Dutch Politician Suggests to Ban the Quran (2 Viewers)

[beentherdunthat]

What the Quran and the Bible actually say is irrelevant. It is the current interpretation that is important.

Though the Bible does have many of those things in it, these days it's not interpreted literally. I don't know as much about the Quran, but it seems that there are a lot of Muslims that still do interpret many of its concepts it literally. That is the difference between the two.

Funny thing to say. How do you expect the interpretation to otherwise be? METAPHORICALLY??? Yeah, try doing that to our government laws. Interpret them METAPHORICALLY, NOT LITERALLy. You can't DRINK AND DRIVE. NO NO, DON'T INTERPRET THAT LITERALLY. JUST A JOKE REALLY!!!

 

[Raaaaaachel]

What the Quran and the Bible actually say is irrelevant. It is the current interpretation that is important.

Though the Bible does have many of those things in it, these days it's not interpreted literally. I don't know as much about the Quran, but it seems that there are a lot of Muslims that still do interpret many of its concepts it literally. That is the difference between the two.

Doesnt it show a certain degree of hypocrisy that Christains hold the bible to be the absolute truth, yet they interpret it selectively?

Also some Christians do interpret it very literally while other are more moderate. Just like muslims. You are making sweeping generalisations about two very broad, diverse groups. Your idea about restricting muslim immigration was interesting, but in all fairness, the proposal should be restricting violent extremists, whatever their ideology.

 

[S1M0]

Funny thing to say. How do you expect the interpretation to otherwise be? METAPHORICALLY??? Yeah, try doing that to our government laws. Interpret them METAPHORICALLY, NOT LITERALLy. You can't DRINK AND DRIVE. NO NO, DON'T INTERPRET THAT LITERALLY. JUST A JOKE REALLY!!!

The Bible contains a lot of parables and hypothethical scenarios. The way that you would interpert the Bible is that you would anaylse the passages and take the postiive message that the particular passage tries to convey.

And you need to work on your sarcasm.

 

[beentherdunthat]

The Bible contains a lot of parables and hypothethical scenarios. The way that you would interpert the Bible is that you would anaylse the passages and take the postiive message that the particular passage tries to convey.

And you need to work on your sarcasm.

Yeah I understand. However I wasn't being sarcastic in reference to the bible now was I?

 

[jb_nc]

Doesnt it show a certain degree of hypocrisy that Christains hold the bible to be the absolute truth, yet they interpret it selectively?

The Bible is not the word of God while Muslims hold the Qur'an to be just that. The Bible was written by man and would have the errors of man in it but the Qur'an was passed down by God though Mohammed and transcribed.

 

[S1M0]

However I wasn't being sarcastic in reference to the bible now was I?

Referring to this:

You can't DRINK AND DRIVE. NO NO, DON'T INTERPRET THAT LITERALLY. JUST A JOKE REALLY!!!

There's not even an trace of wit in that remark. Wit is essential for good sarcasm.

 

[Raaaaaachel]

The Bible is not the word of God while Muslims hold the Qur'an to be just that. The Bible was written by man and would have the errors of man in it but the Qur'an was passed down by God though Mohammed and transcribed.

This is not even a response to my quote. It does not show that they dont hold the bible to be the word of god (regarless of the method via which it was transcribed) and most importantly that they interpret it selectively which was my initial claim. Would you conceed that they do in fact interpret it selectively?

 

[beentherdunthat]

Referring to this:



There's not even an trace of wit in that remark. Wit is essential for good sarcasm.

lol. And you must be the queen of sarcasm then??? How characteristic of you, it explains a lot...

 

[jb_nc]

This is not even a response to my quote. It does not show that they dont hold the bible to be the word of god (regarless of the method via which it was transcribed) and most importantly that they interpret it selectively which was my initial claim. Would you conceed that they do in fact interpret it selectively?

Ok, this makes no sense now because a Catholic in Melbourne is going to have very different views on the Bible than a Southern Baptist in Texas.

For Catholics, in terms of the New Testament, no. And since it is not His direct word it cannot be "absolute truth".

 

[Raaaaaachel]

Ok, this makes no sense now because a Catholic in Melbourne is going to have very different views on the Bible than a Southern Baptist in Texas.

Same with muslims. Also your still avoiding the initial claim that they interpret the bible selectively, which applies to all but the most extreme christians. Will you at least agree that this is true?

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Funny thing to say. How do you expect the interpretation to otherwise be? METAPHORICALLY??? Yeah, try doing that to our government laws. Interpret them METAPHORICALLY, NOT LITERALLy. You can't DRINK AND DRIVE. NO NO, DON'T INTERPRET THAT LITERALLY. JUST A JOKE REALLY!!!

I simply stated how it was interpreted... not how it should be. You are just looking for things to argue with me about and you aren't even doing a good job of it.

In Australia religion and law are separate so there is no problem of metaphorically interpreting drink driving laws.

What are you saying? Are you saying the only way to interpret the Quran is literally... because a literal interpretation of the Quran does not go well with western values... and that means that your argument before about muslims being able to get along with everyone else in Australia would be wrong.

 

[jb_nc]

Same with muslims. Also your still avoiding the initial claim that they interpret the bible selectively, which applies to all but the most extreme christians. Will you at least agree that this is true?

Define "extreme Christians".

And I don't understand what you are trying to prove here. Can I speak for every Catholic, Protestant et al? No... so what good is my word. That phrase is laden with weasel words too, so thanks for trying to force by views.

 

[Raaaaaachel]

Define "extreme Christians".

Its not important. The point was always that most Christains interpert the bible selectively. Clearly you cant argue against this and am trying to divert me on a tanget. Will you ever admitt that im right or are you just going to continue with your trolling/diversionary tactics?

 

[jb_nc]

Its not important. The point was always that most Christains interpert the bible selectively. Clearly you cant argue against this and am trying to divert me on a tanget. Will you ever admitt that im right or are you just going to continue with your trolling/diversionary tactics?

Why are you right?

EDIT:

Doesnt it show a certain degree of hypocrisy that Christains hold the bible to be the absolute truth, yet they interpret it selectively?

Christains hold the bible to be the absolute truth

No, they do not. So your claim is wrong.

 

[Raaaaaachel]

And I don't understand what you are trying to prove here. Can I speak for every Catholic, Protestant et al? No... so what good is my word. That phrase is laden with weasel words too, so thanks for trying to force by views.

But you seem to feel you are qualified to speak for all muslims.

Im trying to prove that Christians (all christains) view the bible as the word of god in some sense (whether they believe it directly and literally or metaphorically and inderectly translated through people), yet they ignore certain bits of it and emphatically adovate other bits of it arbitrarilly.

Edit: I realise this does not discredit the entire system of belief, rather it highlights the foolishness of appealling to the bible as the authority for a particular belief (ie. homosexuality is wrong because the bible says it is) but other parts of the bible (we should put to death those that work on the Sabbath) can be convinently ignored.

My point is not that the bible is automatically wrong, but saying that something should be accepted as a moral belief, or worse still enshrined in law simply because the bible advocates it is a deeply flawed argument. Get it!

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Doesnt it show a certain degree of hypocrisy that Christains hold the bible to be the absolute truth, yet they interpret it selectively?

Also some Christians do interpret it very literally while other are more moderate. Just like muslims. You are making sweeping generalisations about two very broad, diverse groups. Your idea about restricting muslim immigration was interesting, but in all fairness, the proposal should be restricting violent extremists, whatever their ideology.

Yes it does... but that is not for me to defend because I am not a Christian. I think the fact that they re-interpret the Bible every now and then to fit with their believes is ridiculous.

The percentage of people with extreme or literal, moderate, and selective interpretations are not the same for each religion....

There are very few Christians with literal interpretations of the bible, and even very few moderate ones, the majority in my opinion would struggle even to convince me of their Christianity since they hardly even practice their religion. On the other hand, though there may be just as small a number of Muslims with extremist interpretations, the interpretation of the majority of Muslims is much higher than even the moderate Christians.

 

[jb_nc]

But you seem to feel you are qualified to speak for all muslims.

Where did I say this.

Im trying to prove that Christians (all christains) view the bible as the word of god in some sense (whether they believe it directly and literally or metaphorically and inderectly translated through people), yet they ignore certain bits of it and emphatically adovate other bits of it arbitrarilly.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Know your logical fallacies.

 

[Raaaaaachel]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Know your logical fallacies.

My argument is not structurally flawed. Your just claiming its factually wrong without supporting your own claim. I could just as easily call Argumentum ad ignorantiam on your post.

Also my edit clears up most of the stuff in your other post.

 

[Raaaaaachel]

Yes it does... but that is not for me to defend because I am not a Christian. I think the fact that they re-interpret the Bible every now and then to fit with their believes is ridiculous.

The percentage of people with extreme or literal, moderate, and selective interpretations are not the same for each religion....

There are very few Christians with literal interpretations of the bible, and even very few moderate ones, the majority in my opinion would struggle even to convince me of their Christianity since they hardly even practice their religion. On the other hand, though there may be just as small a number of Muslims with extremist interpretations, the interpretation of the majority of Muslims is much higher than even the moderate Christians.

Oh really. Post your evidence for that here then...

 

[jb_nc]

My argument is not structurally flawed. Your just claiming its factually wrong without supporting your own claim. I could just as easily call Argumentum ad ignorantiam on your post.

I'm not the one making the claim. I'm regurgitating the views several Popes'/Catholic dogma have had on the Bible and its level of "absolute truth".

Show me a statistic poll where your argument is verified. You're saying it's true because it hasn't been disproven, that's ignorance.

But you seem to feel you are qualified to speak for all muslims.

Again, where did I say this. You seemed to have missed it before.