|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jihadists must die, --- but our real enemies are the Qur’an and Bible. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikechell Inactive Member |
Two things that pop out at me.
1) It's not Muslims, Islamist or even Jihadist that cause the violence. It's RADICAL Muslims, Islamist and Jihadists. I do think, if all the Peaceful Muslims, Islamist and Jihadist rose up against the less numerous RADICALs, there'd be no terrorist left. 2) "Greatest" assumes that changing the words in the bible and the qur'an woiuld reduce the number of RADICAL religious nuts. I am wondering just how you confiscate all the copies of those books already out there? You could change the verbiage in all the newly printed books, but you can make it "retro-active". All you would do is to drive up the incendiary thinking of Radicals. All the violence done in the world that is due to religious belief can't be stopped by changing the books. It can only be changed by trying to educate everyone to the fact that we're all one species.You can believe in whatever supreme being you want, but your loyalty should be to advancing human kind. evidence over faith ... observation over theory
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
mikechell
Many regimes, from Hitler to Christianity new and old, political and religious, set great store in having the right kind of literature out there and in the case of new regimes, burning books they feel do not serve the new public good. Education has been proposed as the best tool against jihadists and to Muslim's, their Qur'an is their main book of religious education for both their religion and their Sharia law. To me, it is the height of idiocy to thing we can convince the Muslim community to soften their stance on infidels while their book of education and law tells them to kill them. I recognize that the elimination of the old books would be nearly impossible. But you may not have noticed all the revisions the bible has gone through and that most Christians are quoting the new ones and not the old ones. I rest my case. RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikechell Inactive Member |
Many regimes, from Hitler to Christianity new and old, political and religious, set great store in having the right kind of literature out there and in the case of new regimes, burning books they feel do not serve the new public good.
Yep, there are radicals in all religions. They've all tried to change the written word, as you are wishing to do. And history shows it never worked for any of them.
Education has been proposed as the best tool against jihadists and to Muslim's, their Qur'an is their main book of religious education for both their religion and their Sharia law.
It is the "educators,"that are the problem, not the books they teach from. Fanatical "educators" will always find information to support their radical views.
To me, it is the height of idiocy to thing we can convince the Muslim community to soften their stance on infidels while their book of education and law tells them to kill them.
The idiocy is in thinking you can "censor" a way to a better world.
I recognize that the elimination of the old books would be nearly impossible. But you may not have noticed all the revisions the bible has gone through and that most Christians are quoting the new ones and not the old ones.
There have been no "new" revisions to the bible in a very long time ... but you're correct. ALL religious books are written by men pretending to have divine guidance. Since I do not believe in a "supreme" being ... I do not believe any of it is a word of "god". It's just good story telling by very smart men.evidence over faith ... observation over theory
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
GDR writes: What makes what I believe any more wishful thinking that you believe. Chris Hitchens, (who I actually enjoyed). used to say that He didn't want there to be a god of any kind. That would make what he believed to be wishful thinking. Oh come on now......who wouldn't want to believe in an afterlife? We tell our children that mummy is in heaven to console them. It's the reason we invented it, to make our short time here bearable and to flatter our own sense of importance - we don't like knowing that we're disposable. All societies have developed some sort of afterlife fantasy to help them along. Hitch was being provocative, pointing out the revolting despotic nature of the kind of god who sets up this nasty little test for us in the Christian vision.
I don't adhere to the Christianity that you just described either. Then you plead guilty of pick and mix Christianity. No big deal, all Christians do, even Faith.
I don't disagree with the thought that many early Christians thought that Jesus would return in their life times. However I suggest that it was because they had just had Jesus with them recently and so it would be somewhat reasonable to think that it would all happen sooner rather than later. There have always been those who said that it's going to happen any day now. They thought that way because they were told it by the guy that was supposed to be returning. He didn't. It's in your book plain as day and it's in the history. Denial and rationalisation doesn't change it.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2368 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined: |
TRUE Christians DO agree on the CORRECT interpretation. You've been here long enough to have read about the no true scotsman fallacy right? Let me guess. The only correct interpretation is yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
mikechell
It was good story telling and a passing up of intelligent thought for sure, until people started reading the stories and myths literally. That is when the killing started and is what is maintaining division today. Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it." Please listen as to what is said about literal reading. "Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning." RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Bliyaal
I have some similar thoughts in that much about religion and somewhat evidenced by so many interpretations, even within the major religious beliefs, Christianity having thousands of identified divisions within it, that religion is a human invention. What is interesting is that in Matthew Chapter 5, taken literally or not, Christ is said to have told his followers to "be perfect" as God, yet elsewhere there appear to be reiterations that humans could have no hope of ever being as perfect as God and in fact, were they to become or try to assume perfection, God would not only be jealous, but eject them from heaven. RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
I don't have a two-party system. I'm Canadian. I was talking of your two political party system. You were suggesting that the moderate Muslims should just tell the radical Muslims to be nice and I was drawing a parallel to ANY political system: your solution would be to just have one party do what the other party suggests; it's unworkable.
Greatest I am writes:
Neither.
Are the right wing Muslims more likely to listen to other Muslims or more likely to listen to non-Muslims?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Oops
Edited by Greatest I am, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
ringo
Unworkable? How would we know when we have not made the attempt? You are saying that the right cannot compromise with the left and that is just silly. RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
Oh come on. Nobody has suggested to moderate Muslims that they should politely ask radicals to be more moderate? It's been done. It doesn't work.
Unworkable? How would we know when we have not made the attempt? Greatest I am writes:
You're not suggesting compromise. You're suggesting that one side should voluntarily disband.
You are saying that the right cannot compromise with the left and that is just silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Ringo
Not really. Just to move toward the center or left. That can be sold as progress. RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
But why would either side move in the direction YOU choose? What incentive is there for radical Muslims to do what YOU want?
Just to move toward the center or left. That can be sold as progress.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Ringo
Survival and decency, Hopefully as expressed by the left. And if the left do not cooperate then the West and the rest of the world may have to find a more persuasive way than negotiation and education. Lets hope diplomacy works. To just not do anything about jihadist creation by Islam after this last round of war and killing would just insure that we have to kill more of them later. RegardsDL RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
Tangle writes: Oh come on now......who wouldn't want to believe in an afterlife? We tell our children that mummy is in heaven to console them. It's the reason we invented it, to make our short time here bearable and to flatter our own sense of importance - we don't like knowing that we're disposable. All societies have developed some sort of afterlife fantasy to help them along. Hitch was being provocative, pointing out the revolting despotic nature of the kind of god who sets up this nasty little test for us in the Christian vision. Well I suppose that because a lot of people have historically believed that physical death isn't the end of our consciousness then it must be wrong and you know better. Once again you revert back to the strawman of Christian fundamentalists to define the nature of God.
Tangle writes: Then you plead guilty of pick and mix Christianity. No big deal, all Christians do, even Faith. Yes and no. Faith believes in an inerrant Bible essentially written by God and then works out what she believes from that. It is something that essentially grew out of the reformation and is a Christian belief that scarcely exists in your part of the world. I don't hold to that view either. I essentially look at the Bible as a book written by mostly well meaning but still flawed human beings. Religion has always been about the discerning the nature of God or gods and then sorting out what our response should be to that nature. God as I worship Him is honest, loving, just, forgiving, merciful, peaceful etc. and from that it follows that it is His desire that mankind reflect those same values into the world. I am not saying that the Christian church is particularly successful at doing that but sometimes it is. If I had to believe in the god that at times is in favour of genocide and public stonings as He is sometimes erroneously depicted in the OT then I would not be a follower of a god like that. In some ways you have nailed the problem with much of religion as humans have more often than not taken to religion because of what they hope God will do for them, as opposed to the idea of actually serving a just and good God simply for its own sake. Frankly I don't think much about the afterlife. I have enough to deal with in this one. Yes I do believe that this life isn't the end but when I shuffle off I figure that whatever happens happens. I don't however believe that the whole thing is based on whatever our theological beliefs happen to be. It is my view that it is our hearts that God is interested in regardless of our beliefs.
Tangle writes: They thought that way because they were told it by the guy that was supposed to be returning. He didn't. It's in your book plain as day and it's in the history. Denial and rationalisation doesn't change it. Well as I said, I don't believe that it is as plain as day at all, and I contend that what you are saying is a complete misreading of the Gospels. You are reading it with a 21st century fundamentalist mindset, as opposed to hearing as a 1st century Jew would have heard it in the historical context. CheersHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024