...when people like this are just gonna insist everyone is taking all the awful shit we said in 2018 "out of context".

And on and on we go, every believer *CERTAIN* that they alone have the correct interpretation, and everyone else is wrong. In this way, the fundamentalist is shielded by the moderate.

I see them fighting an internal battle for control. It's not like the moderates are going to become atheists anyway.

you killed, “moderate muslim” May be the only choice available.

By insisting their holy text is at least somewhat "holy" and worthy of dictating morals, they lend legitimacy to the fundies.

fundamentalists must be okay?

Moderates should have condemned the KKK. And it doesn't count if just a few moderates offer a tepid tut-tut to the fanatics. I mean condemned, disowned, disassociated with them.

Same with Pope Pius XII and Hitler. The Pope most definitely spoke for moderate Cathoiics by the millions, as well as the fringe groups.Or maybe I should say, didn't speak, he was silent for most of the war.

Moderate Christians in Oregon clutch their pearls snd do nothing when hearing that the Followers of Christ have dozens of children in their graveyard who were denied medical care because of their extreme interpretation of the Bible.

The list is very long of moderates tolerating extremism. That is not the same as saying fundamentalists are "okay"; just lends legitimacy.

I do hear them argue frequently about what Christians should do, follow the teachings on love rather those on hate, etc. Moderates do condemn the KKK today. In the 1920s, racism was common in all parts of society.

I am not sure if the Pope counts as a moderate or not. He is as much a politician as a spiritual leader. Had some hopes for Francis, but he is the same, and Apparently complicit in the child abuse scandals.

A couple of things that moderates can do. Speak out, of course, individually or as representatives of moderate Christianity. This has shown so far to have limited effect, but the potential is really there for growing numbers of voices of what I guess we could call the laity - Christians with no special status, power or authority.

The greater potential for action, however, lies with the leadership of every group that labels itself Christian. At the risk of getting entangled in the "No True Scotsman" jungle, or the "True Christian" arguments, leaders are charged with the obligation to represent a set of principles that represent the core of Christianity; as you say, the message of love, etc.

In these times, it seems though that moderates are trying to sweep back the ocean with a broom. The fundies are running amok, and I think it will be really difficult to stop them, no matter what is done. Not trying to sound pessimistic, I think the pendulum will eventually swing the other way,

This article does a pretty good job summing things up:

https://quillette.com/2016/06/14/the-josiah-effect-how-moderate-religion-fuels-fundamentalism/

This isn't about saying the fundies are "okay," or directly approving of them, but about helping to provide cover for them - even if it's unwillingly.

Religion is not a book, it is a set of practices and interpretations. It doesn't matter that they believe in the same book, it only matters that they interpret it differently.

Having known some lost souls that ended up in fundamentalist religion, they were looking for something and they were going to find it. If they didn't pick up the Bible, they would have picked up something else, perhaps worse. One lost soul I know was a non-religious neo-nazi then tried a bunch of other things until he finally became a Catholic.

If there were no Bible to catch lost souls, someone would write one, and lacking competition, it would be a bestseller.

"It doesn't matter that they believe in the same book, it only matters that they interpret it differently."

What matters is that both groups think they interpreted it correctly - and there is no way to verify who did.

"If there were no Bible to catch lost souls, someone would write one, and lacking competition, it would be a bestseller."

And because of the significant number of people giving it credibility, the fundamentalists of that book would likewise be shielded.

And it's a fantasy that if there were no moderates, people would "understand" better that the fundamentalists were ridiculous or whatever. No they wouldn't. People would understand the same things they do now, only there wouldn't be any moderates. That's all.

Lending special credence to the book that gives them their fundamentals is part of the problem.

I understand you don't agree with that. So be it.

On a popular message board the existence of a single forum where openly critical comments about religion are allowed is a point of controversy for some moderate religious participants on that message board.

Only We can quote Our Holy Book out of context. All non-believers must accept Our interpretation.

Here, the debunker masterfully lays out that this is obviously not hate-speech, because the Quran gives a good reason to call non-believers the worst of beasts: Because every single non-believer is a criminal and traitor against Islam. Every single one. That's just the way it is. That's not hate-speech! How dare you!



Here, the debunker masterfully defends against the slander of taking Quran-quotes out of context by declaring that he takes this quote out of context for discussions.

And then the debunker attacks Rizvi for pointing out the out-of-context-taking rather than ignoring it for the sake of allying with islamic reformers who take quotes out of context. Seriously, how dare Rizvi make a religious argument that ignores politics???



Here, the debunker masterfully points out that the Quran clarifies that killing, fighting and enslaving unbelievers is only okay when done in self-defense.

(Ignoring that the Quran has above very clearly established that unbelievers are criminals and traitors who shall not be trusted and may turn against you any moment.)

And then, the debunker once more attacks Mr Rizvi for not taking politics into account when making a religious argument.



Here, the debunker masterfully suggests that the Quran should not be taken literally because that might lead to misunderstandings.
Also, the Quran should be taken literally because then the believer woud take the whole of it into account instead of cherry-picking.

The debunker ends this article about religious arguments with a political plea: Please stop criticizing religion so atheists and liberal believers can join forces for a better world.







That's some incredibly weak sauce. His best argument is that it's politically unwise to criticize Islam theologically?

"Yes, you need to take my book literally, but only in the parts that I think are OK to take literally. Everyone else is wrong, trust me, and you can't criticize my religion based on what a few hundred million other people who belong to it think."

The first example:

What was said:

This is not, as you claim, an attack on all non-believers, only those who conceal the truth.

That your counter was incorrect.

This is an attack on those who conceal the truth.

What is the truth these people are concealing? The existence of God.

There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada
This is the central testimony of Islam. What other truth is there? What other truth could the Quran possibly refer to? What truth is more important than this truth?



Those who deny God are therefore non-believers. Accordingly, the verse describes non-believers as "worst of beasts".



I really don't get how one could argue with that.

This is an assertion that those who conceal the truth are the worst of beasts. Non-Muslims are not considered to be among them because they are unaware of the truth.

Where in islamic sources does it say that there is a distinction between those who conceal the truth and those who are unaware of the truth?

What truth are they talking about? You say that they aren't condemning non-believers, but people "who conceal (the truth)" What truth is it? What does it meant to conceal it?

You highlighted that line, and when asked to clarify you refused to answer.

posts here.

and misinterpreted it so he can knock down a strawman. Isn't that what the article was about?

Last edited Fri Oct 12, 2018, 03:47 AM - Edit history (1)

Is Everyone who does not accept the Quran.

are only those who conceal it. If one is not a Muslim one cannot conceal what one does not believe.

that you're wrong here.

it is good that they agree.

in case anyone asks who "we" is.

Certainly non believers could act to suppress and conceal your holy books of idiot truth without believing a word of your babble blather.