Christianity ruins families.

[Robert]

Can you give an example of such a christian re-interpretation, and explain how it could be aplied to Islam in an example? (ie. how Islam could be re-interpretated as non political in the same way as christianity could)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Some things can easily be re-interpretated.
Some things can hardly be re-interpretated.
The political position of Islam is one of the latter.

Not really - just do what Christians for generations have done: "that was then, this is now" (which has applied all sorts of contexts, like female priests, glossolalia in certan denominations, etc).

[Robert]

I didn't post any specific 'claim' what exactly a different interpretation of Islam would mean en detail. I gave an example for existing different interpretations in a certain point (jihad) to show that this is possible without destroying Islam.

Some things can easily be re-interpretated.
Some things can hardly be re-interpretated.
The political position of Islam is one of the latter.

If you believe that's not true then you should give reasons for it. Why do you believe that it will change? I hope that it will change, but hope is something different. Hope is wishful thinking. We should not base the way we deal with Islam on wishful thinking.

As for your belief what can or can't be interpreted out of the Quran, that is basically speculation based on theology. Which is fine if you see theology as the primary factor in modernization or specifically for things like the "separation of religion and state", something which I don't.

For the modernization of a religion, theology is of major importance. Especially if the combination of religion and state is part of the theology.

[Robert]

Believing that Islam can make the same change as Christianity did is based on wishful thinking, not on a rational understanding of Islam or christianity.

Much is open to interpretation. But not all is open to interpretation. And interpretation has it's limits. One can never interpretate from the Quran that Muhammed is not Allah's prophet.
And one can also never interpretate from the Quran that it is possible to have a seperation of church and state. You touch the core of the religion and the person of Muhammed then.

Your claim is based on wishful thinking, not on any theological knowledge of Islam.

Explain to me the existence of secular governments in countries where most people are muslims. Apparently the 97% of Turkey's population that identifies as Muslim doesn't seem to think Islam is necessarily a political movement.

The big majority of the muslims either do not think it's important, or they don't want to make an issue about it, or they indeed think that Islam goes very well with democracy.

Like the majority of catholics most probalby use contraception, despite the fact that their religion forbids it.
That doesn't change the fact that Islam in itself is a political religion and that a big minority of the muslims may therefore try to apply the political anti-democratic values of Islam, with or without democratic means.

Of course it's good if all muslims will re-interpretate their religion into a more democratic direction. I hope that would happen. But I doubt very strongly that it will, because the core of Islam is very political. It will always give a lot of room to a large majority to continue to interpretate it in a very anti-democratic way.

Christianity on contrary is apparently a religion that can easily be interpretated as a peaceful non-political religion. The fact that from the 2 billion christians hardly anyone of them still uses violence says enough.
Now to believe that Islam will follow the same path as christianity, one must give reasons on why that should happen. Just saying "it happened to christianity" is not enough, becuase Islam and christianity are very different in it's core.

There are 2 secular nations with a majority of muslims, Indonesia and Turkey. Both nations have big problems with this situation. In Turkey the majority of the population is supporting a muslim party that apparently slowly is downgrading the secular government. To say that either Indonesia or Turkey is a succesful secular state where the population accepts this seperation of state and church is just wrong.

[Ming]

Which brings us back to my question. If 60 percent of women who have abortions do so despite the fact that they used contraception, is this not a significant risk of contraceptive failure?

I think 60 percent is sufficient for the 'significant' tag.

You keep bringing up contraceptive failure... Why? It doesn't change the fact that catholics are having abortions... and killing more babies than any other religion.

In terms of proportionality, those with no belief are most likely to abort, and do so 50 percent higher than Catholics.

And they represent a far smaller percentage of total abortions. Come on Ben, just admit Catholics lead the way in killing innocent babies... because it is a fact you can't dispute.

So HIV is common between people who are virgins? Interesting.

And where did I say or imply that. It is a fact that HIV is rising with Hetero's... are you disputing that?

I have. I've never stated that these are anything other than if/then statements. If you consider the assumptions accurate, than this is the outcome.

You present them as facts... and believe me, you are the only one that would consider them accurate... everybody else just laughs at them.

You have asserted that gay men use condoms which makes them safe from HIV.

Are you claiming NO gay man uses a condom? And when did I ever imply that condoms were 100% effective. They are safer, and that's a fact.

I've asked you how common is this use?

There don't seem to be any reliable studies to answer that question... and unlike you, I just don't make crap up instead of using real facts.

I've cited evidence that contraceptives, at least in the preventation of pregnancy, are not that effective. Most women who have abortions do so after contraceptive failure.

And frankly, I don't know why you keep brining this up since it wasn't a part of the converation. Contraceptive failure has nothing to do with the discussion.

And none of it changes the FACT that Catholics are the leading baby killer in America... And actually, they kill more babies each year in the US, than people die of HIV in the US each year.

[Ben Kenobi]

There is a risk walking down the street... and you use the term "significant"... but make it sound like a sure thing. It isn't.

Which brings us back to my question. If 60 percent of women who have abortions do so despite the fact that they used contraception, is this not a significant risk of contraceptive failure?

I think 60 percent is sufficient for the 'significant' tag.

If you want to play that game, let's just call em all Christians... So Christians are killing most of the babies in America. It doesn't change the fact that when it comes to a single religion, Catholics lead the way in killing innocent babies, even though abortions are against their teachings...

In terms of proportionality, those with no belief are most likely to abort, and do so 50 percent higher than Catholics.

Gee... I'd rather have protected sex with somebody with Hiv than unprotected sex with somebody with Hiv. There is a significant risk having unprotected sex with ANYBODY, even with between men and women. The HIV rate between hetros is on the climb as well, probably because of people that share your opinions.

So HIV is common between people who are virgins? Interesting.

Feel free to actually use real statistics instead of just making them up and think they are real.

I have. I've never stated that these are anything other than if/then statements. If you consider the assumptions accurate, than this is the outcome.

You have asserted that gay men use condoms which makes them safe from HIV. I've asked you how common is this use? I've cited evidence that contraceptives, at least in the preventation of pregnancy, are not that effective. Most women who have abortions do so after contraceptive failure.

[Ming]

All I'm saying is that "safe" sex is better referred to as 'safer' sex. Yes, you are less likely on each sexual encounter to contract an std, but there is still significant risk.

There is a risk walking down the street... and you use the term "significant"... but make it sound like a sure thing. It isn't.

Only if you divide Protestants into different groups.

I could just as truly say that Protestants as a whole abort more babies than Catholics in America.

If you want to play that game, let's just call em all Christians... So Christians are killing most of the babies in America. It doesn't change the fact that when it comes to a single religion, Catholics lead the way in killing innocent babies, even though abortions are against their teachings...

Just the opposite. I'm saying that the incidence rate would go down, but even if they all used condoms, that the risk would still be significantly more than for unprotected sex for men and women.

Gee... I'd rather have protected sex with somebody with Hiv than unprotected sex with somebody with Hiv. There is a significant risk having unprotected sex with ANYBODY, even with between men and women. The HIV rate between hetros is on the climb as well, probably because of people that share your opinions.

It's your argument. I'm trying to be helpful because you haven't bothered to cite any statistics as to the proportion of gay men who use condoms. All I'm doing here is making an if-then statement. Feel free to cite anytime Ming.

Feel free to actually use real statistics instead of just making them up and think they are real.
All you are doing is making things up that support your moronic opinions. Fortunately, everybody can see how idiotic it is. But what the heck, if the only way you can prove to yourself that you are right is to keep making stuff up... that's your problem, but don't expect others to think BEN MATH is real.

[Ben Kenobi]

If it's okay to have sex when you know procreation will not occur.... then what is so bad about sodomy?

From the point of view of the Catholic church?

Sex is restricted for men and women only in marriage. This comes back to the whole union of a man and a woman.

Anything outside of this is sinful. This includes sodomy, fornication, adultery, etc.

[giblets]

If it's okay to have sex when you know procreation will not occur.... then what is so bad about sodomy?

[Ben Kenobi]

All the method provides is information wrt ovulation.

As I said earlier, it can be used to increase fertility by timing ovulation. The information is neutral.

Unlike the forms of contraception mentioned, it only works by not having sex during the fertile period.

[giblets]

But one is several orders of magnitude more accurate than the other. So the analogy is true.

Yep, the Billings method is far more useful for removing procreation from sex. Why don't you answer Ming's objection?

[Ben Kenobi]

I still have no clue what your point is here. It's better to practice safe sex than not...

All I'm saying is that "safe" sex is better referred to as 'safer' sex. Yes, you are less likely on each sexual encounter to contract an std, but there is still significant risk.

But that doesn't change the fact. Catholics are the leaders in killing babies.

Only if you divide Protestants into different groups.

I could just as truly say that Protestants as a whole abort more babies than Catholics in America.

HUH? Again, I said no such thing. Are you saying that if all gays practiced safe sex that the incidence rate would remaing the same?

Just the opposite. I'm saying that the incidence rate would go down, but even if they all used condoms, that the risk would still be significantly more than for unprotected sex for men and women.

Simply more "BEN MATH" here. Why don't you try to find some facts instead of just making stuff up.

It's your argument. I'm trying to be helpful because you haven't bothered to cite any statistics as to the proportion of gay men who use condoms. All I'm doing here is making an if-then statement. Feel free to cite anytime Ming.

[Ben Kenobi]

Rhythm method is calendar based, not temperature based. And since temperature, mucus and calendars are all forms of fertility awareness they're not really "nothing alike".

But one is several orders of magnitude more accurate than the other. So the analogy is true.

[Fve Crathva]

To be fair, stargazing with your eyes is very much like stargazing with your telescope.

SP

[giblets]

Rhythm method is calendar based, not temperature based. And since temperature, mucus and calendars are all forms of fertility awareness they're not really "nothing alike".