This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
As an exmoose myself, I think this is an ironic thing in Islam because, despite how much Islamic apologists hammer on this, Islam is paradoxically destroyed by this more than Christianity is.
For one: the Qur'an almost never indisputably says that the Torah and Gospel are lost. It often means that the book was covered up or misinterpreted (Gabriel Reynolds has some work on this). It does however say that Jews and Christians should judge by those books (e.g. Q5:47, Q5:68). Which implies they're extant. The doctrine of total corruption was a later necessary apologetic tactic once it was absolutely clear to everyone (there probably wasn't a written Arabic Bible to compare in Mohammed's time) that the Bible and Qur'an couldn't be reconciled (see Q7:157).
So either way, Islam is false. The Quran is the direct speech - not word - of God. And it tells Christians and Jews to either judge by a book that doesn't or never existed (the Qur'an doesn't seem to know what the Gospel is, or much about Jesus) or Christians and Jews should judge by a book that disprove Islam and/or is false.
Beyond that, the Bible is unquestionably unreliable in a dozen ways. The problem is that biblical scholarship ends up harming Islam more. We know the sources for the Qur'an and we know the ages at least of the Biblical stories. One is vastly older and more apocryphal (the story of the snake in the Garden in Islam descends from a later apocryphal story - a lot of Muslims who're ignorant of the specifics of the Bible blissfully cite similarities as proof of their faith, not knowing things like this).
As I said Muslims don't have access to the hermaneutical tactics liberal Christians have used. There's no blaming it on imperfect human messengers distorting God's message or the mores of the day that must naturally show up in any text or in the inherent, deliberate multiplicity in the viewpoints like with the Gospels. The Qur'an is said by doctrine to literally be pre-existent, an atemporal divine attribute, and to sit in heaven. It can't be gainsaid or reformed. This makes its pronouncements strong but it also makes them brittle.
Once you apply critical methods to the Qur'an (an easy trap to fall into once you see Muslims applying it to defeat the Bible) and come to the conclusion that Dhul-Qarnayn is merely the Arabized version of the Alexander Legend common at the time...there's no saving anything.
Pull on any one string...
More options
Context Copy link