LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteYou really should read the Bible, you wouldn't be so very wrong.Originally Posted by fishjoel
Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
Secretary of State
Recently I started to read some of the Quran, mostly out of challenge on a debate I got wrapped up in related to all religion being about human conflict and social order, and I have to admit that I did not make all the way through the book just yet before determining the Quran is mostly about warnings, hatred of the opposition, division between believers and non, and a sort of social order that is the most oppressive I've ever read to date (of religious text.)
In a way, and it probably is mostly based on translation and intention of religion in general, but the Quran does have quite a few passages of outright hate for "non-believers." It is a step above similar passages in other religious text even though the intention of all those types of passages generally is designed to keep people in line with the teachings offered above those offered by other religions. It just happens to be that the Quran is a bit extreme in examples of hate and a sort of old testament view on oppression of some (like women.) There are definite examples of calls for violence and aggression against what the Quran would call non-believers and in a way that has come off as a sort of arrogant call to combat others, perhaps better said as a general attitude of supremacist ideological position of authority in their view of God over others. You could argue that the Quran calls for violence in a sort of humiliating way which is justified by the intentions of separation between those that believe and those that do not.
I will add in reading the Quran, well again getting as far as I did, it really did change my position on equating Islamic belief to other religious believe when speaking about religion in general being about social order, division of humanity, responsibility for most wars, etc. What did not change is my beliefs about religion in general with respect to the intention being conflict between believers and non-believers (or competition among religions.) What also did not change in my beliefs about religion is the calls for violence. What has changed for me personally (and recently) is that I now believe Islamic faith to be a serious step above the other religions out there in calls for hatred, division of humanity, social order and control, and ultimately calls for real oppression and aggression against "non-believers." While I generally do not agree with Bill Maher, in this case he has a point although I would not have said it quite the way he did.
Last edited by Sluggo; 03-15-2011 at 04:18 AM. Reason: clarification
- Frustrated Independent
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people.” - Penn Jillette amazingly enough, and I agree.
Secretary of Defense
You really should read the Bible, you wouldn't be so very wrong.
fiscal conservative, Constitutional Neo-liberal democrat
"I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat," Noted humorist Will Rogers
http://politicalcorner.org/index.php
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm
Moderator
Hitler agreed. He was miffed because the German people were saddled with a namby-pamby religion like Christianity instead of a more overtly militant one like Islam which was more consonant with his perverse political philosophy.
Undeniably, there is violence in the OT. But in contrast to the Koran, it has an historical context that makes it difficult to apply to today's world. In other words, slaying the Hittites becomes problematic once one realizes that there are none to be found.
But slaying the infidel is an open-ended call to violence against the unbeliever.
The Bible and the Koran are two distinctly different religious texts.
Really?
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 1 Kings 21:10Those are just a few I quickly found that certainly support death due to actions...And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16
Secretary of Defense
As has already been pointed out, none of the "3 desert dogmas" (as Pat Condell puts it) have a good record when it comes to hate-filled passages.
When taken literally, there are several parts of the Quran and Bible that support violence and hate.
This is why interpretation is key. Fundamentalists of any persuasion tend to be assholes.
Moderator
Reconcile those OT passages with the NT and get back with us.
Vice President
I will ask you, like I ask the other pretenders of knowledge, show me otherwise. I've already had one person attempt but he kept quoting Judaic scripts. Prove me wrong though.
"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." - John Maynard Keynes (admits his philosophy is not viable)
Vice President
Again, Judaic texts are being quoted, not Christian texts. Please quote from Christian texts. I'm sure you're smart enough to know the difference between a Jew and a Christian, aren't you?
"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." - John Maynard Keynes (admits his philosophy is not viable)
Moderator
I presume that would include Dawkins.
That the three Abrahamic religions are essentially the same is dogma. The proof that they are different---is in the pudding.
Last edited by Darth Hussein Omar; 03-15-2011 at 06:06 AM.
Secretary of Defense
The New Testament surely paints a more tolerant picture in the beginning all the way up to Revelations.
However, Revelations is where things start getting strange and "fire and brimstone"-esque. In many respects, Revelations reads more like an Old Testament book.
Secretary of Defense
Dawkins can be aggressive, but I wouldn't put him on the same level as those who preach that all homosexuals should burn in hell.I presume that would include Dawkins.
That the three Abrahamic religions are essentially the same is dogma. The proof the are different---is in the pudding.
While I shun fundamentalist atheism, I think it's fair to point out the violent origins and tendencies of the Abrahamic religions.
It's much easier to justify horrific things when you believe god is on your side.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all different, but they still share many commonalities.
Vice President
I don't think it does. I don't really see much for commandments and such in there so much as a weird glimpse of things that are happening in the future. Much more like a foretelling.
"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." - John Maynard Keynes (admits his philosophy is not viable)
Secretary of Defense
I've always felt like it was bordering on apocryphal. It seems rather out of place when compared to preceding books.
Vice President
I beg to differ. Christianity is distinctly different than the other two religions that you mentioned. I'd actually compare it more to Buddhism if I wanted to pick out a religion that was closest to it in flavor.
"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." - John Maynard Keynes (admits his philosophy is not viable)
Vice President
Context matters. Pretty much anything related to the conquest and defense of Canaan can be disregarded because it was a product of the times. You can be sure that the peoples the Israelis were fighting were far worse.
Of course, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Other things, like Mosaic law, related to the sacrifices, cleanliness, ect. were stringent ordinances intended to remind them of the coming sacrifice of their Messiah. And where fulfilled in him, and are done away.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks