Indeed they can, but here’s the quote in full:
Hey, I’m gender fluid too. Sometimes I feel like a bull, sometimes I don’t.
There are also methodological concerns btw.
In all countries, surveys were administered through face-to-face interviews conducted at a respondent’s place of residence.
Now think about this. Go to any country where freedom of speech is lacking, say you represent a foreign organization (but you are not foreign yourself), sit down in a stranger’s living room (probably with other family members present) and ask people controversial questions. Do you really think all respondents are going to be completely honest?
Gender Imbalances: In Afghanistan and Niger, the survey respondents are disproportionately male, while in Thailand, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan they are disproportionately female.
Surveying in active conflict zones posed particular challenges for interviewers.
Why weren’t all the same questions asked in every country included in “The World’s Muslims”?
Why didn’t you ask questions about sharia in the U.S.?
Why weren’t Muslims in Western European countries included in this survey?
How can you call a survey that excludes Saudi Arabia, India and China a “global” survey of Muslims?
They admit to all these issues and more.
At the moment I’m sensing bull.
That interpretation is understandable. I don’t think you can rationally say it’s clear from the historical evidence, though.
tell his followers to actually submit to the laws of the land. Unless the laws directly makes you disobey god, I guess the only interpretation of that is what someone think is disobeying god.
When you phrase it like that, it amounts to the law of God trumps the law of the state. You can’t have your law and eat it too… unless you’re the Supreme Being.
Yeah because there’s a legitimate chance of being persecuted or even killed in such countries for stating opinions which can be seen as conflicting with Islam, maybe even a likelihood in some cases. It happens with frequency. So regardless of how accurate the polls might be in reflecting the actual opinion of the entire populace–something polls can never do with complete accuracy; they can only give us a general indication, I will repeat my original comment and only assertion about this matter, which I continue to maintain:
Not to say everywhere else is Happy Land or something, but I’ll pass.
There are some very influential monks who disagree with you about the violence part. “The good karma from protecting your nation/community outweighs the bad karma of killing” and so on. You can argue they’re doctrinally incorrect, just like anyone can argue anyone is doctrinally incorrect.
And what is a “final religion”? Is it a messianic religion with an eschatological forecast? That would include all the Abrahamic religions. (If you want to say Judaism isn’t “final” because the coming of the messiah hasn’t happened, you might as well say Christianity and Islam aren’t “final” because the 2nd coming hasn’t happened.)
The word “messiah” doesn’t turn up in non-Abrahamic religions afaik, but that doesn’t mean there’s no messianic figure.
Forgive me if I can’t think of the exact scriptures. But my understanding of it is actually that it’s more like you should obey the laws of the government unless it forces you to damages your relationship with god by doing something against him.
Exactly: I won’t obey this law because I believe doing so would anger God.
(I think what you’re trying to recall is render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s. But you still need to choose one or the other when they appear to conflict.)
Interesting how you can phrase something and feel entirely different. Yes I think it’s possible and I think some denominations actually interpret it this way. But it goes back to the nature of sin and what it does. Remember, in at least most Protestant denominations (I’ve been correct by strict Catholics about certain doctrines they have that are different) you are already forgiven for your transgressions against god by going against his nature. But sin damages your relationship with the father that loves you unconditionally. One reason is guilt like the example I believe I told you once using the story of Adam and original sin. Adam hid from god (by its very nature ridiculous to try and hid from a omnipotence all knowing being) and felt ashamed (puts on clothes because he felt ashamed to be naked) and god still called out even already knowing what Adam did (god trying to reach him because he loves man no matter what) but Adam still hid.
So the way I interpret what Christianity believes is that you should obey unless it puts you in a position that damages your relationship with god. Not because he will be angry at you, although some Christians to believe in a more wrathful god others believe in more of a loving forgiving one. But I guess it’s difficult to understand and describe the nature of love of a god for man in our finite minds and using our language.
@yyy actually it might not be you who I used the original sin story
And I’ve just realize how much of a tangent we’re on from the original topic.
What were we saying about Arabs again?
The reason for obeying or not obeying is theoretical. Actually obeying or not obeying is practical.
One possible solution is go ahead and join the police or whatever government agency in your secular country, but if you’re ever asked to enforce a secular law (or promote a secular policy) that conflicts with a religious law or to let someone get away with violating a religious law that conflicts with a secular law/policy, just resign. Of course, if people know you’re going to resign if they ask you to do something that’s in your job description, they might be reluctant to hire you. If they only find out after they’ve hired you, they might be reluctant to tell you to do your job.
Another possible solution is excommunication, and if you believe that means you’re going to hell, the threat of excommunication should be enough to force your hand.
Still another possible solution is for the central authority of your denomination to blow some hot air about how naughty you are for letting the secularists have their way but not actually take any substantive action against you.
Christianity in the most sense makes god very personal. I mean the story of god sending his son to be man to suffer and die and take on all the sin of man. Imagine a all mighty being becoming a man (all the limitations of man) it must be awful. And to be sacrificed (most people think his is the worst part) but it’s actually when Jesus took on all the sins of man. He said something like “father why have forsaken me” at that moment. And at that moment he was unable to be with god the father. That was the sacrifice, not death. The story is pretty personal in terms of how a deities relationship with man is comparing to other religions. And man is also given a direct line to god and told that god cares about you at an individual level. Some scripture quotes about for god has a plan for you.
So if you take those ideas into account. God is very personal for Christianity, Christian mostly believe that god listens and cares about them on a personal level and even has a plan for them. So on that ground I would interpret that no earthly power can prevent you from reaching god and having a relationship with, certainly not an excommunication by another person.
And also hell is my understanding just the absence of god. So no one can send you to hell. You choose it because you don’t want to be with god.
I wrote a bunch of stuff about my take on what you guys (@yyy and @Andrew0409) were talking about, but there’s a lot of overlap between what I wrote and what you guys subsequently wrote while I was writing, so I decided not to post what I wrote.
I suppose you could ask the Vatican ambassador to comment on that.
Maybe I will next time I visit one of Taiwan’s few actual embassy in the Holy See. But I doubt I’ll get another invite in case you missed my thread on how I hated our ambassador there. And apparently the word out is he doesn’t like me either. He is what I call a punk ass bitch and a embarrassment to represent Taiwan.
Not really. If a religion says that the Quran is the literal word of good and rejects interpretation as heresy. It’s not much of a subjective part of Islam if “Islam is the last religion” is repeated by Inman’s everyday. It’s a central tenet of the religion
Christianity doesn’t include this in the scriptures and maybe there are some fringe groups saying this, but not rooted in the scriptures
When you say “the last religion”, what I hear is the religion we’re supposed to adhere to so that we go to heaven and not to hell when the apocalypse happens.
You can quibble on the definition of the word religion. You can quibble on the meaning of heaven, hell, apocalypse, and so on. But we all get the idea.
Other than modern, heavily secularized denominations and “lapsed” or “loose” adherents of traditional denominations – people who like Christopher Marlowe would have been called “atheists” in former times – where are these Christian authorities who don’t believe Christianity is the final religion, don’t believe the Bible is the word of God, and don’t believe Revelation explains how the world will end?
rejects interpretation as heresy
Some light reading for you:
It’s not about what you hear. Muhammad was very specific. Islam was the last religion and is prophesized to be the final on the planet.