Pew Statistics: How USA Believers see their "Holy Books"

reply to post by racasan

Qur’an 18:83-86—And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnain. Say: “I shall recite to you something of his story.” Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything. So he followed a way. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people.


So do you believe the sun "literally" sets in a muddy pool?

I also don't believe that a 10 headed beast is going to rise out of the sea some day.
And nowhere did I ever say that poetic expressions are to be taken literally.

Also, assuming you are even remotely interested in knowing the context, I'll leave you with a short explanation.

1. "Black muddy waters" has been interpreted by some to be the Black sea, which has historically been described as "inhospitable", "dark" and "unlit"... most probably because of the nature of the waters.

2. The verse is a poetic description of a king who witnessed a sunset near the blackish, muddy and foaming water



Try and imagine what a sunset over those waters might look like.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


so no you don’t take the verse literally, what you had to do was reinterpret it so as to make fit in with what is now known about the world, other wise you would be forced to accept that mo a man living in the time when people thought the earth was flat was putting verses into his book that are very obviously talking about a flat earth – so why are you bothering the Christians when they are forced to do similar things with their book?

And by the way not only did you make a liar out of your book but also out of mo

Sunan Abu Dawud 3991—Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.

reply to post by racasan


The Quran very clearly says of itself, that some verses are literal and some are allegorical.

Surat al ‘Imran 3:7: “It is He who has sent down to you the Book. Parts of it are definitive verses, which are the mother of the Book, while others are allegorical.”

Literalism is the disease of the Wahhabi... literalism is not Islam, nor does it teach it.
www.imamreza.net...

That Narration from Sunan Abu Dawud is anomalous (shaadh) and defective (mu’allal). It is classified as weak, it is not a trustworthy narration.

When you do not know the sciences of ahadith, do not quote them please...

reply to post by OpinionatedB

It is much easier to say "Those people over there are not Christian, don't listen to them" than it is to explain, through the books, why your view is the correct one.

Kindly point out where I have ever said "Those people over there are not Christian, don't listen to them".

I am intimately familiar with both ancient and modern offshoots of Christianity, and if I argue with them over theology, I argue with them over theology, both theirs and mine, I don't just say they're wrong because they aren't Christians.

reply to post by adjensen


You seriously do not get the point do you?

I do find beating my head against the wall to be... quite similar to our little conversation.... and much more productive...

reply to post by OpinionatedB

You seriously do not get the point do you?

Apparently not.

You seem to think that a person can declare themselves anything they like, then it is on you to argue against their claims, but even if you prove them "wrong", they are still entitled to call themselves whatever they want, because you have no right to "define what a Muslim is or isn't".

And you seem to think that my arguments against other people are nothing more than being dismissive of people I don't agree with. You've apparently never read anything that I've written on this site.

That's about all I can garner from what you've posted in this thread. Oh, and you called me a wahabbis or something like that.

reply to post by adjensen


Are you Jesus of Nazareth?

reply to post by OpinionatedB


What is that supposed to mean?

Oh, I'm not supposed to judge anyone?

Kindly show where I've judged anyone -- it's odd that I keep asking you to show where I've done any of the things that you've accused me of, and you fail to do so.

reply to post by adjensen


Did not think you were.

Just Stop~~~

The back and forth personal stuff needs to end NOW!!!!!!!!!!

Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

You are responsible for your own posts.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


First: Its Christmas grab your self a pork pie and a glass of sherry and above all relax

Now I don’t want to get into stuff about the quran – it will be totally off topic and wildtimes might shout at me (and that’s not a good way to start 2014)

I was just trying to point out to sk0rpi0n that he is throwing stones at the Christians
but he is living in the very same kind of glass house as them - ok.


and while I am feeling all Christmassy and helpful I found you some more bits of Islam you might like to throw under the bus

Tafsir Ibn Abbas link
Till, when he reached the setting place of the sun) where the sun sets, (he found it setting in a muddy spring)….

Tafsir al-Jalalayn link
until, when he reached the setting of the sun, the place where it sets, he found it setting in a muddy spring….

Happy new year

reply to post by racasan

You know what a tafsir is? An interpretation of the Quran. You know who Ibn Abbas or Jalal were? Two dudes from the 8th and 16th century, respectively 200 years and 700 years after the Quran had already been completed and Muhammad had died. Whatever they had to say might be interesting to read, but it certainly isn't scripture.


As far as the subject of the thread goes, as can be seen from the discussion here, the Pew survey should probably have been a bit more specific, separating "take the Bible literally" from "It has some metaphors and parables" and "It may be that the stories involving these characters didn't go exactly as the book describes it" and "I don't believe these characters existed". Because it could mean either of those or it could mean none.

reply to post by racasan

Now I don’t want to get into stuff about the quran – it will be totally off topic and wildtimes might shout at me (and that’s not a good way to start 2014)

GASP!
Rac, I have NEVER shouted at you ()....

I think the thread is quite interesting, truly. Some good minds on here.

Re the survey - I spent some time yesterday trying to find the original "survey" to see if they went into further depth, but
(this to you and babloyi)
The headers on the survey do indicate whether the respondent took their Holy Text "word for word" literally, or rather parts of it as 'literal'. To my eyes/mind, that means there was some discernment between the two.

Thanks for your participation!!!

CHEERS! (Oh, how I miss the old smileys).

HNY!!!
(did you guys see the Google main page today? I just think their little animation with the 4 waiting patiently to jump in is so clever and cute; and the dance of the 2, 0, 1, and 3...cracks me up.
hee hee)


EDIT: just saw DTOM's warning.
C'mon guys, we can get through this without animosity....can't we??

reply to post by nenothtu


All of the content of your post above this passage I agree with.

As nearly as I can tell, the fire and brimstone hell was made up by some folks who had a dual motivation - to scare the bejesus out of other folks into coming around to their way of thinking, and to flesh out an out of context quote from a parable in the Bible.

I also talk to my animals, and they communicate with me in their own way, which I understand -
also, yes, people evolved over eons from more primitive "stuff" (and our own bodies now are microcosms of other living things)....

I think you know me well enough to know that I can see the 'poetic' renditioning of Genesis as just that: symbolic.

The problem, as I see it, lies in people not thinking past "a man fashioned from a lump of clay, a woman fashioned from an extracted rib, a snake who speaks Adameve, a fruit that suddenly and unexpectedly altered their entire worldview - and therefore, 'original sin'."

The ONLY way to read Genesis is figuratively, metaphorically. IMNSHO.

Anyway, yes, on the topic of the invention of hell, we ALSO agree.

Happy New Year to you and your [sic]!

wildtimes
reply to post by racasan

 

Now I don’t want to get into stuff about the quran – it will be totally off topic and wildtimes might shout at me (and that’s not a good way to start 2014)

GASP!
Rac, I have NEVER shouted at you (

)....

I know mate I just don’t want to have to deal with a bunch of Muslims getting the thread all wrapped around the axle over stuff that has nothing to do with the pew thing and you’re my alibi

I’m hesitant to offer this as the title is a bit inflammatory, but

the first part covers “kinds” of Christians from simple cultural Christians to full on “Delusional” sorts – which might be of interest to the thread.
the second part is what he means by delusional and the final part is a bullet point collection about human cognition which might be of use because you can swap out the word Christian from the title and substitute any other “descriptor?” and perhaps get an insight into human behavior

any way

happy new year

reply to post by wildtimes


I tend towards taking Genesis "literally", but happen to think it was "dumbed down" so that a people steeped in mythology could grasp it in a limited frame of reference. In other words, I take it "literally", but think the literalism at times is WAY under the surface, and most folks don't dig that deep - they just stop at a walk on the surface. There are enigmas and apparent contradictions in it that have to be explained to enquiring minds, and most just don't care to dig out the subsurface layers. What you get then is some who think Adam was "literally" made out of a handful of mud (or a literal blood clot for the Muslims), Eve was made of something wrapped around a literal rib of Adam (world's first surgical procedure, eh?), etc, and just stop there - and you get others who dismiss it altogether as "mythology" because they don't care to dig, and yet others who try to explain surface reports with some truly convoluted and fanciful theoretical gymnastics - like explaining the TWO creations present by saying it was a mashup of 4 different books, merged into one by a piss-poor editor, or simply dismissing it by saying it was plagiarized from several different cultures and merged together..

I Just take a different route and try to find the story behind the story.

Likewise, in connection with "mythology" - ANY mythology from Atrahasis and Gilgamesh through Epona, Cernunnos, Goibnu, Zeus and Co., and ALL of them - are based upon some kernel of fact, reports attached to some real person that grew and expanded in the telling over generations. Using Gilgamesh as an example, his epic is, well, epic. It has all manner of mythological and fanciful twists and turns, but I believe it was originally based in tales of a Sumerian king, porbably with the actual name of Gilgamesh. They were committed to writing at the dawn of history when writing was first born, but there is no telling how long they were told by bards before that, and in the telling a human was converted into a demigod, with 2/3 divinity. Had it not been written down until later, he may have eventually been granted full godhood as the tales expanded.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who talks to animals. I was starting to think the cheese might have slipped off of my cracker! Now I know that I'm at least as sane as you. When I first took my hound dog to Virginia, there was a cat at the house. He loved to chase that cat, and it was frazzling nerves. So one day I went out to smoke, the dog started towards me to get his ears scratched, and the cat started towards me to get HER ears scratched. Well, the dog saw the cat, and got that look in his eye, and the cat saw the dog and hopped up on the handrail, prepaaring to bolt. I caught the dog, knelt down, put his head between my hands and looked him in the eye, and said "Cat lives here same as you do. leave her be."

You know, that dog NEVER chased that cat again, and that was all it took. Dumb animals ain't as dumb as folks think, I reckon. That dog is smarter than some of the people I've met.

I've yet to have a theological discussion with him, though. He just wags his tail and says "Hunt instead? No care 'bout your mythology. Either we go hunt, or I go hunt. Cat can come too if she wants." Smart, but hard-headed! I guess he prefers to meet God in person, and save the stories for the campfire where I can bore him to sleep with them.

By "hunt", he means run out and look for stuff, not run out and bring dead critters back in like people do. Matter of fact, if he sees a gun, he won't even go. Some hound dog!

Happy New year to you and yours, too! I'm told New Year's is louder than the 4th of July 'round here, and have been strongly suggested to be asleep before the racket hits. Not sure that's a good idea, though - often, what I hear gets incorporated into dreams, and that might not be all that good a deal.

reply to post by babloyi


When a rational/unbiased minded person points out one of the many scientific, historical, and logical errors in the Quran, errors which highlight the fact that the Quran is the work of an Iron Age person who is just repeating the myths and misunderstandings of that age and that show there is nothing divine about the Quran, do you think its going to help when Muslims throw out documents that support and corroborates the Quran?

Remember to a rational/unbiased eye the Quran is simply a man made document promoting the wishes of a iron age control freak posing as God almighty.

So is a rational/logically minded person is going to be impressed or convinced or just amused when you guys start overruling your prophet because our current understanding shows your prophet is so comically wrong?

reply to post by racasan

so no you don’t take the verse literally

Like I said earlier, nowhere did I ever say that poetic expressions are to be taken literally.

what you had to do was reinterpret it so as to make fit in with what is now known about the world,

"re-interpret" what?
It is a legitimate interpretation of a verse that is speaking of a sunset over "black, muddy waters".
And given the actual context of the verse, it fits.

putting verses into his book that are very obviously talking about a flat earth

Care to cite the exact flat earth verses here?

reply to post by racasan

Remember to a rational/unbiased eye the Quran is simply a man made document promoting the wishes of a iron age control freak posing as God almighty.

False. Nobody in Islamic history ever posed as God almighty.
Either you lie about Islam or you are ignorant of it.

reply to post by racasan

Hey, I'm all for analysis and investigation of these texts, but using much later, non-scriptural investigations as "proof" is rather silly, whether they purport to "support" the Quran or not.

It'd be like claiming that Christianity demands oppressing the jews and executing heretics, and holds the position that women are weak and irrational and more prone to immorality, and then when asked to provide evidence for this, instead of going back to the Bible, quoting the works of St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. They're very INTERESTING, and they definitely support the Bible, but what they thought and what they believed and wrote is irrelevant unless it can be directly sourced from the Bible.