Islam stands out as far more violent now, does it not?
That's just th b.s the media puts out there or what you choose to believe.All religions are just as violent when you read the scriptures. One constant is that god is one pissed of dude all the time unless you really kiss his ass then you may just be wounded but not dead. All the books are violent and gorey. Religion was a way to govern society's before our modern laws that are seperated from holy texts. Look at how many of our laws today share with the early conmadments. Although government and religion are suppose to be seperated they will always be deeply rooted within one another.
Tho shall not kill(murder/ manslaughter), tho shall not steal( theft or fraud),tho shall not bear false wittness( lying on legal papers and pudgury) etc etc...
How we veiw religion as a whole is an outdated relic train of thought . Technicality the rule of modern law has replaced the role of religion for our sense of morality. Modern law is infact actually the rewitten rules of religion here. It just is re written more frequently.
Believing in a Religion of one almighty being is only a way to justify ourselves of a purpose for our exsistance . It gives individuals a way of being able to answer the parts of life we can not explain . It use to rain because 'It was gods' will" although we know now many enviormental factors are actually the reason it rains when it does. Religion is a way to solve all of the answers we cant or refuse to belive. It is also a lazy way to answer those questions tho. If you can't rationalize a reason then "god did it" for some people its easier to say god did it to have answer or can't except being dealt a bad card in life.
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 12-02-2015 at 12:36 AM.
That's just th b.s the media puts out there or what you choose to believe.All religions are just as violent when you read the scriptures. One constant is that god is one pissed of dude all the time unless you really kiss his ass then you may just be wounded but not dead. All the books are violent and gorey. Religion was a way to govern society's before our modern laws that are seperated from holy texts. Look at how many of our laws today share with the early conmadments. Although government and religion are suppose to be seperated they will always be deeply rooted within one another.
Tho shall not kill(murder/ manslaughter), tho shall not steal( theft or fraud),tho shall not bear false wittness( lying on legal papers and pudgury) etc etc...
How we veiw religion as a whole is an outdated relic train of thought . Technicality the rule of modern law has replaced the role of religion for our sense of morality. Modern law is infact actually the rewitten rules of religion here. It just is re written more frequently.
Believing in a Religion of one almighty being is only a way to justify ourselves of a purpose for our exsistance . It gives individuals a way of being able to answer the parts of life we can not explain . It use to rain because 'It was gods' will" although we know now many enviormental factors are actually the reason it rains when it does. Religion is a way to solve all of the answers we cant or refuse to belive. It is also a lazy way to answer those questions tho. If you can't rationalize a reason then "god did it" for some people its easier to say god did it to have answer or can't except being dealt a bad card in life.
I agree with most of this but most Islamic country's do not separate religion and state, Saudi Arabia has actually beheaded a couple of people for even suggesting it.
I agree with most of this but most Islamic country's do not separate religion and state, Saudi Arabia has actually beheaded a couple of people for even suggesting it.
I also stated that was in a modern society religion and law are suppose to be seperated. I dont beleive Saudi's have moved into a modern way of life. You can build all the the fancy things you want but that dosen't equate yout society to being modern on superficial things If the beleif behind it is not there.
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 12-02-2015 at 05:56 AM.
That's just th b.s the media puts out there or what you choose to believe.All religions are just as violent when you read the scriptures. One constant is that god is one pissed of dude all the time unless you really kiss his ass then you may just be wounded but not dead. All the books are violent and gorey. Religion was a way to govern society's before our modern laws that are seperated from holy texts. Look at how many of our laws today share with the early conmadments. Although government and religion are suppose to be seperated they will always be deeply rooted within one another.
Tho shall not kill(murder/ manslaughter), tho shall not steal( theft or fraud),tho shall not bear false wittness( lying on legal papers and pudgury) etc etc...
How we veiw religion as a whole is an outdated relic train of thought . Technicality the rule of modern law has replaced the role of religion for our sense of morality. Modern law is infact actually the rewitten rules of religion here. It just is re written more frequently.
Believing in a Religion of one almighty being is only a way to justify ourselves of a purpose for our exsistance . It gives individuals a way of being able to answer the parts of life we can not explain . It use to rain because 'It was gods' will" although we know now many enviormental factors are actually the reason it rains when it does. Religion is a way to solve all of the answers we cant or refuse to belive. It is also a lazy way to answer those questions tho. If you can't rationalize a reason then "god did it" for some people its easier to say god did it to have answer or can't except being dealt a bad card in life.
I hope you can see how things like murder are objectively wrong, but things like blasphemy are different. Religion started as a rule of law. Our society does have religious roots, but we've tried to separate the purely religious rules from the truly just ones. It's not perfect, but we're heading more in that direction every day. Merely because religion also views something as bad (ex. murder and theft) that doesn't mean they aren't actually bad.
So to answer your argument, it's not a question of where we were but where we're going. This can be seen in things like legalization of gay marriage. It's taken us far too long to allow gay marriage. I agree we historically have viewed things through a moral lens with religious roots, but we're always moving away from that.
And to go back to your "Ten Commandments" analogy, here are the actual 10 commandments:
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
The first 4 are specifically over-ruled by our rights to Freedom of Religion. You can legally make all the idols you want, say God's name in vain, or work as much as you want on the Sabbath. #5, 7, and 10 are bad things to do, but not punishable, in themselves, in our criminal system.
So that leaves only 3 of the 10 illegal, and all with good reason outside of religion. That's hardly a strict following of religious doctrine.
Saudi Arabia on the other hand full on makes thins like blasphemy illegal and provides extremely severe punishments for doing so.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
The separation of church and state is easier for Christians to buy into IMO because Jesus was not too interested in the politics of the day, even if he was politically threatening. His stance on "give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's" has made it easier for most Christians to justify wearing 2 hats when it comes to accepting secular rule of law and still honouring God.
Mohammed on the other hand was a political and military figure, as well as a prophet. There are numerous historical records of him either writing to, visiting, or sending direct emissaries to political figures of his day, representing both his religion and his nations. The line between secularism and religion is more difficult to identify in Islam because they evolved together from the start.
That is not to say that there aren't Christian fundamentalists that do not want to separate church and state, but they seem less powerful and supported.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 12-02-2015 at 12:10 PM.
Don't be so sure...a poll of GOP voters had 57% supporting Christianity to be a state religion (it's a public policy poll from February...my tablet keeps crashing when I try to paste the link in). Rubio has said he doesn't believe the constitutional separation of church and state....and he's the leading establishment candidate for the GOP.
First, I wonder how much of that are people who want Christianity as the state religion in the same way they think English should be the national language - a symbolic gesture, rather than anything that would have any real-world consequences. Still, obviously, completely insane, but I don't think that amounts to support for the Christian version of a Caliphate.
Second, I suspect Rubio is pandering for primary votes, more than anything else. One hopes, anyway...
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Don't be so sure...a poll of GOP voters had 57% supporting Christianity to be a state religion (it's a public policy poll from February...my tablet keeps crashing when I try to paste the link in). Rubio has said he doesn't believe the constitutional separation of church and state....and he's the leading establishment candidate for the GOP.
That and his ######ed stance on abortion where even a rape victim should keep the child.
Why can't the "US of frikin A" ..... find a new Reagan for the republican party instead of either crazy freaks or religious ######s please.
Christians are under no obligation to follow the ten commandments, Jesus replaced the commandments with the beattitudes. Jesus had a real issue with the old testament, one could live an amoral life while still following the laws of the old testament to the letter, which is how the beattitudes ended up more philosophical in nature:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Christians are under no obligation to follow the ten commandments, Jesus replaced the commandments with the beattitudes. Jesus had a real issue with the old testament, one could live an amoral life while still following the laws of the old testament to the letter, which is how the beattitudes ended up more philosophical in nature:."
To derail this even further.
I don't think your statement is entirely correct.
Jesus also said:
"Do not not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17
And
"If you love me, you will keep my commandments." John 14:15
And since the commandments came from God, and He is God, the commandments are His.
I agree with most of this but most Islamic country's do not separate religion and state, Saudi Arabia has actually beheaded a couple of people for even suggesting it.
Saudi Arabia is a Salafist country, and particularly strict in it's interpretation, and have spent vast sums of money to spread their doctrine world wide. In essence, it's not unfair to say that most problems with Islam can be directly linked to this one country.
In the history of Islam, Salafism is a rather recent development, but honestly a growing problem. Trying to tackle it as a problem with Islam in general will however only muddy the waters.
To quote from Wikipedia:
Quote:
Its largesse funded an estimated "90% of the expenses of the entire faith", throughout the Muslim World, according to journalist Dawood al-Shirian. It extended to young and old, from children's madrasas to high-level scholarship. "Books, scholarships, fellowships, mosques" (for example, "more than 1,500 mosques were built from Saudi public funds over the last 50 years") were paid for. It rewarded journalists and academics, who followed it and built satellite campuses around Egypt for Al Azhar, the oldest and most influential Islamic university. Yahya Birt counts spending on "1,500 mosques, 210 Islamic centres and dozens of Muslim academies and schools" at a cost of around $2–3bn annually since 1975. To put the number into perspective, the propaganda budget of the Soviet Union was about $1bn per annum.
This spending has done much to overwhelm less strict local interpretations of Islam, according to observers like Dawood al-Shirian and Lee Kuan Yew, and has caused the Saudi interpretation (sometimes called "petro-Islam") to be perceived as the correct interpretation – or the "gold standard" of Islam – in many Muslims' minds.
Of course these guys are "our" "allies", despite the majority of Saudis being hostile in attitude towards the US and largely towards the West in general. But hey, during the cold war era they weren't communists, so that's all that matters I guess.
People forget that Canada doesn't have an official separation between Church and State. Neither does much of Europe. The thing is, Christianity is just not that politically virulent.
I found the following debate about the relationship between Islam and violence to be rather enlightening. It was nice to see this issue dealt with in a manner that emphasized thoughtful arguments and equal credit was given to each side:
For those that don't have the time:
Spoiler!
The "Islam is NOT a religion of peace" argument won quite handily (they poll the audience at the beginning and end of the debate). Two arguments that really stood out to me were:
"This is the only debate we've ever had where we needed to use metal detectors."
and
"Islamic leaders would love to deal with the problem of violence in Islam culture, however, they don't because they are afraid of being killed."
All religions lend themselves to brutal violence and cruelty, but non can match the amount of scripture dedicated to it and the fervor in which it is executed as Islam.
It's interesting because that's a pretty old debate (Oct 2010), and Maajid Nawaz has changed his perspective a bit (not altogether overhauled just modified, but he's closer to Ayaan now).
This is worth a watch, it's from just a couple of weeks ago - Maajid talks about this debate and subsequent meetings right out of the gate and Ayaan remembers their disagreement.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
