ISIS militants attack and take over Iraqi northern city of Mosul

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^ I obviously endorse your ideology of taking the "good" parts of scripture (from any religion) and discarding the awful bits... Would this perspective not have several hundred million adherents to your religion calling for you to be executed in some fashion or other, though?

It seems to me that there is some intractability built in to Islam that isn't built into the other Abrahamic religions that makes it tougher to convince people to get over this "a la carte" religion hump. First, that rather than claiming to be inspired by divine revelation, the Qur'an is said to be the literal word of God. Second, that Islam recognizes the prior revelations but claims to be the final word. Third, that rather than a set of principles, it purports to provide a complete code to govern the entirety of one's existence. Am I confused about any of this? Please correct me if so.

It seems to me that there needs to be a reformation, coming from within the religion itself (which obviously the "religion" is not a monolith and this is a problem in itself), that rejects the above notions as adamantine.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

^ I obviously endorse your ideology of taking the "good" parts of scripture (from any religion) and discarding the awful bits... Would this perspective not have several hundred million adherents to your religion calling for you to be executed in some fashion or other, though?

It seems to me that there is some intractability built in to Islam that isn't built into the other Abrahamic religions that makes it tougher to convince people to get over this "a la carte" religion hump. First, that rather than claiming to be inspired by divine revelation, the Qur'an is said to be the literal word of God. Second, that Islam recognizes the prior revelations but claims to be the final word. Third, that rather than a set of principles, it purports to provide a complete code to govern the entirety of one's existence. Am I confused about any of this? Please correct me if so.

It seems to me that there needs to be a reformation, coming from within the religion itself (which obviously the "religion" is not a monolith and this is a problem in itself), that rejects the above notions as adamantine.

1. The Christian Bible is "the word of God" and virtually every form of Christianity espouses this
2. The new testament in the Christian Bible is also "the final word", hence Revelations at the end
3. The ten commandments ate the Bibles code to every facet of existence. The only clear difference is the degree to which they're explained.


Again, as with all religious texts, they're filled with contradictions and the practioners decide which is the "real" meaning. It is unlawful to kill a man, but fine if you pull a certain scripture and espouse it trump the other scripture. This leaves things incredibly open to interpretation. The Qu'ran is filled with instructions to love your fellow man, and contradictions to kill them. The "truth" is not in who reads them, but in who instructs on them.

Small example. In Leviticus it is just as immoral to engage in homosexuality as to wear clothing of two different fabrics. Why do you suppose one is upheld and the other ignored?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

1. The Christian Bible is "the word of God" and virtually every form of Christianity espouses this
2. The new testament in the Christian Bible is also "the final word", hence Revelations at the end
3. The ten commandments ate the Bibles code to every facet of existence. The only clear difference is the degree to which they're explained.


Again, as with all religious texts, they're filled with contradictions and the practioners decide which is the "real" meaning. It is unlawful to kill a man, but fine if you pull a certain scripture and espouse it trump the other scripture. This leaves things incredibly open to interpretation. The Qu'ran is filled with instructions to love your fellow man, and contradictions to kill them. The "truth" is not in who reads them, but in who instructs on them.

Small example. In Leviticus it is just as immoral to engage in homosexuality as to wear clothing of two different fabrics. Why do you suppose one is upheld and the other ignored?

Like those who bomb abortion clinics, or jihadists?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Like those who bomb abortion clinics, or jihadists?

Yes

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

^ I obviously endorse your ideology of taking the "good" parts of scripture (from any religion) and discarding the awful bits... Would this perspective not have several hundred million adherents to your religion calling for you to be executed in some fashion or other, though?

It seems to me that there is some intractability built in to Islam that isn't built into the other Abrahamic religions that makes it tougher to convince people to get over this "a la carte" religion hump. First, that rather than claiming to be inspired by divine revelation, the Qur'an is said to be the literal word of God. Second, that Islam recognizes the prior revelations but claims to be the final word. Third, that rather than a set of principles, it purports to provide a complete code to govern the entirety of one's existence. Am I confused about any of this? Please correct me if so.

It seems to me that there needs to be a reformation, coming from within the religion itself (which obviously the "religion" is not a monolith and this is a problem in itself), that rejects the above notions as adamantine.

Maybe there's a sense of "otherness" with Islam that people don't get. But the short answer is no.

There are a lot of half assed Muslims, surprising to some, more so in the Middle East than in the West.

[Cheese]

I dunno but...if I was to follow an "ideology" I would want to be all in on it, not half assed, so to speak.
Seems like such a shallow way of saying, I am an <insert religion of choice here>.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Cheese

I dunno but...if I was to follow an "ideology" I would want to be all in on it, not half assed, so to speak.
Seems like such a shallow way of saying, I am an <insert religion of choice here>.

Or he's just using his religion to best suite himself, which...what's the harm?

[cracher]

Originally Posted by Cheese

I dunno but...if I was to follow an "ideology" I would want to be all in on it, not half assed, so to speak.
Seems like such a shallow way of saying, I am an <insert religion of choice here>.

The one area where Christianity shines is branding. There are 40,000+ distinct variants for you to go all in on.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by cracher

The one area where Christianity shines is branding. There are 40,000+ distinct variants for you to go all in on.

Yep, every time a Christian group embarrasses Christianity it just turns into millions of Christians going "Oh that's THOSE guys, everyone knows they're crazy".

But when it's Muslims every goes "Where are you guys, why isn't every single one of you idiots standing up and distancing yourself from the crazy guys? You all must agree with and support terrorism!!!! blarghh!!!!!".

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

1. The Christian Bible is "the word of God" and virtually every form of Christianity espouses this

This is obviously wrong. Absolutely no sect of Christianity thinks the New Testament is the literal word of God. Christianity's basic tenet is that God came to Man through his son. Consequently, the Gospels may relate some of the teachings of Jesus, but they are written by men, and as a result the occasional contradictions among the gospels are somewhat explicable.

My understanding of Mormonism is that it differs here in that the Book of Mormon is supposedly the translation of tomes on which the word of God was written.

2. The new testament in the Christian Bible is also "the final word", hence Revelations at the end

The Qur'an is the final revelation and I do not believe that there is any doctrine in the Christian and Jewish faith that suggests that there is nothing more to come.

3. The ten commandments ate the Bibles code to every facet of existence. The only clear difference is the degree to which they're explained.

Comparing ten general rules to a code of law like Sharia is laughable and I think you know this.

Small example. In Leviticus it is just as immoral to engage in homosexuality as to wear clothing of two different fabrics. Why do you suppose one is upheld and the other ignored?

There's quite a bit of debate as to what the Leviticus passage on Homosexuality even means, but let's say you're right. And accepting that the Old Testament is literally the worst religious text of any major religion ever, why is it that Jews and Christians don't follow these rules? Why can they touch the skin of a dead pig and eat shellfish? Because either intentionally or by happenstance, their religious texts contain enough tools to allow their adherents to, with some sense of consistency and intellectual honesty, discard the archaic teachings of that book. The holy texts of Islam seem to provide fewer tools of this sort (again I'm not a religious scholar so this is just my layperson's sense upon reading it) - for example, if the Qur'an is the literal word of God, and it says that Allah has cursed the Jews, and you should slay apostates wherever you find them, it becomes pretty tough for the scholar of Islam to say "no, we shouldn't follow those prescriptions".

It's tempting to say that all religions are equally bad or good, but they do have meaningful differences. To the extent that the Christian bible provides rules that have bad implications for society, those concepts should be challenged. Same with Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, whatever. It's the specific ideas and doctrines that matter.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is obviously wrong. Absolutely no sect of Christianity thinks the New Testament is the literal word of God. Christianity's basic tenet is that God came to Man through his son. Consequently, the Gospels may relate some of the teachings of Jesus, but they are written by men, and as a result the occasional contradictions among the gospels are somewhat explicable.

You're wrong on two fronts. In the New Testament, it explains that the words written are God's breath:
"and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in …"

Secondly, most Christians (including the Catholic Church) believe Jesus is God, as part of the Holy Trinity, so who the conduit is, is kind of irrelevant here.

This is also wrong. Jews and Christians await the Messiah - there is something more to come from God. Not so with Islam.

How is this relevant? The messiah returning ushers in the end of days. Both books are the last words written until the end.

Comparing ten general rules to a code of law like Sharia is laughable and I think you know this.

Are there really big differences between Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc and Sharia Law?

No

There's quite a bit of debate as to what the Leviticus passage on Homosexuality even means, but let's say you're right. And accepting that the Old Testament is literally the worst religious text of any major religion ever, why is it that Jews and Christians don't follow these rules? Why can they touch the skin of a dead pig and eat shellfish? Because either intentionally or by happenstance, their religious texts contain enough tools to allow their adherents to, with some sense of consistency and intellectual honesty, discard the archaic teachings of that book. The holy texts of Islam seem to provide fewer tools of this sort - for example, if the Qur'an is the literal word of God, and it says that Allah has cursed the Jews, and you should slay apostates wherever you find them, it becomes pretty tough for the scholar of Islam to say "no, we shouldn't follow those prescriptions".

These "tools" that allow Christians to eat pork are simply invented interpretation precisely as I described. In Jeremiah there's a random reference to a "New Covenant" between God and his followers that is written in their minds not in stone. That is then interpreted to mean go eat pork? There are as many of your "tools" in the Qur'an as there are in the Bible. The difference in interpretation is anthropological, not literary.

Literally the only difference is there hasn't been a "Pope" in Islam who decided some random text ignores the rest. Yet.

It's tempting to say that all religions are equally bad or good, but they do have meaningful differences. To the extent that the Christian bible provides rules that have bad implications for society, those concepts should be challenged. Same with Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, whatever. It's the specific ideas and doctrines that matter.

And these texts are all so large and contradictory that the doctrines and ideologies can no longer be more insidious in one or the other. I'm not supposing that all religions are equally good or bad, just that the complexity of interpreting texts as similar, large and contradictory as the two we're discussing rejects any notion that one or the other is clearly saying anything at all. Again, it's the many external factors that are influencing current "Islam" (in a global view) to be clearly more violent than Christianity. Current Christianity (again on a global perspective) is conversely less violent because of external forces shaping interpretation of the texts.

[T@T]

It would be so nice if you could all agree that religion is stupid,dangerous and a complete waste of time.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by T@T

It would be so nice if you could all agree that religion is stupid,dangerous and a complete waste of time.

Quite the ignorant thing to say about people's spiritual beliefs methinks.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by T@T

It would be so nice if you could all agree that religion is stupid,dangerous and a complete waste of time.

It isn't stupid, as people far smarter than you appreciate it. It isn't a waste of time to those who feel they benefit. It's arguable about whether or not it's inherently dangerous

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by T@T

It would be so nice if you could all agree that religion is stupid,dangerous and a complete waste of time.

It's funny, because I've heard Muslims in the Middle East say things like "The reason why gun crime is so rampant in America is because they don't believe in God and therefore have nobody to answer to in the afterlife. Human laws don't scare someone who's so hellbent on making a violent statement."

Not saying the statement is correct, but neither is yours. If someone wants to be a violent lunatic, they'll be a violent lunatic and then make excuses for their behaviour.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by _Q_

It's funny, because I've heard Muslims in the Middle East say things like "The reason why gun crime is so rampant in America is because they don't believe in God and therefore have nobody to answer to in the afterlife. Human laws don't scare someone who's so hellbent on making a violent statement."

Not saying the statement is correct, but neither is yours. If someone wants to be a violent lunatic, they'll be a violent lunatic and then make excuses for their behaviour.

Weird, I've never heard any Muslims ever say that.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is obviously wrong. Absolutely no sect of Christianity thinks the New Testament is the literal word of God.

If this is the case, why do 28% of Americans believe "The Bible is the actual Word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/th...up%20Headlines

This jumps to a total of 50% of Americans who believe the Bible is the "Actual" as opposed to "Inspired" word of God if you allow a choice between "... and is to be taken literally" and "...but multiple interpretations are possible." (22% and 28%, respectively).

[T@T]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Quite the ignorant thing to say about people's spiritual beliefs methinks.

It would be ignorant if I knocked on doors to preach atheism.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It isn't stupid, as people far smarter than you appreciate it.

Personally I find that hard to believe

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It isn't a waste of time to those who feel they benefit.

Just imagine the world if people channeled their money and energy's into science,peace and hunger instead of rich churches, imaginary friends and fairytales.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It's arguable about whether or not it's inherently dangerous

NO...it isn't!

[T@T]

Originally Posted by _Q_

It's funny, because I've heard Muslims in the Middle East say things like "The reason why gun crime is so rampant in America is because they don't believe in God and therefore have nobody to answer to in the afterlife. Human laws don't scare someone who's so hellbent on making a violent statement."

Not saying the statement is correct, but neither is yours. If someone wants to be a violent lunatic, they'll be a violent lunatic and then make excuses for their behaviour.

Are they talking about the same afterlife with 72 virgins waiting for them after they blowup themselves in a market full of kids? or is that a different afterlife reserved for "crazy" side of islam?

God + afterlife =

Next time your talking to your muslim buddies tell them the real reason for the rampant gun crimes in the USA is because there are over 300 million guns in that stupid country.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by driveway

If this is the case, why do 28% of Americans believe "The Bible is the actual Word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/th...up%20Headlines

This is a fair point and one that has been made in other contexts. First, it's more important what people believe the religious text says than what it actually says. Second, it makes you wonder about the reliability of polling data and whether people really believe their answers. Do people really believe that there was a voice from the clouds that someone was just transcribing and voila, new testament? Or do they respond that because they self-identify as Christian and think that's what you're supposed to answer if you're a good Christian? Same exact reasoning goes for the polling data suggesting vast numbers of Muslims in many countries are in favour of killing adulterers and apostates, or implementing Sharia as state law.

Not saying the statement is correct, but neither is yours. If someone wants to be a violent lunatic, they'll be a violent lunatic and then make excuses for their behaviour.

Do you honestly believe that people's adamantly expressed religious basis for attacks is just an excuse for a desire to behave like a maniac? When a suicide bomber leaves a message saying that he is doing what he's doing for the glory of martyrdom and the promise of paradise that will be his thanks to his dedication to jihad, do you really think he's lying?