How do I force myself to stop being a skeptic and to start embracing God and Islam? Why Islam? Because I want community...

interesting.

why did he dislike them?

not sure, but he is the one to explicitly state that slaves and women should be obedient and gays are abominable and whatnot which flies in the face of the veil being rent in twain in the first place (his real contribution is helping Peter realize that jews weren't special anymore)

Steer very, very far away from anything even remotely Fundamentalist.

The Imam at the mosque you go to mentions the name "Ibn Taymiyya" in a positive light. Fucking run.

Alternatively if you join the Shi'a side, never go to one that thinks Khomeini "had some good points". Just don't.

This will limit your options depending on where you live. But at least you'll be on the right side of the pan-sectarian culture war.

> Steer very, very far away from anything even remotely Fundamentalist.

Is there any sect of Islam that doesnt hole their prophet in the highest regard?

You have to remember that most Muslims believe that Muhammad was the perfect man and the perfect example of their faith.

Study the life of Muhammad and think if this is ther person upon whom you will base your life.

For a couple of reasons, actually: (1) I'm simply interested in the Middle East, the food, the clothing, history, etc., and (2) I feel like in general there are more Muslims that take their religion seriously than Christians do theirs. I know that's a generalization but if I were to join a religion I would want to do it more "by the book", and I would want my religious community to do the same, so basically I think I'm more prone to find conservative-minded people in the Muslim community.

I think that's true, nobody in my family is religious and even as a kid I thought it was insane to believe in a "man in the clouds", as I put it once while not wearing a fedora. Finding purpose in the state or my town would be nice, but it's hard to when I've never felt very patriotic or particularly proud of being Canadian, there's just nothing I can point to and say "that's uniquely mine". My heritage is Scottish but it has absolutely no bearing on my day-to-day life nor do I feel any "muh heritage" connection to Scotland, perhaps unfortunately.

I'll respond to everything else shortly.

>Most of these are Hadiths
Quranism is the only way.

You're not religious, you've never felt patriotic, and you're not proud of who you are.

Why the hell would you think Islam would help you? You're deficient of will, not faith. You should really get in touch with your Scottish blood and learn how great Scotland is. Listen to Scottish music, discover Scottish heroes. You will have a much better connection with that than anything else.

You need to create, not submit.

>Christ thought fornication, even if your thoughts, was repulsive, but he would have been fine with gay sex
>Christ did not have a single female Apostle out of twelve, or have a single female at the last supper, but he thought men and women had the same roles

>Christ said be meek and humble and turn the other cheek, but Paul is distorting this when he says slaves are to do the same

Don't give in to the spooks OP, learn to love yourself

That isnt love.

>singling out gay like Paul did, didn't change the perception that it was somehow more than fornication when it isn't

>Not employing females is equivalent to insisting that they're silent and unworthy to ask questions, especially considering his (christ's) treatment of women in the gospels

>he is definitely distorting it

Sure it is. How do you define love, and why is the self somehow exempt from it?

Nationalism is a 19th century meme, not sn actual need.

That is self gratification.

To love is to will the good of the other as other despite yourself.

As long as he creates, I don't care if he's a patriot. He needs to reclaim his manhood and pride in being alive and nationalism is one vehicle of that. I personally don't think Islam will give him that.

Ignatius Press Bible with annotations is the best in English, or so I'm told anyway.

What are you smoking, Canada has a wonderful culture.

You just refuse to see it, or presume it's just stolen from the US.
Defending Christianity is a pain because the average person making an argument against it lacks even rudimentary knowledge of scripture (and is probably a literalist as well), won't understand the mysticism required for much of the arguments, and have been taught since birth that, somehow, faith in every form is negative.

So for every even modern-loved positive in the New Testament, the Millennial will pull out a 'conservative' negative in the Old Testament without understanding the distinction between the Father and the Son; and confusing Jews with Christians -- you know.

It's not even worth doing it on Veeky Forums.

Canada is a humble nation full of kind people who enjoy hockey, nature, and Tim Horton's. That's definitely an identity you could assume.

Sure it's self gratification. What isn't? We're both posting now purely for the purpose of self-gratification. There isn't anything wrong with that. And what is love other than an affection and a caring for someone? Keep in mind that those two things come hand in hand. People need a reason to care for other people, even if that person is themselves. When you're ultimately indifferent or even loathing to yourself, you have no reason to take care of yourself other than for amusement, and because of that you get very little satisfaction out of life (or at least that satisfaction is very stunted). Indeed, that's the reason why so many people gravitate toward things like "a common culture" or "a higher purpose", because they won't allow themselves any self-indulgent pleasure. So what's ultimately wrong with loving yourself, and why not call it love?

>muh manhood
Fucking slugwizards I swear

I believe in a love that is not selfish.

>slugwizard
u wot

Men should be men because otherwise they're out of touch with their own essence. It's a surefire path to unhappiness. Past societies forced boys into the path to becoming men, now you can be whatever you want.

Not the guy you're talking to but all love is selfish.

It's a romantic idea, I suppose. It's your choice to be drawn to it.

He fought against people who fought him, executed people for treason, enslaved his enemies who tried to kill those he loved, and consummated his marriage with his arranged wife after she hit puberty. As all societies did before recently.

Morally grey at worst.

As long as the sects/movements don't think of him the way you do, theres no problem in revering him at all.

There were two incidents where terrorist groups took over a school. They took down their captives trousers to see if they had started puberty and beheaded them. They did this because it was seen as a wise act by their prophet. It is a religion where conflict is ingrained into its very essence.

Revered figures from history are morally grey, but you dont find people worried that they dont go to the bathroom the same way they did.

cowboy the fuckup and read the holy bible im on pg 212 noob git gud

It doesn't get good for another 500 pages.

Why are you forcing yourself to believe a fairy tale, you dumb shit? Not even trying to sound like a fedora clad cunt but seriously why? If you don't believe that drivel then so be it.

Nationalism is a stupid thing to take pride in as the person was not involved. Manhood is about pride in your own actions and deeds, not those of others.

Anyone that cites nationalism is a retard and should have all of their blood punched from their body.

Why would you want to be a terrorist?

>singling out gay like Paul did, didn't change the perception that it was somehow more than fornication when it isn't
Yes, yes it was. Paul was not talking to Jews, he was talking to pagans, who partook of little slave boys in brothels. You clearly have not clue was homosexuality was in the Roman Empire, it wasn't two gentle men in a loving relationship, that was considered demeaning.

>Not employing females is equivalent to insisting that they're silent and unworthy to ask questions, especially considering his (christ's) treatment of women in the gospels
He said they shouldn't teach (as in be bishops or priests), and that they shouldn't be chit-chatting during church (a problem that is still an issue in Orthodox Churches, considering the service lasts a lot longer and in many parishes you have to be standing for the whole thing, all this is more like original Christian worship).

>he is definitely distorting it
No he isn't. Paul was very close to Peter (who was illiterate, but dictated the basis of the Gospel of Mark) and was instructed personally by him, he knows what he's talking about. Christ said we should all be slaves to each other (but foremost to God). Christ was not trying for a political revolution--that doesn't mean he thought we should keep slaves, but he didn't support keeping any property for oneself.

>canadian
>wants to become a muslim

why am I not surprised at all

>I'm just one of many white Canadians that doesn't have anything to identify to
Cucks not welcome, become a faggy Buddhist or something.

Read Edward Fesers work the last supersition for a full refutation of Atheism being irrational and bunk

>it wasn't two gentle men in a loving relationship, that was considered demeaning.

desu it still is today and that doesn't stop it from happening all the time

I can't see why it would be different in 100-300 CE

How is that the case? Pic related

Allah is merciful to those who fear him. Do not force yourself, simply read, maybe attend a mosque, those who wish to learn of Allah will be embraced with open arms.

>desu it still is today and that doesn't stop it from happening all the time
They have legalized gay marriage today, they sure wouldn't in the Roman Empire. They have made boy slaves for prostitution illegal today, it sure wasn't in the Roman Empire.

Holy fuck*ng crap is this what philosophy is like?! I don't understand it but yet it sounds pretty and I want to hear more.

Anyway, all this is pointless: Paul most certainly does not go "easy" on fornication but give homosexuality a hard time. He's very explicit about condemning fornication in general.

That's his worst work desu, all his other ones are far better.
I also wonder if he knows that he became the go to Catholic author for philosophy on Veeky Forums.

That's Max Stirner, moral nihilist and egoist.

Stirner is not just popular here because of the memes.

>I want to hear more.

Try this short lecture then youtube.com/watch?v=HvsoVgc5rGs

>That's his worst work desu, all his other ones are far better.

Different horses for different courses his other works whilst more scholarly would be terrible introductions to the area and this issue.

>it's a first world is very cold hearted so I join abarahamic religions edition

That does not exist. For love to not be selfish, you would have to love someone unconditionally. You would have to love someone without that person giving you anything of value in return. I don't mean like that person giving you sex, but something of substance that gives you happiness. How can you expect someone to love you back if they have no selfish interest in you? And how could you do the same? A love that is not selfish is worthless. You must have a hierarchy of values in which you place the thing you love above all others for it to become meaningful. Without selfishness, you have no hierarchy in which to set your love above other values.

>inb4 family love
That is also selfish.

>I love every one
If you love everyone, then you love no one.

Fucking Stirner.

Its surprisingly popular here

So was Paul against fucking underage prostitutes or against gayness in general?

You seem to be equivocating the two.

I don't know why I talk to the zealot christian trip fag on Veeky Forums. I thought you mostly shit up Veeky Forums now anyway.

>If you love everyone, then you love no one.
How so?

You can't force yourself to believe for the sake of identity, that is a slight to both yourself and the religion. A religion should only, and only truly, be believed when you without hesitation and doubt believe fully in the faith, whatever it is. Anything else is a mere lie to yourself for the sake of something to believe in, a half-assed posturing for aesthetics rather than a true belief.

>If you love everyone, then you love no one.
Not really loving people doesn't logically require an excluded group of people.

>I don't know why I talk to the zealot christian trip fag on Veeky Forums

Because constantine although intellectually dishonest in his dealings here is nevertheless very very well read and can make engaging posts as a result.

Just be glad hes only going on about biblical interpretation and not the evils of anime and how all people should spend thier time anxiously praying for forgiveness in the presences of special pictures/

>I thought you mostly shit up Veeky Forums now anyway
As posting on Veeky Forums is his form of acceptable evangelising he posts on all manner of boards.

Of course it is
That's the price for trying to externimante traditonalism

Have you tried loving everyone equally? It's like dropping a drop of color in an ocean. You can only love people in separate standards within a hierarchy.

Then it's simply disingenuous and deludes the sentiment of love. To love is to value. You cannot value people you do not know or care about. Saying you love people simply because they exist, again, devalues the worth of loving someone.

>You cannot value people you do not know

Source?

>Then it's simply disingenuous and deludes the sentiment of love. To love is to value.

Well then simply not loving ideas or objects would fulfill you criteria. Even then the mere possibility of not being able to love a person also keeps it consistent.

>Saying you love people simply because they exist, again, devalues the worth of loving someone.

Nice, you base your view of loving all means loving none on the mere fact you feel that loving all "devalues" love as if scarcity is a requirement of its existence.

Do you value me?
The only merit of value is what I can provide to you, be it in something funny or entertaining, teaching you something you didn't know, or random enjoyment.

If a person cannot provide this, then what value are they to you? If a person text with the the message ''hi'', what value does that person have to you?
Would you love a person who sent you that message?

Avataring is against the rules.

>Well then simply not loving ideas or objects would fulfill you criteria. Even then the mere possibility of not being able to love a person also keeps it consistent.
You cannot value negatives. You can only criticize the lack of values.

>you base your view of loving all means loving none on the mere fact you feel that loving all "devalues" love as if scarcity is a requirement of its existence.
It's not about its scarcity, but its proximity, connection and value to you. Would you love the love of your life the same way you would for the billion of people in China?

I value humanity as literally part of my family (not that there needs to be an objective or rational reason to value something).

>According to the genetic bottleneck theory, between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, human populations sharply decreased to 3,000–10,000 surviving individuals.[36][37] It is supported by genetic evidence suggesting that today's humans are descended from a very small population of between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs that existed about 70,000 years ago.

>wanting to follow the religion of a illiterate and murderous pedophile

Humanity is not your family, no matter if you delude yourself into thinking that. You do not care about every single person as it is impossible to do so.

>Humanity is not your family, no matter if you delude yourself into thinking that.

You are literally my distant cousin.

These.

Come on, OP. Islam is clearly one of humanity's most tragic accidents. Read 'Waking Up' by Am Harris, I think it may steer you in the right direction.

read this

And how does that affect your life? Or mine?
It does not, therefore it is irrelevant.

It does affect my life, it may not effect yours.

Read Sun and Steel

You have not explained how me being a distant cousin affects your life. How does my life, someone you don't know or will ever meet, affect yours?

I guess, but Aquinas is also pretty solid introductory material.

Paul was against all fornication and whoremondering, period, he makes that abundantly clear.

>Being religious in 2016

>So was Paul against fucking underage prostitutes or against gayness in general?
Sodomy in general. Gayness is a concept completely irrelevant to the Christian faith.
It's contrary to the natural law so it doesn't even have to be biblical to be unchristian.
>You seem to be equivocating the two.
For Paul they were similar enough.
>I don't know why I talk to the zealot christian trip fag on Veeky Forums.
You are a progressive who can't understand how the pussy image Christ is portrayed like in the media is not what he actually is and that Paul only expanded on what was already there?
Or just a general interest in the subject?

>being a dumb grinchposter in 2016

Give me sufficient proof, empirical or logical, for the validity of your doctrine, and I'll join your denomination tomorrow.

Islam is a dying religion OP. Many young Muslims who are the first generation to have free access to learning resources outside of the mosque are realizing what an aberration Islam is compared to all other modern religions. Just become an Episocopalian, it's the most rational form of Christianity today.

The man that takes up religion for the world will throw away religion for the world.

now that's some gay shit right there and i bet you even felt smart about that

>It's the current year, I mean come on!
How about you go back to prepping your bull, user?

>proof
Neither apply to the transcendental.

>Nigel Farage
>Alt-Right lingo
>Defending religion
Holy fuck, consider suicide.

funny meme, what happened to all the ways the natural world was affected by deity according to doctrine, got any proof for that?

upvoted

Got any other catchphrases from tumblr?
>kill urself for having the wrong opinion!
>Current year!
Let's see, are you going to call me Xphobic next? Shitlord or pissbaby maybe?

...

good job saving that image buddy

There's a meme in society of some kind of entrepreneurial post-capitalist industrial-scientific "productivity" thing, and they are expressing the meme because they are demi-conscious memebuoys floating on a slurry sea of currents you can only see if you zoom out
It's exhausting even trying to give an answer to this question. You need to like phenomenologically bracket every single word and write a book explaining that they aren't even people. They aren't even conscious. They aren't even having "opinions". STEM people are like robots with human skin stretched over them. To say "they are dismissive of the humanities" is implicitly to admit I think there's a "they". STEM people don't even fucking exist. They are a statistical gaseous nebula of random particles wafting across continents and periodically expressing junk they picked up along the way. Why would you even talk to them?
Talking to a STEMfag is literally like being some kind of Buddha, ascending reality, then coming back down and talking to bees who were dudes in past lives. I'm sure these bee niggas can be saved or whatever, but let's just wait until they're back in human form. Don't walk around going "BEES, STOP BUZZING, PUT DOWN THAT POLLEN, LISTEN TO ME ABOUT HOW EVERY CONCEPTUAL CATEGORY YOU HAVE FOR EVEN THINKING OF THINGS WAS SHAPED FOR YOU BY AN UNCONSCIOUS SLUDGE OF MEMETIC POLYALLOY THAT FLOWS IN PREDICTABLE CURRENTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR THROUGH THE HIVE IN WHICH YOU WERE CONCEIVED"

Unlike atheists I don't feel any sort of need of being superior or smug. I simply think that is the truth.

No you absolute faggot, I'm as anti-SJW as you are.