Terrorist attack ongoing in France (14th July, Bastille Day)

lindy said:
@Ooh-Rah , please don't think of this as argumentative but rather a very good exchange of varying viewpoints. I agree Muslims should not be demonized but people need to learn what Islam is and then decide.
Click to expand...

Not at all! As I did more reading last night about the history of Christianity vs. Islam I was shocked at the similarities - which at some point may cause the start of a completely different thread...but for now I am content to have made my point, read others, and move on.

Side note to the newbs - Take note. This is one of the things that makes this board so special...adults can disagree and squabble, without getting into name calling and insults. Very rare in today's internet.
 
A few points.

As far as the degree and amount of violence depicted in the texts, the Bible is undoubtedly the most violent and barbaric of any of the mythologies discussed in this thread. The Old Testament, in fact, manages to do that all on its own even before including the New Testament.

Now, when @lindy asks what scriptural verses Pope Urban II used to justify his calls to war, we see that they are only used to give weight to his directing the crowd to be pious stewards by warding off corrupting influences in their society. When justifying the call to war, Pope Urban II relies on appeals to duty and religious loyalty by citing how their 'brethren who live in the east' are in 'urgent need of your help'. He also incentivizes them to fight by offering a complete pardoning of sins to any who die while answering his call to war.

What should be noted is that the New Testament reference to Christ bringing in an era of peace and a 'new law' had none of the power that it does today to stop the papacy in that time period from calling Christians to war. Christians viewed themselves far differently today that they did a millennium before now. It is only in very recent history that Christians have been, as a whole, utilizing Jesus' 'new law of love' verse to justify pacifism since Constantine came to power and compiled the Bible. The Bible (among other religious doctrines) was and continues to be used selectively to justify political or personal goals within different time periods.

@Freefalling, the fact is that both 'religions' have changed in the centuries since their inceptions, and in important ways. The regional and historical variations in the doctrinal interpretation and expression of Islam show this in the centuries before, during, and after the Ottoman Empire. Assigning a unique fixedness onto what Islam is as a religion in comparison to other faiths simultaneously ignores the wide variations in Islam that have existed (and continue to exist) while groundlessly reducing Islam to one specific understanding or expression.

@Florida173's idea of bad Muslims being friendly to non-Muslims is one shared by ISIL that is taken from doctrine. A large number of Christians in the West are technically bad ones (particularly in the West) as well when we take into account how many file for divorces based on financial burden, loss of interest, or just lacking commitment to the marriage.

The distinction that can be made between the Qur'an and the Bible is that the Bible presents more opportunities to reconcile morally unacceptable (by contemporary standards) passages with liberal ethical values. This is because it is littered with many more useful contradictions than the Qur'an, and enough of these are centered around the words of Christianity's central figure. The Qur'an, unfortunately, is a smaller text with a more unified message that is more challenging for modern Muslims to reconcile with modern liberal values, since there are significantly fewer doctrinal excuses for ignoring the status of women, the treatment of non-Muslims, or the repeated calls to war for religious supremacy.
 
Locksteady said:
@Freefalling, the fact is that both 'religions' have changed in the centuries since their inceptions, and in important ways. The regional and historical variations in the doctrinal interpretation and expression of Islam show this in the centuries before, during, and after the Ottoman Empire. Assigning a unique fixedness onto what Islam is as a religion in comparison to other faiths simultaneously ignores the wide variations in Islam that have existed (and continue to exist) while groundlessly reducing Islam to one specific understanding or expression.
Click to expand...
It is heresy to suggest that Islam has gone through any reformation. Islam is the only true religion because it hasn't been perverted by the minds of men. Or so they believe.

Locksteady said:
@Florida173's idea of bad Muslims being friendly to non-Muslims is one shared by ISIL that is taken from doctrine. A large number of Christians in the West are technically bad ones (particularly in the West) as well when we take into account how many file for divorces based on financial burden, loss of interest, or just lacking commitment to the marriage.
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with each other. Good Christians are not trying to convert me or kill me.

Locksteady said:
The distinction that can be made between the Qur'an and the Bible is that the Bible presents more opportunities to reconcile morally unacceptable (by contemporary standards) passages with liberal ethical values. This is because it is littered with many more useful contradictions than the Qur'an, and enough of these are centered around the words of Christianity's central figure. The Qur'an, unfortunately, is a smaller text with a more unified message that is more challenging for modern Muslims to reconcile with modern liberal values, since there are significantly fewer doctrinal excuses for ignoring the status of women, the treatment of non-Muslims, or the repeated calls to war for religious supremacy.
Click to expand...
Being an apologist for Islam on the absurd notion that "the Bible is undoubtedly the most violent and barbaric of any of the mythologies discussed in this thread." is incredibly weak.

The Koran doesn't need to be more than what it is because it has the sunna and the hadith to supplement, or in the modern era the religious leaders an opportunity to interpret the meaning through edicts.
 
Florida173 said:
It is heresy to suggest that Islam has gone through any reformation. Islam is the only true religion because it hasn't been perverted by the minds of men. Or so they believe.
Click to expand...
Recognizing a piece of doctrine that emphasizes that Islam shouldn't be 'perverted by the minds of men' shouldn't be a barrier to recognizing the plethora of different interpretations and manifestations of the religion throughout history. This includes the initial infighting between the first Islamic sects after Muhammad's death - there has always disagreement and discourse within the Muslim community as to the true interpretation of the doctrines.

Florida173 said:
Nothing to do with each other.
Click to expand...
Indeed they are. The same logic can be applied to reference Christians as 'bad' or 'good'.
Florida173 said:
Good Christians are not trying to convert me or kill me.
Click to expand...
If you define a good Christian as someone who wouldn't, then it makes it very easy to make that statement. This definition has been in flux throughout history, as our glance into the Crusades made very apparent.

Florida173 said:
Being an apologist for Islam on the absurd notion that "the Bible is undoubtedly the most violent and barbaric of any of the mythologies discussed in this thread." is incredibly weak.
Click to expand...
It is absurd to suggest that it requires an apologist to recognize which religious text is the most violent, or to imply that recognizing that fact in the midst of a discussion where that question was raised condemns one as an apologist.

Florida173 said:
The Koran doesn't need to be more than what it is because it has the sunna and the hadith to supplement, or in the modern era the religious leaders an opportunity to interpret the meaning through edicts.
Click to expand...
Throughout history, Muslim leaders have produced varying interpretations of the text with the sincere belief that the process in itself wasn't making it 'more than what it is'. The idea that it necessarily did is just another notion among many in the pot of Islamic discourse.
 
@Locksteady , you wrote a lot of words to justify your position but cited not ONE source to support it. Without references, your assertions are as valid as @Freefalling 's viewpoint on clowns.

As far as your assertion that the Bible is violent, where does it demand that I kill in God's name? Not punishment, but to spread the religion.
 
Last edited:
heh....a debate on two books written by man.

Religious debates are pointless....especially if you are looking for facts to support ones side....scholars have been doing this for centuries.

This is all about what someones faith/belief is....regardless if it's right or wrong in that religion. They will interpret what they want to interpret....and act on what they want to act on.
 
lindy said:
Black lives matter?
Click to expand...

Do you even understand the complaints of BLM? Or is it only a punchline to you?
lindy said:
@Locksteady , you wrote a lot of words to justify your position but cited not ONE source to support it. Without references, your assertions are as valid as @Freefalling 's viewpoint on clowns.
Click to expand...

Or your's on BLM?

lindy said:
As far as your assertion that the Bible is violent, where does it demand that I kill in God's name? Not punishment, but to spread the religion.
Click to expand...

Considering the amount of stuff you post without legit sources and pass of as sarcasm, I would be awfully careful of Calling someone out.
 
lindy said:
@Locksteady , you wrote a lot of words to justify your position but cited not ONE source to support it. Without references, your assertions are as valid as @Freefalling 's viewpoint on clowns.
Click to expand...
No dissimilar to the validity of your sourceless assertion of presenting Christianity as being founded on 'love, forgiveness and faith' - particularly if taken from a book that was written hundreds of years (decades in the New Testament's case) later by supporting apologists and then selectively compiled by centuries later politically powerful religious figureheads (bishops).

I am not sure which of my statements you contend with specifically.

My description of how Pope Urban II used minimal doctrine to incite Christians to war came directly from the link you provided, as did my statement on violent scriptures in the Bible (strangely that link with violence percentages is nowhere to be seen now, or I'm having a bad time finding it in the thread).

The fact that Islam has been subject to shifting interpretations and manifestations is basic history, but if you are sincere in challenging that, you can start by looking over the New Encylopedia of Islam by Cyril Glass. The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology will also help if you want a heavier, more in-depth read.

A great book with primary sources that depict how Christians from a different era viewed themselves is in Emilie Amt and S.J. Allen's "The Crusades: A Reader." Another author who goes further into depth is Jonathan Riley-Smith. I recommend "The Crusades: A History."

lindy said:
@LocksteadyAs far as your assertion that the Bible is violent, where does it demand that I kill in God's name? Not punishment, but to spread the religion.
Click to expand...
If you're referring to outstanding decrees that aren't historically specific and directed towards against particular long-dead enemies, it doesn't, and I never claimed that it did. In fact, I already established that at the end of my first post as being one of the reasons for contemporary Muslims, in contrast to Christians, having difficulty reconciling some of the doctrine with the Western liberal tradition.
 
Comparing contemporary Islam to a few modern interpretations of Christianity of 700 years ago is crazy talk
 

Similar threads

Polar Bear
How Modern Terrorism Uses the Internet
Replies
3
Views
3K
104TN
104TN
Back
Top