The criminal parts of the Koran

[Thagomizer]

you've obviously never read the history of the christian church then, either.  and have never heard of various christian groups who, even today, think it's okay to sexually harrass/abuse young girls, cos they've got red hair, or are pretty, and who then go on to bewail the fact that the devil got into a 7 seven old, and made her tempt them.  what complete bollocks.

Yes I have read about the history of Christianity, and as far as violence and intolerance goes, it (and it's sacred text) has nothing on Islam. It was not spread in the same way. And as I've tried to explain before, there is a theological reason for this, it is independant of whicih religion is "rigiht" or "wrong", and it can be seen the holy texts themselves.

You don't actually seem to have answered it though monkey boy.

Monkey boy? Come on, you can be more original than that. You could have called me a Syphillic Stegosaurus or something. That would have at least made sense.

I'm serious. Produce an actual argument rather than 'my guys are teh bettar because we don't cut thieves hands off (any more) or stone women to death (any more)' which supports your arguments that a billion people are more predisposed to religion-sanctioned acts of barbarism than adherents of your own blood soaked faith.

My argument wasn't that the people themselves are more predisposed toward violence, but that the core teachings of the religion itself are, and that this does have a major effect on the world even today.

And stereotyping is a shortcut to thinking. Do yourself a favour, and actually get a job with muslim co-workers, or make a muslim friend or two, who can actually clue you in on some shit.

Okay, I've obviously hit a nerve somewhere, and it wasn't a place I intended to strike. Either you don't understand what I'm getting at, or I've failed to communicate it properly. For the moment, I will assume the latter. I was attacking Islam itself, not muslims. The difference may be subtle, but it's important. While the voices of moderate Islam may be on weak theological grounds, the efforts of those people, at least, are to be commended.

I did not intend to stereotype anyone. I'm certainly not saying any country should be nuked, or that there shouldn't be freedom of religion. I have, however, lost the respect for Islam (not for muslims) that I used to have, given the events of recent years and the reading that I've done.

And it has fuck all to do with PC, I treat all sacred cows with equal disdain.

That IS political correctness. Disdaining all of them is the same as disdaining none of them. Your reasoning is difference to the ideological notion that all belief systems are equal--equally right and wrong, and equally capable of leading to good (or bad) things. I disagree with this, because I happen to believe in absolute truth.

Religions are (usually) different from pseudo-sciences in the respect that they make absolute truth claims which are not subject to scientific testing. Though they can never be proven or disproven, some aspects about their ideologies are ultimately either true or false. Either we are reincarnated when we die, or not. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. Either Muhammed was divinely inspired or not. This means that some religions are more correct than others. This is independant of whether or not there are some truths to be found in all religions (I believe there are), or good and bad people of all ideaologies. Whether or not we even believe in these religions is irrelevant, since their impact on the thinking of each culture is inexorable, and influences our own thinking today. That said, I believe the teachings of the Koran are, by themselves, more conductive toward violence than those of the Bible, and this sheds light on some of the conflicts in the world today.

If you still want me to, I can provide specific examples of where the Bible and the Koran differ, though I won't have access to the materials for at least a few days, so you'll have to wait a while yet.

[Lucifer]

read ken wilber's "eye of spirit" for a useful and thought-provoking take on religions/belief systems/philosophies.

this is utter bollucks.


why don't you call him out, dunc.  it is starting to look like an old fashioned gang up here, by the PC brigade.
at least a callout would make the fight somewhat fair, mohammed!

why don't you get the point that there's a huge difference between being political and being politically correct?  i've explained the difference enough times.  merely sneering at someone's argument because you've labelled it "PC" is another cop out, which people use just to save themselves from actually thinking about something which makes them feel uncomfortable.

[Lucifer]

you've obviously never read the history of the christian church then, either.  and have never heard of various christian groups who, even today, think it's okay to sexually harrass/abuse young girls, cos they've got red hair, or are pretty, and who then go on to bewail the fact that the devil got into a 7 seven old, and made her tempt them.  what complete bollocks.

Yes I have read about the history of Christianity, and as far as violence and intolerance goes, it (and it's sacred text) has nothing on Islam. It was not spread in the same way. And as I've tried to explain before, there is a theological reason for this, it is independant of whicih religion is "rigiht" or "wrong", and it can be seen the holy texts themselves.

nonsense.  no "holy text" is carved in stone (no pun intended).  all require interpretation.  you have to ask yourself who's doing the interpreting, and for what reason.

My argument wasn't that the people themselves are more predisposed toward violence, but that the core teachings of the religion itself are, and that this does have a major effect on the world even today.

i'd still like to know which parts of the Koran you're referring to, and what sort of translation (i.e. interpretation) you're using.

I was attacking Islam itself, not muslims. The difference may be subtle, but it's important. While the voices of moderate Islam may be on weak theological grounds, the efforts of those people, at least, are to be commended.

nope.  it's the other way round, as it is with all religions.  religions are always politicised, in the hunger for power, and that's when all the violence and jihad etc., etc. comes from.  the basic tenet of christianity, for example, is love, and we know how that's been perverted over the centuries.  it isn't Islam wherein the fault lies, it's some of the proponents of Islam, who choose to (or follow blindly those who've chosen to) interpret it according to their own political agenda.

That IS political correctness. Disdaining all of them is the same as disdaining none of them. Your reasoning is difference to the ideological notion that all belief systems are equal--equally right and wrong, and equally capable of leading to good (or bad) things. I disagree with this, because I happen to believe in absolute truth.

q.v. my remark about ken wilbur, above.

This means that some religions are more correct than others.

to, or for, whom?

This is independant of whether or not there are some truths to be found in all religions (I believe there are), or good and bad people of all ideaologies.

you really should read wilbur.  however, this conflicts massively with your belief in "absolute truth".  and define good and bad - surely that's a matter of perspective and context?

 

Whether or not we even believe in these religions is irrelevant, since their impact on the thinking of each culture is inexorable, and influences our own thinking today.

first sensible thing you've said.

That said, I believe the teachings of the Koran are, by themselves, more conductive toward violence than those of the Bible, and this sheds light on some of the conflicts in the world today.

If you still want me to, I can provide specific examples of where the Bible and the Koran differ, though I won't have access to the materials for at least a few days, so you'll have to wait a while yet.

please do.  but you do realise you'll be accused of cherry picking, don't you?  and again, any quotations will need to be contextualised - the whole of Leviticus, and its ridiculous code of behaviour, makes complete sense if you put it into context, that's if you can stop laughing for long enough.

[Tom/Mutate]

I haven't read much of the the Koran, but from other people I have a vague idea the difference between it and the bible is that halfway through the bible Jesus turns up and is all peacefull and loving, so that Christians can say "forget the genocide and anti-gay bits, that was just the old testament, Jesus is the important thing now, not the blood-thirsty old Jews".

But then agian Jesus says things like - not do not change any word of the old testament, it still applies.  But then he also broke the Sabbath, etc.   I find this very confusing and if I still had any faith I would try and investigate it, but I don't.

[duncvis]

You don't actually seem to have answered it though monkey boy.

Monkey boy? Come on, you can be more original than that. You could have called me a Syphillic Stegosaurus or something. That would have at least made sense.

Meh. I put as much effort into it as you did your original argument. sure, I could have called you a delusional dinofucker or summat but I couldn't be bothered. Want a point?

I'm serious. Produce an actual argument rather than 'my guys are teh bettar because we don't cut thieves hands off (any more) or stone women to death (any more)' which supports your arguments that a billion people are more predisposed to religion-sanctioned acts of barbarism than adherents of your own blood soaked faith.

My argument wasn't that the people themselves are more predisposed toward violence, but that the core teachings of the religion itself are, and that this does have a major effect on the world even today.

Considering the degree of interpretation these sets of holy bog roll require I think its fair to say you can find a line or two of scripture in any of them to support your jihad/crusade/witchhunt/persecution/land grab. Any verses you could quote for either religion in support of xyz position can be countered by others I'm fairly sure - so sure, if you want to produce reams of quotations thats up to you. But at the end of the day it always degenerates to cherry picking since the 'holy' books are so widely interpreted and full of (apparently) contradictory statements. The tendencies found in various groups of religious nutjobs is the responsibility of those who push a certain 'righteous' position - which is why I tar all the Abrahamic religions with the same brush as you squabble over holy books. It boils down to arrogance, or a spiritual pissing contest, if you prefer. Would you really consider the dangerous fundies currently overrunning swathes of your country and holding an increasing influence over the body politic less of a threat to peace and freedom than the mullah-maddened jihadis?

And stereotyping is a shortcut to thinking. Do yourself a favour, and actually get a job with muslim co-workers, or make a muslim friend or two, who can actually clue you in on some shit.

Okay, I've obviously hit a nerve somewhere, and it wasn't a place I intended to strike. Either you don't understand what I'm getting at, or I've failed to communicate it properly. For the moment, I will assume the latter. I was attacking Islam itself, not muslims. The difference may be subtle, but it's important. While the voices of moderate Islam may be on weak theological grounds, the efforts of those people, at least, are to be commended.

I did not intend to stereotype anyone. I'm certainly not saying any country should be nuked, or that there shouldn't be freedom of religion. I have, however, lost the respect for Islam (not for muslims) that I used to have, given the events of recent years and the reading that I've done.

Accepted. However your argument implicitly attacks Muslims; particularly your enthusiastic support for the free for all troll we had whose stated views were very clearly based on hate and not any rational view of people. That kind of off the cuff support for ignorant bigotry is what made my hackles rise.

And it has fuck all to do with PC, I treat all sacred cows with equal disdain.

That IS political correctness. Disdaining all of them is the same as disdaining none of them. Your reasoning is difference to the ideological notion that all belief systems are equal--equally right and wrong, and equally capable of leading to good (or bad) things. I disagree with this, because I happen to believe in absolute truth.

Religions are (usually) different from pseudo-sciences in the respect that they make absolute truth claims which are not subject to scientific testing. Though they can never be proven or disproven, some aspects about their ideologies are ultimately either true or false. Either we are reincarnated when we die, or not. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. Either Muhammed was divinely inspired or not. This means that some religions are more correct than others. This is independant of whether or not there are some truths to be found in all religions (I believe there are), or good and bad people of all ideaologies. Whether or not we even believe in these religions is irrelevant, since their impact on the thinking of each culture is inexorable, and influences our own thinking today. That said, I believe the teachings of the Koran are, by themselves, more conductive toward violence than those of the Bible, and this sheds light on some of the conflicts in the world today.

I've partly answered this above; I've heard the 'some religions are more right than others (and you don't wanna be in the wrong one when the rapture comes, praise the Lawd)' argument before from the door-to-door god botherers. Again, it all comes down to interpretation of the 'correct' bits of dogma. A roomful of theologians probably couldn't come to the conclusion you had, but as you have already picked a team its irrelevant. If you're happy with your choice of shepherd good for you, as long as you can recognise that those who chose a different one could do exactly the same thing to you/your faith.

Your definition of PC thought is interestingly flawed, I'm not accepting that it is somehow politically correct to reject all organised religion - particularly since to be PC you must follow a party line - not something you'd expect from a sceptic. PC is like a religion in its own way, with its own dogma and tenets not to be questioned. Don't paint my views in that corner, if you don't mind - I haven't called you a glassy-eyed fundie, have I?

If you still want me to, I can provide specific examples of where the Bible and the Koran differ, though I won't have access to the materials for at least a few days, so you'll have to wait a while yet.

Really not necessary for the reasons both myself and Lucifer mentioned (i.e. the bollocks-go-round), but if you wish, feel free.

[Tom/Mutate]

"Would you really consider the dangerous fundies currently overrunning swathes of your country and holding an increasing influence over the body politic less of a threat to peace and freedom than the mullah-maddened jihad"

To be fair, Thag is a Catholic, and those are Protestants, so he may not align himself with them.

[duncvis]

I wasn't suggesting he did align himself with them Mutate - I was asking him if he saw them as a threat, just as the jihadis are a threat.

[odeon]

[Lucifer]

nothing to say, and just watching?  surely not - you're one of "The Aspie PC Elite" same as me and dunc, aren't you?



(try saying "The Aspie PC Elite" five times, quickly.  your tongue and teeth will get in a knot).

[odeon]

nothing to say, and just watching?  surely not - you're one of "The Aspie PC Elite" same as me and dunc, aren't you?



(try saying "The Aspie PC Elite" five times, quickly.  your tongue and teeth will get in a knot).

I have lots to say but Thagomizer is just your average garden-variety islamophobic and IMO not worth the effort. I've heard and seen it all before.

Mmy tongfgdue issdg in a knnnoit nnoww. Ddamnn yowu.

[Lucifer]

Mmy tongfgdue issdg in a knnnoit nnoww. Ddamnn yowu.

hold it right there!  as far as i'm concerned, that makes it "ribbed for pleasure".  don't waste it!

[McGiver]

read ken wilber's "eye of spirit" for a useful and thought-provoking take on religions/belief systems/philosophies.

this is utter bollucks.


why don't you call him out, dunc.  it is starting to look like an old fashioned gang up here, by the PC brigade.
at least a callout would make the fight somewhat fair, mohammed!

why don't you get the point that there's a huge difference between being political and being politically correct?  i've explained the difference enough times.  merely sneering at someone's argument because you've labelled it "PC" is another cop out, which people use just to save themselves from actually thinking about something which makes them feel uncomfortable.

ok.

all i was trying to do was give thag some show of support, since so many were vehemently against him.
i really have no opinion about this subject matter.  but it is an interesting read.

[Teejay]

When you read the Koran it is no less bad as Old Testament and Islam can be reinterpreted with little difficulty. There are a lot of different interpretations of Islam.

The main difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity for the first few centuries was a marginal, occasionally persecuted sect. That built in a certain distance from secular power into the basic theology, which survived the long period of State-sponsored churches. True Christian theocracy as opposed to Islamic theocracy is impossible. Sure the laws are going to be inspired by Christian theology, however they will be still secular laws subject to administration and changes by secular authorities.

Islam on the other hand started out as a governing religion, with Mohammad as a ruler, military leader, legislator and prophet. Islam has a code of religiously inspired laws called the Sharia. This is also a major reason why the Muslim world has had major political legitimacy issues from day one, The Sunni/Shia split occurred because of an argument would have be Mohammed's successor as Caliph.

[Lucifer]

When you read the Koran it is no less bad as Old Testament and Islam can be reinterpreted with little difficulty. There are a lot of different interpretations of Islam.

The main difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity for the first few centuries was a marginal, occasionally persecuted sect. That built in a certain distance from secular power into the basic theology, which survived the long period of State-sponsored churches. True Christian theocracy as opposed to Islamic theocracy is impossible. Sure the laws are going to be inspired by Christian theology, however they will be still secular laws subject to administration and changes by secular authorities.

Islam on the other hand started out as a governing religion, with Mohammad as a ruler, military leader, legislator and prophet. Islam has a code of religiously inspired laws called the Sharia. This is also a major reason why the Muslim world has had major political legitimacy issues from day one, The Sunni/Shia split occurred because of an argument would have be Mohammed's successor as Caliph.

nice post, gamma male - not full of unconsidered bilge.    

[odeon]

True Christian theocracy as opposed to Islamic theocracy is impossible. Sure the laws are going to be inspired by Christian theology, however they will be still secular laws subject to administration and changes by secular authorities.

The Vatican? The Papal States? Montenegro? You're oversimplifying.