Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Violence in the Bible and the Quran
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1 of 76 (845839)
12-21-2018 12:28 PM


Is violence attached to one religion more than another?
From my experience, no, not at all.
Perhaps at certain times in history, different religions held a stronger "rule with an iron fist" attitude.
And every religion, it seems, has it's hand in at least some violence in the past.
Here are two links, with their summary quoted for reference:
The Bible and Violence
quote:
The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament contain many passages outlining approaches to, and descriptions of, violent activities, centering on the ancient nation of Israel and their involvement with Gentile nations. They also provide civil guidelines on the subject of violent activity as it pertains to individuals within the nation, distinguishing individualistic from nationalistic actions.
These texts contain narratives, poetry, and instruction describing, commanding, or condemning violent actions by God, individuals, groups, and governments. These actions include war, human and animal sacrifice, murder, rape, stoning, sexism, slavery, criminal punishment, and violent language.[1]:Introduction The texts have a history of interpretation within the Abrahamic religions and Western culture that includes justification for acts of violence as well as structural violence, and have also been used in opposition to violence.[2]
Violence in the Quran
quote:
The Quran, the holy book of Islam, contains verses believed by Muslims to be revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad at different times and under different circumstances — some exhorting violence against enemies and others urging restraint and conciliation. Because some verses abrogate others, and because some are thought to be general commands while other refer to specific enemies, how the verses are understood and how they relate to each other "has been a central issue in Islamic thinking on war" according to scholars such as Charles Matthews.[1]
While numerous scholars explain Quranic phrases on violence to be only in the context of a defensive response to oppression;[2][3][4][5][6][7] violent groups have interpreted verses to endorse their violent actions[8] and made the Quran's teachings on violence and war a topic of vigorous debate.[9][10]
I do not have a lot of knowledge in the actual research into either book.
However, after taking a look at both this is what forms as my high level review:
  1. Both holy books contain descriptions of violence.
  2. Both religions have minor groups that use the descriptions of violence in the books as support for their violent actions.
  3. Both religions have majority groups that denounce the use of the books as support for any/all violent actions.
Really, I don't see a difference.
If you think a large, obvious difference exists... please use this area to describe it so that others may judge as well.
It would be extremely convincing if you could show how any of points 1, 2 or 3 above are not factual descriptions of reality.


Probably a best fit in the Comparative Religions forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 12-21-2018 1:00 PM Stile has replied
 Message 8 by GDR, posted 12-21-2018 7:10 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 5 of 76 (845855)
12-21-2018 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
12-21-2018 1:00 PM


Faith writes:
The Bible REPORTS on violent doings in the Old Testament, it does NOT prescribe such things to its readers, entirely the opposite. I'm not sure which of Islam's books tell the reader to kill Jews but it is direct to the reader and that is why they go around blowing people up and shooting into crowds. The Ayatollah Khomeini once chided Muslims for being reluctant to carry out Allah's instructions to kill infidels.
I'll take your word for it. But still - so what?
Why do you think such a minuscule, nit-picky, pin-point of a difference means anything to anyone?
The results speak for themselves and are still the same:
  1. Both holy books contain descriptions of violence.
  2. Both religions have minor groups that use the descriptions of violence in the books as support for their violent actions.
  3. Both religions have majority groups that denounce the use of the books as support for any/all violent actions.
Your distinction only provides a point if it produces some sort of tangible result.
If religions following the Quran actually did have a majority that cause violence... then you'd have a point.
But they don't... so your point actually works to give more praise to Islam that takes the violence in their holy book and still gets the majority to denounce it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 12-21-2018 1:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 12-21-2018 1:14 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 7 of 76 (845862)
12-21-2018 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
12-21-2018 1:14 PM


Faith writes:
Christians have been the persecuted ones, first by the Caesars and then by the millions in the Middle Ages under the Roman Church, and except in strange misguided circumstances we do not persecute anyone.
Um... okay.
What does this have to do with anything?
I'm not talking about persecution. I'm talking about violence coming from a holy book and if any religion is "better" at dealing with it than any other.
Roman Catholicism persecutes BECAUSE IT IS NOT CHRISTIAN. Islam persecutes because its books tell them to, asnd Mohammed went around killing people who would not convert.
It doesn't really matter why persecution happens.
The point is that it happens, and others take steps to prevent it.
Some persecution happens due to violence in holy books.
Others who also use those holy book take steps to denounce such things.
And the results seem to be the same for both religions:
  1. Both holy books contain descriptions of violence.
  2. Both religions have minor groups that use the descriptions of violence in the books as support for their violent actions.
  3. Both religions have majority groups that denounce the use of the books as support for any/all violent actions.
Worrying over the minute details you keep providing is like a kid in school complaining they got the same punishment for throwing rocks at Suzy because someone told them to when the other kid throwing rocks at Suzy was the one with the idea!
It just doesn't make a difference to anyone who cares about not hurting others as much as possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 12-21-2018 1:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 14 of 76 (846140)
12-30-2018 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by GDR
12-21-2018 7:10 PM


GDR writes:
The point is that the Christian revelation in the Bible becomes more and more peaceful, where as in the Quran it is the other way around.
I don't agree or disagree with your point.
I simply find it irrelevant.
I see it as personal nitpicking in order to justify why you think one is "better" than the other in a sense that really doesn't matter.
I say that it really doesn't matter because it doesn't impact any of the significant points:
  1. Both holy books contain descriptions of violence.
  2. Both religions have minor groups that use the descriptions of violence in the books as support for their violent actions.
  3. Both religions have majority groups that denounce the use of the books as support for any/all violent actions.
As long as that's true, I don't see any reason to care about anyone's personal interpretation that this or that religion "does it slightly better."
It's like agreeing that locking up guns makes them safer but you prefer a combination lock over a keyed lock. Sure there are slight advantages (and even disadvantages) to each lock type - but regardless, it doesn't make a significant difference to the over-arching idea. And "personal bias" seems like the most likely motivation for anyone to keep stressing one over the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by GDR, posted 12-21-2018 7:10 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 12-30-2018 10:37 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 16 of 76 (846217)
12-31-2018 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by GDR
12-30-2018 10:37 PM


GDR writes:
Well I get your point, but it does seem to matter.
If your point is that it matters to you then this is obviously and rightly true. You are allowed to have your own opinions.
If your point is that it matters in a greater, overall sense then this is false as long as you cannot provide anything that indicates an issue with one of the objective facts:
  1. Both holy books contain descriptions of violence.
  2. Both religions have minor groups that use the descriptions of violence in the books as support for their violent actions.
  3. Both religions have majority groups that denounce the use of the books as support for any/all violent actions.
If however we have a holy book that goes in the direction of caring and then trending to vengeful it can be more of a problem, for those prone to accept the violent view.
Yes, a lot of things "can" be a problem. Or maybe they're not.
How do we know? We look at the objective facts.
Again, you're allowed to hold your own opinion.
My point is that your opinion doesn't hold any significant weight over the objective facts.
The only way to indicate that others should be agreeing with you is to appeal to their bias (perhaps they feel the same way you do?) or appeal to factual reality.
One will carry weight with some people (preaching to the flock.)
The other will carry weight with all reasonable people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 12-30-2018 10:37 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by GDR, posted 12-31-2018 3:41 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 18 of 76 (846469)
01-07-2019 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by GDR
12-31-2018 3:41 PM


GDR writes:
I also notice that there were subtle changes in my life, particularly in how I talked about people and how I related to them. This is pretty much meaningless to anyone else, but it was a big deal for me and has made a big difference in my various relationships.
I think context is extremely important for such a statement.
For example,
1. Take this statement while thinking about a context similar to "personal wellness" (see: We must believe in what we're made for)
Your idea is then extremely powerful and meaningful.
In fact, I would highly defend your ability to hold such a belief and practice in whatever way you think is best (as long as you're not hurting anyone else...)
But, as you hint towards: "...this is pretty much meaningless to anyone else."
I wouldn't say meaningless, in this context, but more "very helpful" for anyone else trying to get a decent sense of their own "personal wellness."
That is, if they like the things you show in your life (being a good person, attempting to help others, willing to discuss opinions you may disagree with...)
...then they could attempt taking on some of the beliefs you hold. Maybe it will work for them too. Maybe not as there are other ways to obtain such wellness... but they won't know until they try and it's certainly a very good starting point.
2. Take this statement while thinking about a context similar to "determining the truth" of a matter.
Your idea is then noted for what it is... something that concerns your personal life and your personal wellness.
...not something that actually sways one way or the other in "determining the truth" of a matter such as if the Bible or the Quran "handles violence better."
That is... the Bible may very well handle violence better than the Quran for you in the sense that it sort of needs to in order to function within your beliefs and becomes inclusive in your personal wellness.
Just as the Quran may very well handle violence better than the Bible for someone who holds beliefs in accordance to the Quran in the sense that it sort of needs to in order to function within their beliefs and becomes inclusive in their personal wellness.
However, the context of "determining the truth" of the 3 main points I've listed a few times remains another matter.
Therefore, when "determining the truth" of the 3 main points, these discussions of the Bible or the Quran being "better" for someone's individual personal beliefs remains another matter (irrelevant) as there are clearly people on both sides holding the same idea for each separate book.
I think that for a great many discussions here, many people confuse the "search for the truth about reality" with the "search for the way to have personal beliefs enhance personal wellness."
Something that is fantastic for one is not necessarily fantastic for the other.
There is no "greater" one either. Just two different ideas. One will be "greater" for these people over here... the other will be "greater" for those people over there... and others still will either find them equally important or not care at all.
Discussions here would become a lot easier to follow if the separation between these two ideas could be identified and explored with more clarity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by GDR, posted 12-31-2018 3:41 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by GDR, posted 01-07-2019 3:24 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 22 of 76 (846540)
01-08-2019 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by GDR
01-07-2019 3:24 PM


GDR writes:
I know this is a very rambling post but hopefully mostly on topic.
Don't worry about it. I have a tendency to ramble myself.
It seems to me that either book can and has been used to promote violence. Atheistic principles have been used to promote violence. People who want to commit violence will hang their hat on anything to justify their actions.
Absolutely.
In the general sense, I agree that violence is a human-issue, not a religious (regardless or which religion) or non-religious issue.
This thread was started because the specific idea that Islam was "definitively more hateful and violent" than Christianity was being tossed around the board.
I did not intend to imply that atheism held a golden key to peace or anything like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by GDR, posted 01-07-2019 3:24 PM GDR has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 23 of 76 (846543)
01-08-2019 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
01-08-2019 10:26 AM


Faith writes:
GDR writes:
It seems to me that either book can and has been used to promote violence.
Prove it.
The results speak for themselves and are still the same:
  1. Both holy books contain descriptions of violence.
  2. Both religions have minor groups that use the descriptions of violence in the books as support for their violent actions.
  3. Both religions have majority groups that denounce the use of the books as support for any/all violent actions.
But Islam does promote violence in its "holy" books and the Bible does not no matter how you try to twist historical accounts into such an idea.
However, since the above 3 points still hold true... this only goes to show that Christians (the people, not the book) are more violent.
That is, from the 3 points above, we know that violence-linked-to-the-Christian-religion is about equal to violence-linked-to-the-religion-of-Islam.
If the book of Islam directs more violence... but the end result is about-the-same violence from so-called "Christians" and so-called "Muslims" then this logically tells us that Muslims are better at snuffing out violence. That is... their book tells them to commit more violence, but they don't.
If Muslims and Christians were equally adept at snuffing out violence... and the Quran was "inherently more violent" than the Bible... then we should see an obvious, objective increase in violence from Muslims over Christians. However (specific day of the month/year/millennium not withstanding...) this "objective increase" doesn't exist. Unless you're able to show how the 3 points above are not true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 01-08-2019 10:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 01-08-2019 5:40 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 29 of 76 (846578)
01-09-2019 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
01-08-2019 5:40 PM


Faith writes:
Name ONE "minor group" that uses the Bible as you claim...
Here's a whole list of Christian Terrorism.
It's not exactly difficult to find.
Here are a few simple examples pulled from that page:
quote:
  • Manmasi National Christian Army (MNCA), a Christian extremist group operating in North East India. The militants were seen holding a gun in one hand and a Bible in another hand.
  • The Lord's Resistance Army, a guerrilla army in Uganda, accused of using child soldiers and of committing numerous crimes against humanity; is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the "Holy Spirit." LRA fighters wear rosary beads and recite passages from the Bible before battle.
  • The November 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, in which three were killed and nine injured. The gunman, Robert Lewis Dear... had praised the Army of God, saying that attacks on abortion clinics are "God's work."

I find it rather unbelievable that you've never heard of any such things.
Faith writes:
You are making up a bunch of crap. You know nothing at all about these things. Do you remember the CROWDS in the Middle East CELEBRATING THE ATTACKS ON 9/11? Wake up, you are a dangerous ignoramus.
Of course I remember such things.
I've never claimed that no violence was done in the name of Islam.
I'm claiming that violence is done in the name of Islam as well as in the name of Christianity.
You're the one who seems unable to show that no violence is ever done in the name of Christianity.
Your "points" are total fabrications.
Which one, and how?
Again, here they are. If you think one is wrong, please identify which one and show how it is incorrect:
The results seem to be the same for both religions:
  1. Both holy books contain descriptions of violence.
  2. Both religions have minor groups that use the descriptions of violence in the books as support for their violent actions.
  3. Both religions have majority groups that denounce the use of the books as support for any/all violent actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 01-08-2019 5:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 01-09-2019 10:50 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(3)
Message 32 of 76 (846599)
01-09-2019 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
01-09-2019 10:50 AM


Faith writes:
I don't care one bit about crazy groups in Uganda or India, they sound like they're on the level of David Koresh or some other cult.
And yet, they still exist.
They are not Christian except in their own crazy minds. ... Any violence done in the name of Christianity is a violation of Christian doctrine...
Thank-you for proving my point correct:
  1. Both religions have majority groups that denounce the use of the books as support for any/all violent actions.
Here are some Muslims denouncing violence done in the name of their religion:
70 Muslim Clerics Issue Fatwa Against Violence And Terrorism
quote:
Seventy scholars from three Muslim nations issued an edict on Friday that says violent extremism and terrorism violate the principles of Islam.
Both sides seem to denounce the violence.
There are NO such "minor groups" in Christianity that are actually Christian, and the "minor groups" in Islam are part and parcel of the religion, true followers of their doctrine.
And yet, the evidence shows that you are wrong:
Christian leaders denounce the violence done in the name of Christianity claiming they are not "true Christians."
Muslim leaders denounce the violence done in the name of Islam claiming they are not "true Muslims."
I'm going to take the Muslim leaders' words about who is and who is not a "true Muslim" just as much as I'll take the Christian leaders' words about who is and who is not a "true Christian."
That's why my list doesn't mention anyone being a Christian or a Muslim.
It only mentions that people exist who use the books/religions as support for their violent actions.
Such a fact cannot be denied, for both religions.
You are persisting in making false equivalences after they've been sufficiently answered.
If you think you can sufficiently show one of the points as false, please do so at your earliest convenience.
Here they are again, in their yet-to-be-refuted glory:
  1. Both holy books contain descriptions of violence.
  2. Both religions have minor groups that use the descriptions of violence in the books as support for their violent actions.
  3. Both religions have majority groups that denounce the use of the books as support for any/all violent actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 01-09-2019 10:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 01-09-2019 4:52 PM Stile has replied
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 01-09-2019 8:13 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 35 of 76 (846678)
01-10-2019 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
01-09-2019 4:52 PM


Faith writes:
With a standard that low no wonder there's no reasoning with you.
Here, again, is my standard:
  1. Both holy books contain descriptions of violence.
  2. Both religions have minor groups that use the descriptions of violence in the books as support for their violent actions.
  3. Both religions have majority groups that denounce the use of the books as support for any/all violent actions.
I understand you find such facts to be unreasonable.
However, you seem to be unable to show how such facts are actually unreasonable (or untrue.)
I am not claiming to have the ability to change your mind on what is or is not reasonable.
I only claim that these are, indeed, facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 01-09-2019 4:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 01-10-2019 9:49 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 37 of 76 (846681)
01-10-2019 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
01-10-2019 9:49 AM


Faith writes:
The Koran does not contain a "description" of violence. It advocates it, it does not even have much in the way of historical reports of anything at all. Muslims are directly commanded to kill people, they are not relying on historical reports.
Even if you're right... an advocation of violence is still a description of violence.
Also you have shown no "minor group" that commits violence based on the historical reports of the Bible.
I've never claimed such a thing.
My claim is that people exist who use the description of violence in the Bible to support their violent actions.
Again, here's a link to many groups of existing people doing just that: Christian Terrorism
Islam has no legitimate majority group that opposes violent jihad because that is the traditional understanding of the term and those who oppose it are modern revisionists with no legitimate standing.
Your claim goes against reality.
Again, here's the reality: 70 Muslim Clerics Issue Fatwa Against Violence And Terrorism
It doesn't matter that you don't believe it, or that you interpret the Quran differently than the Muslim leaders do.
All that matters is that these leaders exist, and they interpret the Quran in such a way as to denounce the use of the Quran to commit violence.
Just as Christian leaders exist, and they interpret the Bible in such a way as to denounce the use of the Bible to commit violence.
Your list is completely false.
I do not see how as you've helped prove every point to be true.
You are completely ignorant of what you are talking about.
I think the problem is that you're unable to separate your personal connection to the Bible that provides you with personal growth from the objective fact that others use the Bible in another way (regardless of them doing so "rightly" or "wrongly.")
Similarily, you have a personal requirement (due to your personal attachment to the Bible) that the Quran is wrong and evil. This drives you to demand that the Quran must be "worse" than the Bible.
Of course, the conflict with reality doesn't seem to stop you.
Your personal attachment to your belief in the Bible overrides your ability to acknowledge and deal with objective facts about the world.
This may strengthen your personal belief - that in and of itself I actually see as a good thing.
The bad part is how much of a struggle it causes you as you are forced to face reality on a day-to-day basis - this is obviously extremely frustrating for you.
You cannot make reality disappear - yet you need reality to disappear in order to pacify the drive behind your personal beliefs.
This is a personal issue you have created for yourself.
And it is only yourself who can resolve it for you.
The obvious fact that your personal attachment to your belief is so strong that you do not yet want to resolve this struggle condemns you to building up more and more frustrations as your day-to-day conflicts with reality continue.
Perhaps one day the frustrations will become so large that you no longer wish to ignore them.
Or, maybe not.
I just hope your frustrations do not become so large that you begin to hurt other people.
As long as you refrain from hurting others, however, I have no issue with you having to deal with frustrations... no matter how massive you've created them for yourself.
Of course, since your frustrations are of your own making, and they only affect you, and you are making a personal choice to continue with them... I have absolutely no problem with repeatedly showing actual, objective, factual reality to you until you either accept it or grow too tired of the frustrations and move along.
If you can actually show something based in reality to refute any of the main points for this thread, please do so at your earliest convenience:
  1. Both holy books contain descriptions of violence.
  2. Both religions have minor groups that use the descriptions of violence in the books as support for their violent actions.
  3. Both religions have majority groups that denounce the use of the books as support for any/all violent actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 01-10-2019 9:49 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 01-10-2019 10:40 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 40 of 76 (846700)
01-10-2019 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
01-10-2019 10:40 AM


Faith writes:
What a bunch of blithering blather you just repeat over and over again. Wake up.
That's some nice alliteration.
If you'd ever like to return to the facts, here they are again - still bathing in their yet-to-be-refuted glory:
  1. Both holy books contain descriptions of violence.
  2. Both religions have minor groups that use the descriptions of violence in the books as support for their violent actions.
  3. Both religions have majority groups that denounce the use of the books as support for any/all violent actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 01-10-2019 10:40 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 01-10-2019 11:55 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 43 of 76 (846704)
01-10-2019 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
01-10-2019 11:55 AM


Faith writes:
Gosh you're stubborn.
I actually rather enjoy changing my mind.
It means I'm learning.
However, I will not change my mind just because it would make your personally-induced frustrations easier for you to handle.
I will gladly change my mind if you can use reality to show how any of these items are false:
  1. Both holy books contain descriptions of violence.
  2. Both religions have minor groups that use the descriptions of violence in the books as support for their violent actions.
  3. Both religions have majority groups that denounce the use of the books as support for any/all violent actions.
Those are your own fantasy, they are not facts.
Your Dad can beat up my Dad is a fantasy, and not a fact.
These above points, however, are facts. You can tell the difference because of the support that can be provided from reality.
Half of it you accept.
The other half you reject, but the links and examples I gave still exist to show that this half is still factual even if you decide to unreasonably reject them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 01-10-2019 11:55 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 01-10-2019 9:24 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 49 of 76 (846751)
01-11-2019 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
01-10-2019 9:24 PM


Faith writes:
Your "facts" are not facts.
I do not understand how this statement makes any sense.
Are you talking about these facts:
  1. Both holy books contain descriptions of violence.
  2. Both religions have minor groups that use the descriptions of violence in the books as support for their violent actions.
  3. Both religions have majority groups that denounce the use of the books as support for any/all violent actions.
Because you've been instrumental in showing how each one is specifically a true fact.
Again, the words you string together simply do not correspond to the objective reality around you. Please try again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 01-10-2019 9:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 01-11-2019 2:10 PM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024