[GhylTarvoke]

Both Islam and Christianity have a bit of flexibility due to the fact that "indisputable word of God" doesn't have to be literally true, only its "real meaning" has to be (of course, you then have Wahhabists and WBC respectively, who will tell you that yes, the holy books in question are literally true. Such beliefs are always rather harmful). You may notice that the most progressive Muslim countries are those with a Shia majority (Iran and Turkey), which isn't as big on literal interpretations as Sunnism.

From Oxford Islamic Studies:

Muslims do not consider Muhammad to be the author or editor of the Qur'an. Instead, they regard him as a prophet, chosen by God to receive and transmit a divine message. The Qur'an itself denies any earthly origins. As the word of God, the Qur'an is regarded as sacred and infallible.

Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the eternal, literal word of God. The original version of the book is described as preserved in heaven or in the mind of God. God's direct speech, indicated by the use of the first person plural (we), appears in much of the Qur'an.

Seems pretty definite.

You are discussing how the entire religion is utterly and will forever be inimical to women like that's even a statement that makes sense. It doesn't. It never will. It never can. Religions are big tents embracing a huge amount of nuance between various positions based on eschatology, sect, and region. You are actively rejecting a very basic understanding of reality by preaching absolutes.

The fact you would even say this indicates you are not equipped to discuss a matter in anything more than black and white. Luis is busy flaming out all over the place as nobody takes him seriously, which is sad since he's capable of much better. Your behavior is merely contemptible.

Linked below is the indisputable, infallible, literal word of God. Make of it what you will.

In all fairness, it's hard to start a feminist revolution if the Quran has verses like these, and you simultaneously believe that the Quran is the indisputable word of God. I'll say it again: Dawkins is right on the money.

[Phantom Hoover]

You're seriously overvaluing the control religion has over morality; in general the influence runs the other way.

[GhylTarvoke]

You're seriously overvaluing the control religion has over morality; in general the influence runs the other way.

No, I agree with you. This is why the vast majority of Muslims are good people.

[Grizzly]

Hmm, Luis's antics in this thread remind me quite a bit of the Fans are the worst article I read recently.

[Dragon]

Muslims do not consider Muhammad to be the author or editor of the Qur'an. Instead, they regard him as a prophet, chosen by God to receive and transmit a divine message. The Qur'an itself denies any earthly origins. As the word of God, the Qur'an is regarded as sacred and infallible.

Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the eternal, literal word of God. The original version of the book is described as preserved in heaven or in the mind of God. God's direct speech, indicated by the use of the first person plural (we), appears in much of the Qur'an.

Seems pretty definite.

Pretty much the same could be said about the Bible. Also, it says "Muslims", which is an awfully broad generalization (Islam is divided much like Christianity and "Muslims" aren't as single minded as Oxford makes them out to be). While it might be true in the broadest sense, I think that the "literal word of God" here might mean that he literally said those things (which I'm pretty sure most Muslims would agree on), not that he literally meant every single word. The latter is the way Athari school (a central element of Wahhabism) approaches Qur'an. From Wikipedia:

Atharis engage in an amodal reading of the Qur'an, as opposed to one engaged in Ta'wil (metaphorical interpretation). They do not attempt to conceptualize the meanings of the Qur'an rationally, and believe that the "real" meanings should be consigned to God alone (tafwid).

It's not the only way of reading Qur'an, though. Much like with the Bible, metaphorical interpretation (Ta'wil) is an important part of Qur'an studies in other schools. Of course, you will find people who would like to interpret the Bible literally, too. Worst of all, they usually want to interpret a translation of the Bible, usually English and usually at least somewhat outdated. It's not a new problem, either, and probably why Islam did away with translations.

[Luis Dias]

Being sexist asshats is a bad thing and so is the mafia and like the mafia people tend to be either fine with that and underestimate its toxicity or even outright deny it exists.

Total lack of proportion. Sexism is bad and so is the mafia? Come on. They aren't alike.

Why do you feel guilty when they point out sexism, either true or false, then?

WHY?

And when are you gonna stop beating your wife? WHEN? WHEEEN?

I mean, I'm just asking a question here. Don't you think that your wife's well being is important? Because you don't seem to, as you seem to eyeroll at this oh so much important question on when are you finally going to stop beating your wife.

And even when false, I don't get pissed off when I read people that read Werther as a sexist eulogy to the old patriarchy, why DO YOU?

Because they are not merely making stupid proclamations to the airwaves. They are influential. They are changing the media. They get positive coverage in the media, as if the noises that they are keyboarding aren't the stupidest thing that has come out of the universities this past decade.

Perhaps you aren't paying attention, but several countries are indeed considering banning or censoring games and other media that may fall into these nagging silly characterizations of "sexism", as labeled by the most paranoic autistic minds I've ever encountered in the nets. Do you think those things are just "opinions"? You're being naive.

Also, feminist propaganda is annoying but the goddamn "USA! USA!" propaganda we get from people like Michael Bay isn't?

That kind of ****ty propaganda is just annoying. It isn't trying to censor me. It isn't trying to guilt trip me into doing anything. It's just silly and stupid and spectacular. And to that, eyerolling is enough.

[karajorma]

Seems pretty definite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Divine_inspiration

Seems equally definite. So I really don't know what you were trying to prove here.

[GhylTarvoke]

Muslims do not consider Muhammad to be the author or editor of the Qur'an. Instead, they regard him as a prophet, chosen by God to receive and transmit a divine message. The Qur'an itself denies any earthly origins. As the word of God, the Qur'an is regarded as sacred and infallible.

Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the eternal, literal word of God. The original version of the book is described as preserved in heaven or in the mind of God. God's direct speech, indicated by the use of the first person plural (we), appears in much of the Qur'an.

Seems pretty definite.

Pretty much the same could be said about the Bible. Also, it says "Muslims", which is an awfully broad generalization (Islam is divided much like Christianity and "Muslims" aren't as single minded as Oxford makes them out to be).

Oxford does indeed use the word "Muslims" without qualification. If you have a better source that says otherwise, then by all means, produce it.

While it might be true in the broadest sense, I think that the "literal word of God" here might mean that he literally said those things (which I'm pretty sure most Muslims would agree on), not that he literally meant every single word.

Firstly, you are trying to dispute the indisputable. Secondly, what interpretation of the linked verses do you have in mind?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Divine_inspiration

Seems equally definite. So I really don't know what you were trying to prove here.

From your own link:

Some Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, that God, through the Holy Spirit, intervened and influenced the words, message, and collation of the Bible. For many Christians the Bible is also infallible, and is incapable of error in matters of faith and practice, but not necessarily in historic or scientific matters.

Fundamentalist Christians are associated with the doctrine of biblical literalism, where the Bible is not only inerrant, but the meaning of the text is clear to the average reader.

Note the words "some", "many", and "fundamentalist".

As an aside, comparing the Quran with the Bible is a classic diversionary tactic. It in no way excuses the Quran's flaws.

[Det. Bullock]

Being sexist asshats is a bad thing and so is the mafia and like the mafia people tend to be either fine with that and underestimate its toxicity or even outright deny it exists.

Total lack of proportion. Sexism is bad and so is the mafia? Come on. They aren't alike.

Why do you feel guilty when they point out sexism, either true or false, then?

WHY?

And when are you gonna stop beating your wife? WHEN? WHEEEN?

I mean, I'm just asking a question here. Don't you think that your wife's well being is important? Because you don't seem to, as you seem to eyeroll at this oh so much important question on when are you finally going to stop beating your wife.

And even when false, I don't get pissed off when I read people that read Werther as a sexist eulogy to the old patriarchy, why DO YOU?

Because they are not merely making stupid proclamations to the airwaves. They are influential. They are changing the media. They get positive coverage in the media, as if the noises that they are keyboarding aren't the stupidest thing that has come out of the universities this past decade.

Perhaps you aren't paying attention, but several countries are indeed considering banning or censoring games and other media that may fall into these nagging silly characterizations of "sexism", as labeled by the most paranoic autistic minds I've ever encountered in the nets. Do you think those things are just "opinions"? You're being naive.

Also, feminist propaganda is annoying but the goddamn "USA! USA!" propaganda we get from people like Michael Bay isn't?

That kind of ****ty propaganda is just annoying. It isn't trying to censor me. It isn't trying to guilt trip me into doing anything. It's just silly and stupid and spectacular. And to that, eyerolling is enough.

Two words:

SAINTS ROW

The so-called "censors" generally love that series, and last I checked it involved beating people to death with a purple dildo at some point.

As an aside, comparing the Quran with the Bible is a classic diversionary tactic. It in no way excuses the Quran's flaws.

I tended to pay attention to both the hour of religion at school and Sunday school and I can confirm that the catholic view of the bible is the same as the muslims in general view the Quran: the word of god written by prophets and saints inspired directly by Him.

The flaws are exactly the same, even in the bible is written that homosexuals must be killed, that women with the period are impure and other bull**** like that, it's still something that was born among nomadic middle eastern tribes.

The catholic doctrine somewhat mitigates it by saying that the New Testament comes first and the Old Testament comes second in the hyerarchy, but the new testament has still stuff like St. Paul saying that homosexuals can't enter the kingdom of heaven or that women cannot speak at the assembly (what we would call the mass today) and other fundamentalist stuff like that.

[karajorma]

As an aside, comparing the Quran with the Bible is a classic diversionary tactic. It in no way excuses the Quran's flaws.

No it doesn't. But you opened the door to that argument by comparing Muslims and Christians and saying that only the former believe their holy book to be the indisputable word of God. That is of course nonsense as pretty much most Christians tend to believe that about their own book just as strongly as Muslims do.

[Grizzly]

Because they are not merely making stupid proclamations to the airwaves. They are influential. They are changing the media. They get positive coverage in the media, as if the noises that they are keyboarding aren't the stupidest thing that has come out of the universities this past decade.

You know why they are influential? Because people want to listen to them. It's not coercion or "Guilt tripping shenanigans", it's designers hearing criticism from a certain angle and going "Hey, mabye you're right". And you generally see that influence in subtle ways - Notice how everybody wears pants in Dishonoured? Noticed a quite good improvement in character design in Overwatch in comparison to Starcraft 2? Notice the evolution of the Saint's Row series from a cheap GTA knockoff to the classification-defying SR4? You can notice influences of feminism in all those titles.

Perhaps you aren't paying attention, but several countries are indeed considering banning or censoring games and other media that may fall into these nagging silly characterizations of "sexism", as labeled by the most paranoic autistic minds I've ever encountered in the nets. Do you think those things are just "opinions"? You're being naive.

[citation needed]

[qwadtep]

So when a woman says she's being abused by her husband, do you plug your ears and say she just has trust issues, too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

There's no false equivalence here. You're wantonly discarding the concerns of individuals/groups because you've already decided that said individual/group is just paranoid, reality be damned.
Such disregard is the reason a large part of the American electorate has decided that a loudmouthed reality television star is more likely to represent them in good faith than anybody "reasonable."

[Luis Dias]

Two words:

SAINTS ROW

The so-called "censors" generally love that series, and last I checked it involved beating people to death with a purple dildo at some point.

Beating men to death is no biggie. Thousands of those, Social Justice morons will love it (with the occasional self-flaggelating nonsense about how violence in games is normalizing our perceptions, etc. Beating women to death, however, is a scandal.

You do not know what you are speaking of.

You know why they are influential? Because people want to listen to them. It's not coercion or "Guilt tripping shenanigans", it's designers hearing criticism from a certain angle and going "Hey, mabye you're right". And you generally see that influence in subtle ways - Notice how everybody wears pants in Dishonoured? Noticed a quite good improvement in character design in Overwatch in comparison to Starcraft 2? Notice the evolution of the Saint's Row series from a cheap GTA knockoff to the classification-defying SR4? You can notice influences of feminism in all those titles.

Yes, as I said, they are influential. And that's why they have to be fought.

Your reasoning that people are rightfully influential because "people want to listen to them" is moronic, stupid, etc. Hey, do you know who people seem to want to listen to lately? Donald Trump. Ratings say so. SO I GUESS HE'S AMAZING AMIRITE.

[citation needed]

The Internet. Has been discussed thousands of times, I'm tired of educating you. Google France, Sweeden, Australia, even the UK.

[Grizzly]

Two words:

SAINTS ROW

The so-called "censors" generally love that series, and last I checked it involved beating people to death with a purple dildo at some point.

Beating men to death is no biggie. Thousands of those, Social Justice morons will love it (with the occasional self-flaggelating nonsense about how violence in games is normalizing our perceptions, etc. Beating women to death, however, is a scandal.

You do not know what you are speaking of.

Have you played Saint's Row at all?

You know why they are influential? Because people want to listen to them. It's not coercion or "Guilt tripping shenanigans", it's designers hearing criticism from a certain angle and going "Hey, mabye you're right". And you generally see that influence in subtle ways - Notice how everybody wears pants in Dishonoured? Noticed a quite good improvement in character design in Overwatch in comparison to Starcraft 2? Notice the evolution of the Saint's Row series from a cheap GTA knockoff to the classification-defying SR4? You can notice influences of feminism in all those titles.

Yes, as I said, they are influential. And that's why they have to be fought.

Your reasoning that people are rightfully influential because "people want to listen to them" is moronic, stupid, etc. Hey, do you know who people seem to want to listen to lately? Donald Trump. Ratings say so. SO I GUESS HE'S AMAZING AMIRITE.
[/quote]

Hold on, if developers want to incorporate criticism from a feminst angle, why is this inherently more wrong then criticism from any other angle? Are you not advocating for your own kind of censorship there?

[citation needed]

The Internet. Has been discussed thousands of times, I'm tired of educating you. Google France, Sweeden, Australia, even the UK.

"I have no evidence to backup my statements but this is your fault!"

[Dragon]

Oxford does indeed use the word "Muslims" without qualification. If you have a better source that says otherwise, then by all means, produce it.

If we're accepting Wikipedia as a source, then here's something (note: Salafism is, again, closely associated with Wahhabism):

Unlike the Salafis and Zahiri, Shias and Sufis as well as some other Muslim philosophers believe the meaning of the Quran is not restricted to the literal aspect.

Commentators erudite in Arabic explained the allusions, and perhaps most importantly, explained which Quranic verses had been revealed early in Muhammad's prophetic career, as being appropriate to the very earliest Muslim community, and which had been revealed later, canceling out or "abrogating" (nāsikh) the earlier text (mansūkh). Other scholars, however, maintain that no abrogation has taken place in the Quran.

From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran#Interpretation
Arabic language lends itself well to really deep writing. The concept of "nasikh" is controversial, but it shows that Quran interpretation isn't exactly a single-minded matter.

From your own link:

Some Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, that God, through the Holy Spirit, intervened and influenced the words, message, and collation of the Bible. For many Christians the Bible is also infallible, and is incapable of error in matters of faith and practice, but not necessarily in historic or scientific matters.

Fundamentalist Christians are associated with the doctrine of biblical literalism, where the Bible is not only inerrant, but the meaning of the text is clear to the average reader.

Note the words "some", "many", and "fundamentalist".

As an aside, comparing the Quran with the Bible is a classic diversionary tactic. It in no way excuses the Quran's flaws.

It's a valid argument when somebody tries to claim superiority of Christianity over Islam. Quran isn't any worse than New Testament (in fact, IIRC, it's slightly better) and is downright progressive compared to the old one.

The article on biblical literalism does put greater emphasis on divisions among Christians on that matter, but that's probably because Christianity is much larger and at the same time, much less strictly adhered to these days. My original comment referred to pre-WWII era (which is when suffragettes pulled off Britain's "feminist revolution"), when Christianity was as strong as Islam is today. Notice that strict literalism is (once again, in the respective Wiki articles) noted to be a province of both Christian and Islamic fundamentalists (though I admit, for the latter you do have to know that Salafism is essentially equivalent to the bible-thumping brand of Christianity).

Generally, in any religion you'll find morons who not only can't see any deeper meanings in the stuff they read, but also think that everything starts and ends on only one, ancient book. Since Western religious doctrine generally encourages narrow-mindedness and exalts blind faith, it's a common problem. The real difference between Islam and Christianity is that the former is "better designed" and avoids some pitfalls of the latter. The rest is purely a matter of politics, not religion.

[GhylTarvoke]

As an aside, comparing the Quran with the Bible is a classic diversionary tactic. It in no way excuses the Quran's flaws.

I tended to pay attention to both the hour of religion at school and Sunday school and I can confirm that the catholic view of the bible is the same as the muslims in general view the Quran: the word of god written by prophets and saints inspired directly by Him.

I was raised Catholic, and I can confirm that the Catholic view of the Bible is completely different from Muslims' view of the Quran. I can tell anecdotes, too.

I also like how you responded to my post with precisely the diversionary tactic I was talking about.

But you opened the door to that argument by comparing Muslims and Christians and saying that only the former believe their holy book to be the indisputable word of God. That is of course nonsense as pretty much most Christians tend to believe that about their own book just as strongly as Muslims do.

Pay attention. Here's the first post in the thread that compares Muslims and Christians:

In all honesty, you could find probably similar sentiments in the Bible. If anything, from what I know, Islamic law is better for women than Biblical law (not that it's saying much). Didn't stop Britain from having a feminist revolution back in the day (and that was at a time when people still took religion seriously). Of course it's hard, but that never dissuaded feminists in the past.

I played ball for a while. I probably should have called it out as a diversion immediately.

As for "comparing Muslims and Christians and saying that only the former believe their holy book to be the indisputable word of God": this is, of course, a strawman. There are certainly Christians who believe that the Bible is the indisputable word of God.

If we're accepting Wikipedia as a source, then here's something (note: Salafism is, again, closely associated with Wahhabism):

No, Wikipedia does not trump Oxford.

Unlike the Salafis and Zahiri, Shias and Sufis as well as some other Muslim philosophers believe the meaning of the Quran is not restricted to the literal aspect.

Commentators erudite in Arabic explained the allusions, and perhaps most importantly, explained which Quranic verses had been revealed early in Muhammad's prophetic career, as being appropriate to the very earliest Muslim community, and which had been revealed later, canceling out or "abrogating" (nāsikh) the earlier text (mansūkh). Other scholars, however, maintain that no abrogation has taken place in the Quran.

The first quote says that the meaning is not restricted to the literal aspect. I'll give you the second one.

Secondly, what interpretation of the linked verses do you have in mind?

I'm still curious about this.

[Det. Bullock]

As an aside, comparing the Quran with the Bible is a classic diversionary tactic. It in no way excuses the Quran's flaws.

I tended to pay attention to both the hour of religion at school and Sunday school and I can confirm that the catholic view of the bible is the same as the muslims in general view the Quran: the word of god written by prophets and saints inspired directly by Him.

I was raised Catholic, and I can confirm that the Catholic view of the Bible is completely different from Muslims' view of the Quran. I can tell anecdotes, too.

I also like how you responded to my post with precisely the diversionary tactic I was talking about.

BULL****, I was raised catholic too you know, in Italy is kinda difficult not to be and I actually followed the lessons instead of making paper planes.

You can say it's different only if you attribute the literal interpretation of the Quran to all muslims instead of certain sects of the religion, but it would be like attributing the same evangelical american fundamentalist idiocy to the rest of christianity.

Two words:

SAINTS ROW

The so-called "censors" generally love that series, and last I checked it involved beating people to death with a purple dildo at some point.

Beating men to death is no biggie. Thousands of those, Social Justice morons will love it (with the occasional self-flaggelating nonsense about how violence in games is normalizing our perceptions, etc. Beating women to death, however, is a scandal.

There's that too, you haven't really played it, did you? 

[AdmiralRalwood]

So when a woman says she's being abused by her husband, do you plug your ears and say she just has trust issues, too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

There's no false equivalence here. You're wantonly discarding the concerns of individuals/groups because you've already decided that said individual/group is just paranoid, reality be damned.
Such disregard is the reason a large part of the American electorate has decided that a loudmouthed reality television star is more likely to represent them in good faith than anybody "reasonable."

Oh sorry, I thought you were making an ignorant argument; now I just see you're making a bad-faith one. I won't waste my time in the future.

[karajorma]

I'm dying to see how GhylTarvoke is going to claim that Catholics believe everything Jesus said wasn't the literal word of God.

[Ghostavo]

Two words:

SAINTS ROW

The so-called "censors" generally love that series, and last I checked it involved beating people to death with a purple dildo at some point.

Yeah, remember those critics just loving the Saints Row series?

You can tell the excitement from their words.