NawfalQ's forum posts

#1 Posted by NawfalQ (120 posts) - - Show Bio

Well, you and I are relatively in agreement. Context is vital. And I do think ripping quotations/verses out of any text is problematic and sketchy, at the very least. Perhaps the Biblical stories and laws differ from the societial conventions in 2012. But I would submit - maybe not the overarching principles....

#2 Posted by NawfalQ (120 posts) - - Show Bio

@King Saturn: Once again, I think your position is not entirely being clarified. You say that you are sickened because of the picking and choosing. But in the next paragraph, you are glad that people do pick and choose. Ultimately, it seems that you have given the (in this case...) Christian an impossible scenario. That's unreasonable and a bit silly. What, then, would you have them do? (With regard to this "picking and choosing" that you speak of.)

You assert that your argument is about the understanding/validity of the Bible. Are you saying that under your particular point-of-view, one must follow the Bible in a literal sense AND either entirely or not at all? In other words, all or nothing or else be branded (according to your previous statements) a hypocrite? So, in order to not "make you sick," Christians should throw out the baby with the bathwater? Because there are outdated moralities that are historically contingent in the OT, the whole text should be discarded - to include any and all good within it?

#3 Posted by NawfalQ (120 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@NawfalQ said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

No my point was that religious people are always ready to take the good things from the bible and take them out of context but when someone mentions bad things that occurred in the bible the same excuse is used.

Religion is still responsible for alot of terrible things,not owning slaves but other terrible things nonetheless.

Okay. Correct me if I misunderstand your point. It seems you are saying that no matter if one takes good or bad "elements" from the Bible, one must also always take context into account. Correct?

@King Saturn said:

@NawfalQ said:

@King Saturn said:

yes, it's bad to be hypocritical... because it means you are double minded... you don't truly live the stuff you are talking about if you are hypocritical... now on one hand it is good that religious folks don't stone people and own slaves anymore... but that comes from an evolving standard of morals that we have... no point in the Bible does it say to stop owning slaves or stop stoning people... we just came to that conclusion under our own understanding.

Some followers of the Bible would allege that the Bible does, in fact, suggest the cessation of owning slaves/stoning people. But be that as it may, since religious folk no longer follow these practices (whatsoever the reason for the change in morals), why then on this point do they (as you said) "make you sick"? Your post suggested that it was because they "pick and choose." But we agree that it is a good thing that they do so, and have chosen not to follow certain negative practices. In essence, you complain that they pick and choose and yet also assert that they should.

#4 Posted by NawfalQ (120 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@King Saturn said:

I hate that two headed mindset of Christianity... I don't get it why they get so mad and say "But That's The Old Testament" when you talk about Slavery or GOD slaughtering thousands or even millions in the Old Testament... yet, these same Christians will quote Psalms or The Ten Commandments as passages just as easy... it makes me sick because they just take what they want... and exclude everything else...

Thats true and when someone brings up something terrible that happened in the bible they turn around and say that its taken out of context.Talk about hypocritical.

So, it is bad to be hypocritical. Under this paradigm, you would have Christians and Jews of today.... out slaughtering and owning slaves? Nonsense.

And, thankfully, these religions do "exclude" the bad. I would think we would be happy that people exclude "bad" things?

#5 Posted by NawfalQ (120 posts) - - Show Bio

Many comments suggest people get "educated" and "think for themselves" or be allowed to "think freely."

But what of the many intelligent, educated theists? If you want to discuss the situation, these cannot be dismissed out of hand.

And throughout the thread, there is a conflation of "religion" with "theology." None of the "free-thinkers" in this thread bothered to make the distinction. Why not? How in-depth is the thought process if we merely hand-wave at the problem by parroting Marx, Dawkins, or Mackie?

Also, there is an assumption that religious people are motivated (at least in part) by "fear." Inherently, is there anything incorrect by being motivated in this way? If something is to be feared, ought we not to fear it?

Finally, there are actually no religions that are 100% completely governed by a concept of "sola scriptura" (a scriptural text alone). All the current religions seem to use a text as a starting point, but from it derive the principles and regulations via interpretation. So, to suggest that religions simple "follow an old book," is to misrepresent religions, in general.

#6 Edited by NawfalQ (120 posts) - - Show Bio

Palmiotti... with the nervous bounce and the constant furtive glances... WTH? Odd..... Was Tony holding a gun and saying: "You better answer this correctly, fool!"

#7 Posted by NawfalQ (120 posts) - - Show Bio

 I only watched your JL#1 review ('cause I ain't read the other issues yet!).  Your review made me curious about the age demographics of people who picked up JL. You mentioned it wasn't really something you were interested in and I noticed the same sentiment from a number of folks your age. However, I noticed older farts (30+) hehehehehe! seemed to really hone in on a big ol' desire for JL.  
LOL ---> You are so right re: Jim Lee and action art! The (what is it....? a fire truck?) panel with the truck is really super cool. 
Thanks for sharing!

#8 Posted by NawfalQ (120 posts) - - Show Bio

Fun vid! Good job! 
The *THWAK* of the books hitting the floor is such a tickling sound! *LOL*

#9 Posted by NawfalQ (120 posts) - - Show Bio

Kingpin = Marvel Comics character, Wilson Fisk, origin circa 1967
"kingpin" = etymologically referring to bowling pins (circa early 1800's) - colloquial for "criminal mastermind at the center of a ring of villains"  (i.e. Luthor is under the literary archetype of "kingpin")
And I think Gambit1024 is probably right:   Luthor is well-known for his big hate for S.  Plus, he's a classic (1940s origin) villain that everyone, in and out of comics, can recognize.

#10 Posted by NawfalQ (120 posts) - - Show Bio