Thread: The Koran is a Hate Filled Holy Book

Admin Note:

The OP did not lay out what exactly the point of the discussion was. It could be about Bill Maher's views, it could be about the Koran, it could be about Keith Ellison's response, it could be about whether one holy book is more hate filled than another, it could easily be all of the above. Because there wasn't much guideline to begin with, the discussion is obviously going to naturally form itself based off of what people are most interested in discussing.

If one wants a more specific discussion, be sure to explain that in the OP. If someone wants to discuss one specific point, feel free to start a thread on that one specific point. What we do not recommend is people coming in and telling other members what they can or cannot discuss based on their own personal idea of what the thread is about. If you think people are being off topic in a post, members are supposed to report that post to the mod staff and let us address it.

Any further posts telling others to discuss something specifically (outside of posts from the staff) will be treated as off-topic/baiting. Because, ironically, those are the most off topic posts of this entire thread.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

Nonsense, there's a whole lot of killing people for their beliefs and behaviors in the bible, here's just a few:

A child who hits or curses his parents must be executed. Exodus21:15,17

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Exodus21:24-25

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus22:18

"Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death." Exodus 22:19

He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." Exodus 22:20

Kill anyone who "gives his seed" to Molech. If you refuse, God will cut you and your family off. Leviticus 20:2-5

If a man or woman "lie with a beast" both the person and the poor animal are to be killed. Levitivus 20:15-16

People with "familiar spirits" are to be stoned. Leviticus 20:27

There's a whole lot more than that brief selection. Some things are worth killing for and some aren't.

So you're like the 4th or 5th person to quote Judaic texts. You could have saved yourself the trouble and actually read the thread as you just repeated the same mistake as everyone else.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

The truth is you cannot quote the N.T. and prove that text is just like the O.T. or the Koran. So this drives folks to the O.T. which is the Holy Book of the Jews, but read by Christians, but not observed by Christians. It is more of a history of the Jews than anything else.

Now back to the original subject. That the Koran is a book that is filled with hate. Indeed it is. Just spend some time reading it to find out for yourself. It is blatant and very obvious where the radicals draw their ideas from.

Now you can deny it as the good Congressman did, but all you have to do is to simply read it to find out. And if you have just a smidge of reading comprehension, it will be very obvious to you just how the radicals can act and believe as they do. Islam is indeed the most dangerous religion on this earth today, and replaced Christianity as being the most dangerous.

I find it funny that most of this thread is off topic, and we had the usuals bring up other religious books, instead of addressing the topic. And what is funny about this is that they had to compare the O.T. to the Koran, instead of the N.T. Of course if one is aware of the N.T., he is also aware of the lack of hatred in the N.T. And I agree with one poster who said the teachings of Christ is closer to Buddhism than Judaism or Islam. What religion NEVER started a war? Buddhism. And I would submit that if the teachings of Christ had been followed to the letter, Christianity would have never started a war either. And as I have contended here, Christianity was hijacked sometime after the death of Christ, and what we have today arose from that hijacking.

That was well put.

One can make Christianity violent only by basically ignoring its most fundamental tenets [as say, depicted in the four Gospels or Corinthians, as opposed some later interpreters that happened along centuries later]. Or forsaking the NT altogether and cherry-picking Deuteronomy.

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is the question of whether 'fundamentalist' Islam represents a 'hijacking'.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Can I try?



Either way, yea, the New Testament was written by a bunch of hippies in comparison to the Old and it certainly isn't comparable to the Koran, which is pretty nasty at times. But in the end, when it comes to the Koran (or the Bible) it's not necessarily what's in the texts, but how people decide to interpret them and use them in their day to day lives. WWII was a pretty terrible event with lots of death and hatred, but it's a valuable thing to learn about to understand how the world works and how the human condition can be downright evil sometimes. Certainly we all know some Muslims who are great people and wouldn't hurt a fly. It's not that they don't know or understand the Koran, it's that they use the positive messages of the Koran to better their lives and the lives of those around them, while recognizing the darker sides of the Koran for what they are.

I'm not a religious person, so I'm not really a fan of any of them personally.

Ah, Speak...I can count on you to give it the 'ol college try. At least you're in the proper text. Now, what about the things you quoted says anything about Christians hating anyone or Christians told to go kill people, judge people, ect? I'm not seeing it.

What I do is is text where God gives the wicked over to their wickedness and His indignation over the acts of man. There is a moral code that is set up and God judges man by it. It's not like this is even a foreign idea in the secular as we have laws and punitive action is taken against those who break it. And we're talking about men doing this, not God. So even that comparison is a little weak.

I will await another person to give it as honest a try as you did.

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

Here's some new testament violence for you:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

LOL. Sounds a lot like Jihad to me.

Yay! Another person that's actually in the proper text. Now, if you would actually read it you'd understand that the violence you are reading about is about the violence that will be perpetrated against Christians by their own family. The cause of which will be because of their beliefs. So, again, though you are in the proper ballpark now you fall short of proving your point.

Photos from Jonestown mass suicide:



Waco:

I fail to see where those actions are demonstrative of Christianity. Please show me where it says for Christians to do such things in the NT.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

I find it funny that most of this thread is off topic, and we had the usuals bring up other religious books, instead of addressing the topic. And what is funny about this is that they had to compare the O.T. to the Koran, instead of the N.T. Of course if one is aware of the N.T., he is also aware of the lack of hatred in the N.T. And I agree with one poster who said the teachings of Christ is closer to Buddhism than Judaism or Islam. What religion NEVER started a war? Buddhism. And I would submit that if the teachings of Christ had been followed to the letter, Christianity would have never started a war either. And as I have contended here, Christianity was hijacked sometime after the death of Christ, and what we have today arose from that hijacking.

Actually, Christianity did start out non-violent. It was non-violent for about 300 years and had spread to a large number of people w/o the use of violence. A pity Constantine make it a state institutionalized religion.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

No it doesn't and I challenge you to provide proof.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Christianity doesn't say anything about hate or killing people for their beliefs and or actions. It does say to love your enemies and love those that hate you. Jesus eschewed the religious leaders of the day and spent his time with the "sinners".

At the risk of going off topic here but also looking to your challenge limited to only the New Testament, or Christian Scriptures, then I am left to only use text, which is of course subject to interpretation, that may have hate (perhaps calls for violence or at least division of humanity of believers and non-believers) implications. In my view that is then subject to the interpretation of division of society leading to eventual war. So I guess, here is my response.

Mathew 27:24-25

It was later interpreted that all Jews past, present, and future are equally responsible for the death of Jesus. Now granted that was an extreme interpretation of "When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!” All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”" It was Matthew's recording of a statement by a crowd of Jews that continued damn for those in witness to Jesus' death would be passed down. Some interpreted that as the one text that was most responsible for anti-semitic view and a real catalyst for being anti-Judaism. Until recent times, and regardless of your interpretation, this was taught in Christianity. To those taught under conservative Christianity, it is still mentioned with respect to whom (in this interpretation, all Jews) are responsible for Jesus' death. What does that really mean? To me it means division of humanity based on religion and a possible (again based on interpretation and message) of hate for another religious group. It also means that according to some (perhaps labeled extremism) anyone following Judaism is responsible for Jesus' death. A potential fuel for hatred.

John 8:44

Here, similar to the above, we speak of whom has rejected the teachings of Jesus and thus a hint of calling them all sons of Satan. "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John is speaking here to the Jewish faith and in interpretation calling them the sons of evil. Not sure how you would interpret this but that does not mean others may not equate this the way you do. In my own view calling an entire other religion the following of Satan can be interpreted as damning, or hate, text.

Revelation 2:8-10

Similar to John 8:44, this is a script for equating Jews to followers of Satan. "These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again. I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown." This is one of many damning texts in Revelations about the nature of handling and the effect of non-believers. Here specifically and again we have possible interpretations of hatred for Jews.

Now in all of this what I do not see of course is calls for violence and real action against "non-believers" but again all of this is subject to interpretation and regardless of your interpretation personally others may look at this as a catalyst to hate enough to then provoke action. Which leads to me to statements like I have always made that in the right hands, any religion, can be used as a weapon. All it takes is a sort of belief and interpretation of text to promote going to the next level of action against the opposition. Now, the Quran may be more forward about calls for action. The Hebrew Scriptures, or Old Testament, may be also filled with interpretable calls for action. But it is void of logic to conclude that Christianity is absent of calls for division or humanity and social order. All of those things (historically speaking, based on interpretation, and right or wrong) have been used as reason for hate and war. Potential hate text is there in Christianity, and it is not hard to find.

Originally Posted by darth omar

......

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is the question of whether 'fundamentalist' Islam represents a 'hijacking'.

Muslim extremists and terrorists are to Islam what the KKK is to Christianity.

If anyone here posted about Christianity being a raciest organization because the K KK perverted the teachings of Christianity to justify racism they would be shouted off the board by the Christian element here.

Why cannot the Christians here actually practice some tolerance, just alike they should have been taught in Sunday School, and realize that of the well over a billion Muslims the vast majority just want to raise their families in peace and practice their religion without interference from others or unfounded criticisms of their religious beliefs.

As to the question of where are all the moderate Muslims in denouncing their extremists, my guess is that they are the same place all the Southern Christians were when the KKK terrorised the blacks in the south. That is the same place where the Christians are now in speaking up against the hatred and intolerance shown to Muslims.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Yay! Another person that's actually in the proper text. Now, if you would actually read it you'd understand that the violence you are reading about is about the violence that will be perpetrated against Christians by their own family. The cause of which will be because of their beliefs. So, again, though you are in the proper ballpark now you fall short of proving your point.



I fail to see where those actions are demonstrative of Christianity. Please show me where it says for Christians to do such things in the NT.

The point I am trying to make is that by making the statement that the Quaran preaches violence should at least include the fact that most religious writings in the holy trinity of religions in some, way shape or form, advocate and/or speak of violent acts which, regardless of their context, can be interpreted by some in a literal sense as a means of justifying their hatred and intolerance of those outside of their religious circle and act on it in a way that causes harm to others.

Thanks for the good post. I'll do what I can to give what I believe to be honest and truthful answers. I've attended a little bit of Bible College so I feel I can speak on this with a smidgen of credibility.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

At the risk of going off topic here but also looking to your challenge limited to only the New Testament, or Christian Scriptures, then I am left to only use text, which is of course subject to interpretation, that may have hate (perhaps calls for violence or at least division of humanity of believers and non-believers) implications. In my view that is then subject to the interpretation of division of society leading to eventual war. So I guess, here is my response.

Mathew 27:24-25

It was later interpreted that all Jews past, present, and future are equally responsible for the death of Jesus. Now granted that was an extreme interpretation of "When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!” All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”" It was Matthew's recording of a statement by a crowd of Jews that continued damn for those in witness to Jesus' death would be passed down. Some interpreted that as the one text that was most responsible for anti-semitic view and a real catalyst for being anti-Judaism. Until recent times, and regardless of your interpretation, this was taught in Christianity. To those taught under conservative Christianity, it is still mentioned with respect to whom (in this interpretation, all Jews) are responsible for Jesus' death. What does that really mean? To me it means division of humanity based on religion and a possible (again based on interpretation and message) of hate for another religious group. It also means that according to some (perhaps labeled extremism) anyone following Judaism is responsible for Jesus' death. A potential fuel for hatred.

First off, this account is written as a historical documentary of Jesus' trial. You make take issue of whether it's valid or not but the style of writing is such, none the less. Would you say a historian is a proponent of hate because he records something that is not favorable to a particular group?

Now I'm going to speak on Christian doctrine so please keep on mind that context for this part. It is a mistake of many Christians to think that the Jews killed Jesus. Jesus came to Earth as a man to purposefully die to take the payment of everyone's sin. This was something eluded to as early as Genesis with the sacrifice of animals to cover up Adam and Eve's nakedness. Adam and Eve were not Jews. The whole of man is indictable in the death of Christ.

John 8:44

Here, similar to the above, we speak of whom has rejected the teachings of Jesus and thus a hint of calling them all sons of Satan. "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John is speaking here to the Jewish faith and in interpretation calling them the sons of evil. Not sure how you would interpret this but that does not mean others may not equate this the way you do. In my own view calling an entire other religion the following of Satan can be interpreted as damning, or hate, text.

Putting that statement into full context (start with John 8:31) you will see that Jesus is speaking to those who are hypocrites and not true followers of the faith. There was a covenant between God and the descendants of Abraham. The problem is (and you'll see this when you read it) the particular people Jesus was talking to thought that being a descendant of Abraham was good enough and they didn't have to do anything else. He was replying to specific words that were spoken by the people he was conversing with. It would be presumptuous to stretch it further than that. There were multiple times where people tried to do "gotcha" moments with Jesus.

Revelation 2:8-10

Similar to John 8:44, this is a script for equating Jews to followers of Satan. "These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again. I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown." This is one of many damning texts in Revelations about the nature of handling and the effect of non-believers. Here specifically and again we have possible interpretations of hatred for Jews.

Again, Jesus is speaking about hypocrites. They exist in all flavors (secular or nonsecular). I'd also like to point out that the context seems to indicate passive resistance in their faith. It is not mentioned that they should struggle or fight back. It is only said that they will be put into prison and or put to death. That doesn't sound violent to me.

Now in all of this what I do not see of course is calls for violence and real action against "non-believers" but again all of this is subject to interpretation and regardless of your interpretation personally others may look at this as a catalyst to hate enough to then provoke action. Which leads to me to statements like I have always made that in the right hands, any religion, can be used as a weapon. All it takes is a sort of belief and interpretation of text to promote going to the next level of action against the opposition. Now, the Quran may be more forward about calls for action. The Hebrew Scriptures, or Old Testament, may be also filled with interpretable calls for action. But it is void of logic to conclude that Christianity is absent of calls for division or humanity and social order. All of those things (historically speaking, based on interpretation, and right or wrong) have been used as reason for hate and war. Potential hate text is there in Christianity, and it is not hard to find.

Of course any religion can be used for hate. Anything can be used for hate. There is division in our country on how we should operate our government. There are those who hate others for being of a certain race. There are those who hate others for being fortunate and being wealthy. We can pick anything under the sun to justify hate. Point being, the best you could do was kinda-sorta infer that some people can interpret something a certain way and use that to justify hate.

Good post though.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Actually, Christianity did start out non-violent. It was non-violent for about 300 years and had spread to a large number of people w/o the use of violence. A pity Constantine make it a state institutionalized religion.

Aren't you in danger of telling the truth about the origins of Catholicism and how they somehow beleived they had the authority to "change days" ? - Among other things.

God forbid you criticise Catholic doctrine and the early perversions of Christs message by Roman Catholics !

Which they continue teaching today, and everyone is scared to point out the truth about it for some reason.

Why are we not afraid to point out what radical muslims do, but are afraid to talk about negative sects and teachings in our own religion ?

Understand the historical time frame in which the book was written.

Oh so people that read the bible are capable of doing that, how about readers of the Koran?

Originally Posted by fishjoel

So you're like the 4th or 5th person to quote Judaic texts. You could have saved yourself the trouble and actually read the thread as you just repeated the same mistake as everyone else.

You mean the bible don't you? Becasue those quotes are most certainly in the Bible. I don't read Hebrew and I'm darned sure King James wasn't written for the Jews. Is there a magic barrier that makes the word of God null and void if it was written down before 0 B.C.? Are you trying to say the Koran and the Bible both have roots in Jewish religious texts and share a lot of the same violence?

The Koran may indeed have lot's of negative messages in it, it's not alone in that. What is curious is how many modern clerics promote those messages and people use them as an excuse for outrageous behavior agaisnt their fellow man.