marriage, or allowing discrimination, which ain’t pro/neutral-lgbt) to punishment, to death. That’s not exactly the spectrum you were implying. I tell you what too, the latter in my list is what has the largest Islamic backing (the current laws of a Islamic nations, or Islamic schools of thought across the world) attests to.

Allowing gays to be gay, isnt neutral to you?
What do you want? I bet, even if we were to kiss their feets it wont be enough for you.

All I've listed isnt just my opinions. There are imams and scholars and knowledgeable Muslims with the same views.

Implementations of Sharia across the Islamic World is not really a source tbh. Sharia can be interpreted in many ways. Most do consider Homosexual acts as immoral. As for the schools of thoughts. Maliki tends to go towards public interest, Hanbal goes for traditions, Shafi goes for logical reasoning, Hanafi goes for ordering hadith and using logical reasoning to choose what is most appropriate. So basically, all these schools of thoughts except for some aspects of Hanbal, can be reinterpreted with the new things and ways that we have learnt. I do respect you, since now I know that you actually know stuff and arent one of those people who just criticise Islam without any actual knowledge.

Because Islam can be intepreted in so many ways. I have full confidence that it'd be the dominant religion in the future. (There ya go. Now mods cant say we have diverted from topic)

You’re literally not allowing them to be gay, because they want to get married and be gay openly, like straight people do. The idea that being gay behind closed doors is neutral, is false it is discriminatory in one form by blocking a particular victimless expression. The final paragraph digs the hole further, Sharia’s interpretation as I’ve already shown, is a spectrum with the death penalty at one end and discrimination at the other. Islam lies within that space. By saying these schools utilise reasoning and then still come to the conclusions they do on homosexual issues is damning to your point here, reinterpretation also can only be within this spectrum, because Islam utilises Tradition as a means of religious understanding and interpretation, it would be impossible to reform it outside of this traditional perspective (that which lies in the spectrum). You would have to throw away what was Islam, into a new image of what it never could be.

[North Dizzle]

Gay issues aside, I think traditional religion will keep declining. But humans are inherently believing creatures; most of life is spent doing unenjoyable things so we need a coping device.

I think people will find meaning in life through politics and pop culture. The only problem with this being humans are imperfect, whereas a diety (real or fake) is not

[Lower Nubia]

That’s the problem though. You’ve already conceded the point. Disputed is not rejected. Disputed means acceptable to certain parties within Islam. So factions within Islam are either neutral to LGBT, or call for the death penalty. That’s not Islamic LGBT protection, at best they hate you with no action (including no marriage or openness about it), and the worst? They execute you, middle ground? They flog you.

There are factions within Islam that say that we’re not supposed to do the five daily prayers because they aren’t described in the Qur’ân. However, Islam itself doesn’t support that view.

Homosexuality has been legal in the West Bank since ‘51. The Ottomans decriminalized it in 1858. Rumi was known for homoerotic poems. And so on and so on.

There’s almost no concept in Islam that isn’t “disputed”, no matter how small the party varying from the majority is.

The Ottoman Empire is the exception that proves the rule. The means by which the ottomans became to allow its decriminalisation is because it followed the liberalisation of the west to curry political favour with nationalist sentiments. It decriminalised because of the west, not because of Islam. Likewise, Atakurk maintained the westernisation process and this is why Turkey maintains that degree of freedom, again, because of the west and not Islam.

“The ambitious project was launched to combat the slow decline of the empire that had seen its borders shrink and its strength weaken in comparison to the European powers. There were both internal and external reasons for the reforms.”

“The reforms emerged from the minds of reformist sultans like Mahmud II, his son Abdulmejid I and prominent, often European-educated bureaucrats, who recognised that the old religious and military institutions no longer met the needs of the empire.”

Palestine is not a poster boy either.

[Ayytaly]

Is selfishness a religion?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Homosexuality has been legal in the West Bank since ‘51. The Ottomans decriminalized it in 1858. Rumi was known for homoerotic poems. And so on and so on.

Lower Nubia already did a good job pointing out the flaws with the first two but I feel the need to point out that plenty of openly homophobic societies throughout history have endorsed or even embraced homoerotic literature or themes. That does not mean those societies were wholesome 100 LGBT paradises, it just means people are hypocrites when it comes to entertainment, which is a seemingly universal truth.

[Catarapania]

I would contend that any attempt to make "being pro-LGBT" a cornerstone of common decency is a form of discrimination based on religion, which has been a protected category for far longer than orientation has.

[Lower Nubia]

Homosexuality has been legal in the West Bank since ‘51. The Ottomans decriminalized it in 1858. Rumi was known for homoerotic poems. And so on and so on.

Lower Nubia already did a good job pointing out the flaws with the first two but I feel the need to point out that plenty of openly homophobic societies throughout history have endorsed or even embraced homoerotic literature or themes. That does not mean those societies were wholesome 100 LGBT paradises, it just means people are hypocrites when it comes to entertainment, which is a seemingly universal truth.

Exactly, it’s could be embraced both as a caricature of an individual in literature or as humour to through the intent to mock.

[Alvecia]

I would contend that any attempt to make "being pro-LGBT" a cornerstone of common decency is a form of discrimination based on religion, which has been a protected category for far longer than orientation has.

That does sound a lot like "not letting me discriminate is discrimination"

[Neanderthaland]

I would contend that any attempt to make "being pro-LGBT" a cornerstone of common decency is a form of discrimination based on religion, which has been a protected category for far longer than orientation has.

That does sound a lot like "not letting me discriminate is discrimination"

Won't somebody please think of the bigots!?

[Ayytaly]

I would contend that any attempt to make "being pro-LGBT" a cornerstone of common decency is a form of discrimination based on religion, which has been a protected category for far longer than orientation has.

That does sound a lot like "not letting me discriminate is discrimination"

On the other hand, Roman emperors whom persecuted Jews and Christians that preached their religion had a large *ahem* harem of prepube boys, and that was a no-no for those who read Leviticus.

I don't want to use weeb lingo... again.

[Alvecia]

That does sound a lot like "not letting me discriminate is discrimination"

On the other hand, Roman emperors whom persecuted Jews and Christians that preached their religion had a large *ahem* harem of prepube boys, and that was a no-no for those who read Leviticus.

Is the suggestion here that not letting religions discriminate against the LGBT will directly lead to world leaders establishing pedophilic harems?

[Catarapania]

To quote Ed Feser:

...a great many people seem to have forgotten what bigotry actually is and exactly why it is objectionable. John Knasas, in the course of a discussion on a completely unrelated subject, happens to give in passing a pretty good characterization of bigotry:

[ B ]iases and prejudices can determine how things come across. In the light of racial prejudice, white bigots are unable to appreciate something done by a black person in good faith. A smile, a courtesy, will be taken as a setup, unemployment as indicative of lazy character, employment as indicative of another white person’s mercy rather than the black person’s merit, and so on. The bigot constantly interprets what is given in the light of preconceptions. (Being and Some Twentieth-Century Thomists, p. 115)

Oxford defines a bigot as “a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.” Merriam-Webster tells us that a bigot is “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.”

These characterizations of bigotry are by no means eccentric or partisan. They reflect longstanding English usage of the term. Now, notice that on all of them, the nature and problematic status of bigotry are essentially procedural rather than substantive. That is to say, they have to do, not with the content of the bigot’s beliefs, but with the manner in which he holds them. The bigot is someone whose attachment to his beliefs is fundamentally emotional rather than rational. He evaluates the evidence in light of his beliefs rather than evaluating his beliefs in light of the evidence. He is reluctant or unwilling to give a fair hearing to opinions other than his own or to arguments against his own. He tends to be hostile to those who hold those different opinions, prefers to avoid them altogether rather than engaging them and their views, and resorts to invective instead of reasoned debate.

Accuse me of bigotry all you want. But the more you resort to invective, and the less time you devote to arguing that the behaviors "LGBT" individuals are prone to are morally acceptable, the more the charge applies to you.

On the other hand, Roman emperors whom persecuted Jews and Christians that preached their religion had a large *ahem* harem of prepube boys, and that was a no-no for those who read Leviticus.

Is the suggestion here that not letting religions discriminate against the LGBT will directly lead to world leaders establishing pedophilic harems?

It wouldn't be limited to world leaders, and the technical term is "pederasty," not "pedophilia," but once the Christian "romantic paradigm" (one man, one woman, one lifetime) is completely displaced, our "natural" tendencies will rise to take its place. In particular, the alliance-forming instincts that many are mistaking for their "orientation" will become less objectionable, and the "natural" adolescent behavior of seeking out older men with whom to form alliances will once again be publically accepted.

Pederasty is the form that homosexuality has taken for centuries. The Abrahamic religions appear to be the only sure-fire deterrent. I see no reason to think that pederasty wouldn't rise again should the Abrahamic religions be marginalized.

[Ayytaly]

On the other hand, Roman emperors whom persecuted Jews and Christians that preached their religion had a large *ahem* harem of prepube boys, and that was a no-no for those who read Leviticus.

Is the suggestion here that not letting religions discriminate against the LGBT will directly lead to world leaders establishing pedophilic harems?

Religion, in a way, tries to establish a universal standard, though we're more likely than not talking about the Abrahamic ones.

European polytheism, on the other hand...

Now it's come to the chicken or the egg dilemma: Did the behavior depicted on petroglyphs inspire the Eddas, or was it the other way around?

[Alvecia]

To quote Ed Feser:

...a great many people seem to have forgotten what bigotry actually is and exactly why it is objectionable. John Knasas, in the course of a discussion on a completely unrelated subject, happens to give in passing a pretty good characterization of bigotry:

[ B ]iases and prejudices can determine how things come across. In the light of racial prejudice, white bigots are unable to appreciate something done by a black person in good faith. A smile, a courtesy, will be taken as a setup, unemployment as indicative of lazy character, employment as indicative of another white person’s mercy rather than the black person’s merit, and so on. The bigot constantly interprets what is given in the light of preconceptions. (Being and Some Twentieth-Century Thomists, p. 115)

Oxford defines a bigot as “a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.” Merriam-Webster tells us that a bigot is “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.”

These characterizations of bigotry are by no means eccentric or partisan. They reflect longstanding English usage of the term. Now, notice that on all of them, the nature and problematic status of bigotry are essentially procedural rather than substantive. That is to say, they have to do, not with the content of the bigot’s beliefs, but with the manner in which he holds them. The bigot is someone whose attachment to his beliefs is fundamentally emotional rather than rational. He evaluates the evidence in light of his beliefs rather than evaluating his beliefs in light of the evidence. He is reluctant or unwilling to give a fair hearing to opinions other than his own or to arguments against his own. He tends to be hostile to those who hold those different opinions, prefers to avoid them altogether rather than engaging them and their views, and resorts to invective instead of reasoned debate.

Accuse me of bigotry all you want. But the more you resort to invective, and the less time you devote to arguing that the behaviors "LGBT" individuals are prone to are morally acceptable, the more the charge applies to you.

Is the suggestion here that not letting religions discriminate against the LGBT will directly lead to world leaders establishing pedophilic harems?

It wouldn't be limited to world leaders, and the technical term is "pederasty," not "pedophilia," but once the Christian "romantic paradigm" (one man, one woman, one lifetime) is completely displaced, our "natural" tendencies will rise to take its place. In particular, the alliance-forming instincts that many are mistaking for their "orientation" will become less objectionable, and the "natural" adolescent behavior of seeking out older men with whom to form alliances will once again be publically accepted.

Pederasty is the form that homosexuality has taken for centuries. The Abrahamic religions appear to be the only sure-fire deterrent. I see no reason to think that pederasty wouldn't rise again should the Abrahamic religions be marginalized.

Honestly, now it just sounds like you're trying to definition lawyer your way around the charge without actually addressing the point. "I'm not technically a bigot because...."

The long standing actions of the Catholic Church kind of fly in the face your point about Abrahamic religions. Rather than being a deterrent, it seems in fact they provided a platform to do it, and the means to escape consequences.

[Alvecia]

Is the suggestion here that not letting religions discriminate against the LGBT will directly lead to world leaders establishing pedophilic harems?

Religion, in a way, tries to establish a universal standard, though we're more likely than not talking about the Abrahamic ones.

European polytheism, on the other hand...

Now it's come to the chicken or the egg dilemma: Did the behavior depicted on petroglyphs inspire the Eddas, or was it the other way around?

How does this relate to my question?
Actually, how does this even relate to your previous statement?

[Ayytaly]

To quote Ed Feser:



Accuse me of bigotry all you want. But the more you resort to invective, and the less time you devote to arguing that the behaviors "LGBT" individuals are prone to are morally acceptable, the more the charge applies to you.



It wouldn't be limited to world leaders, and the technical term is "pederasty," not "pedophilia," but once the Christian "romantic paradigm" (one man, one woman, one lifetime) is completely displaced, our "natural" tendencies will rise to take its place. In particular, the alliance-forming instincts that many are mistaking for their "orientation" will become less objectionable, and the "natural" adolescent behavior of seeking out older men with whom to form alliances will once again be publically accepted.

Pederasty is the form that homosexuality has taken for centuries. The Abrahamic religions appear to be the only sure-fire deterrent. I see no reason to think that pederasty wouldn't rise again should the Abrahamic religions be marginalized.

Honestly, now it just sounds like you're trying to definition lawyer your way around the charge without actually addressing the point. "I'm not technically a bigot because...."

The long standing actions of the Catholic Church kind of fly in the face your point about Abrahamic religions. Rather than being a deterrent, it seems in fact they provided a platform to do it, and the means to escape consequences.

Just like politics. Democracies in name only are rampant with immorality and corruption to the point people loe faith in them.

[Catarapania]

To quote Ed Feser:



Accuse me of bigotry all you want. But the more you resort to invective, and the less time you devote to arguing that the behaviors "LGBT" individuals are prone to are morally acceptable, the more the charge applies to you.



It wouldn't be limited to world leaders, and the technical term is "pederasty," not "pedophilia," but once the Christian "romantic paradigm" (one man, one woman, one lifetime) is completely displaced, our "natural" tendencies will rise to take its place. In particular, the alliance-forming instincts that many are mistaking for their "orientation" will become less objectionable, and the "natural" adolescent behavior of seeking out older men with whom to form alliances will once again be publically accepted.

Pederasty is the form that homosexuality has taken for centuries. The Abrahamic religions appear to be the only sure-fire deterrent. I see no reason to think that pederasty wouldn't rise again should the Abrahamic religions be marginalized.

Honestly, now it just sounds like you're trying to definition lawyer your way around the charge without actually addressing the point. "I'm not technically a bigot because...."

Actually, I'm trying to expose the fact that the charge of bigotry in this context is intended to bypass rational debate. By hitting me with a label, you can reject what I say without having to think about it.

The long standing actions of the Catholic Church kind of fly in the face your point about Abrahamic religions. Rather than being a deterrent, it seems in fact they provided a platform to do it, and the means to escape consequences.

And once again you try to slip around my point by changing the subject. Question: How did the idea that those in power shouldn't have sex with children become such a prominent conviction in Western society? Answer: It's because of the dominance of Christianity in Western thought for over 1500 years.

So, why should we throw the ladder out from under us? Why shouldn't we listen to that source which has shown us that things W, X, and Y are bad when it says that Z is bad too? How do we know that accepting Z won't bring W, X, and Y back with it?