Religion, what's the point?

[Godfather]

Was hitler a christian crusader or a muslim jihadi?

Neither, but nationalist. Which is just as bad as religious fundamentalism. You just don't get it do you.

 

[MJJ]

We convinced them that the bible is largely shite. Even the proper nutty Christians now only believe about 10% of what's written in the bible.

Muslims need to become less literalist.

Dont most of them still believe in the core tenets? And thats easier to do with a book like the bible which has many versions and has been corrupted from its original form. The whole concept of Pope( in its previous embodiment) also contradicts the message in every relgious book(not just the quran or the bible).

 

[MJJ]

Neither, but nationalist. Which is just as bad as religious fundamentalism. You just don't get it do you.

If by getting it you mean blaming Islam and religion for all the problems in the world, then no, i dont.

 

[Godfather]

If by getting it you mean blaming Islam and religion for all the problems in the world, then no, i dont.

Who the feck is doing it? But there can be no doubt at all that religion was a major reason for many many wars and is now a reason for a group of bearded feckwits to run around and behead ppl in the name of god. As many have said. Religion certainly is not the sole reason for it. But a big one. And it has always been.

 

[Red Dreams]

they are not Muslims FFS.

 

[MJJ]

Who the feck is doing it? But there can be no doubt at all that religion was a major reason for many many wars and is now a reason for a group of bearded feckwits to run around and behead ppl in the name of god. As many have said. Religion certainly is not the sole reason for it. But a big one. And it has always been.

Again, I can give you the names of the people responsible for the largest genocides in human history and it wont be religiously motivated.

All wars past and probably present and terrorist attacks are caused by a select few people taking their religion and beliefs to the extreme.

It's entirely possible had religion never existed there would be "world peace" right now because nobody would have religion driving them on.

It's a shame people are too stupid to not realise it's all pixies and fairydust.

 

[Sweet Square]

Last year the BBC had an interesting panel discussion with young British Muslims about the concept of caliphate in the modern world, the range of opinion was quite diverse.

Here it is for anyone interested:






Apologies if this was posted at the time.

It might be a load of rubbish(Chances are that it is) but I watched that video on Youtube and few mentioned that the guy on the end(In the white) who had a well.. a extremist view point that he ended up leaving the UK to join ISIS. Couldn't find anything myself(Although it was only a quick google) but thought it was worth mentioned. It's a interesting debate

Was hitler a christian crusader or a muslim jihadi?

Wasn't that he a believer nordic gods or something along those lines. Although the evil levels of a anti semitism certainly had a lot to do with Christianity not to mention that the Vatican used to celebrate Hitler's birthday.

 

[Di Maria's angel]

We convinced them that the bible is largely shite. Even the proper nutty Christians now only believe about 10% of what's written in the bible.

Muslims need to become less literalist and see their favourite book, religion and god as fallible.

Which is one of the reasons they are called extremists.

 

[Sweet Square]

Who the feck is doing it? But there can be no doubt at all that religion was a major reason for many many wars and is now a reason for a group of bearded feckwits to run around and behead ppl in the name of god. As many have said. Religion certainly is not the sole reason for it. But a big one. And it has always been.

Well said.

 

[MJJ]

It might be a load of rubbish(Chances are that it is) but I watched that video on Youtube and few mentioned that the guy on the end(In the white) who had a well.. a extremist view point that he ended up leaving the UK to join ISIS. Couldn't find anything myself(Although it was only a quick google) but thought it was worth mentioned. It's a interesting debate


Wasn't that he a believer nordic gods or something along those lines. Although the evil levels of a anti semitism certainly had a lot to do with Christianity not to mention that the Vatican used to celebrate Hitler's birthday.

He might have some beliefs, but was countering a point that if there was no religion we would have world peace right now.

 

[2cents]

On the supposed need for an Islamic 'reformation', here's the gist of something I've posted elsewhere in this forum.

In the broad sense that the Christian Reformation was about challenging established authority and hierarchies, and about encouraging laymen to read and interpret texts for themselves, then we can say that is pretty much what happened in the Arab Middle East and India in the last century and a half, aided like the Reformation by the growth of literacy and the printing-press.

Instead of the authority of the Catholic Church, some famous reformers such as the Egyptian Muhammad Abduh and the Indian Sayyid Ahmad Khan, or the Ahl-i Hadith movement, challenged the authority of the repetitive theological treatises, commentaries, and other forms of scholarship produced by the ulema of the four madhahib ('orthodox' schools of Sunni thought and law) over the centuries which the madrasas had almost mindlessly come to depend upon, and rejected automatically referring to the the locally favoured madhab. Instead they encouraged Muslim laypeople to go straight to the original texts themselves and if possible to use ijtihad (independent reasoning) to interpret them (or ask someone more qualified if unsure). That is ultimately what has produced modern-day Islamic activism in all its various forms - whether driven by Salafi or modernist movements dominated by laymen, or by ulema reacting to retain some measure of their traditional authority. And it is why there is such a range of debate and doubt over the interpretation of various texts, since the abandonment of centuries of scholarly tradition has given rise to a free-for-all in which everything in Islam is up for debate.

Pushing the analogy any further just ties you up in knots, since the structures of authority are completely different, and there is nothing in Islamic history to compare with the religious wars produced by the Christian Reformation, although some would argue that the current upheavals in the Islamic world (and remember, these wars are primarily aimed at other Muslims) are a product of the process I've described above.

 

[Sweet Square]

He might have some beliefs, but was countering a point that if there was no religion we would have world peace right now.

Oh ok fair enough.

Although I don't anyone has said this(The part in bold).

 

[MJJ]

Oh ok fair enough.

Although I don't anyone has said this(The part in bold).

Would be hard for me to counter a point, if no one had said it.

All wars past and probably present and terrorist attacks are caused by a select few people taking their religion and beliefs to the extreme.

It's entirely possible had religion never existed there would be "world peace" right now because nobody would have religion driving them on.

It's a shame people are too stupid to not realise it's all pixies and fairydust.

 

[Sigma]

they are not Muslims FFS.

This.

 

[Seveneric]

You shouldn't expect coherence from something like the Quran, or any kind of religious text. They're all a huge pile of bollocks.

Though like any book, all those expressions (whether the peaceful or aggressive ones) have a context in the "story", which is often lacking when one just quotes a random passage. This is an assumption of mine, as I never read it.

A scholar would probably be able to explain it better as am not really that qualified but will try my best to explain. Islam does prohibit the killing of innocents, their are numerous examples from the life of our Prophet where he forbid his followers from killing innocents after conquering a country or even robbing them. The other parts probably have some context attached to them, specially since its in arabic and am guessing the translation might be off. If they were true, it would contradict the life of the Prophet which makes little sense even if you believe that there is no God.

from what little I know if Islam, it means to submit/surrender. goal of islam is to achieve peace after forcing everyone submit/surrender to their god allah and their prophet muhammad.

and qu'ran, of course, is contradictory book full of BS that is left to human interpretation just like the bible so that it can be manipulated by the people who interpret it.

Thanks. Can't say I fully understand this yet, but I guess expecting sense from a book translated and handed down over centuries is futile.

 

[Revan]

Was hitler a christian crusader or a muslim jihadi?

Christian, but not a christian crusader. He didn't make wars in the name of Christianity. He was a radical nationalist, which is as bad.

 

[Sweet Square]

Would be hard for me to counter a point, if no one had said it.

I just meant in this thread, I'm sure it's been said million times else where.

 

[Hellboy]

Religion is just used, it's an excuse and the problem of terrorism have far more ramifications than religion.

 

[Snow]

Can't you prove it by the fact that there has been many mass murders in recent history that have been distinctly nonreligious in nature? Or that war has taken place in secular societies, with the source of the conflict being political and economic instead of religious?

That said, I do agree religion is an incredibly powerful tool to influence the masses and it has been shown throughout history that this power can and will be corrupted to carry out atrocities. As a result the world could well be a better place without religion now. I just don't necessarily agree that something wouldn't replace the void. It might not replace it fully and thus the net result would be positive for the world, but that power to influence the masses will always exist and it will always be corrupted.

You can to agree which is why I specifically mentioned crossing the border. I can't think of an act of mass murder being committed in a country by a person not living there that didn't involve religion or war. In the extremists eyes this it is war so technically it falls under the same umbrella but they're doing it in the name of their religion. Christianity did it too a long time ago so they have that in common with Islam.

The people who committed these acts yesterday were all young men. Those guys are easiest to sway.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

3 of the biggest wars and of the ethnic cleansing occurances since haven't been religion based nor caused in any shape of form. People should worry more about the capacity for humanity to commit evil on each other than using things like religion as scape hosted excuses.

 

[VorZakone]

3 of the biggest wars and of the ethnic cleansing occurances since haven't been religion based nor caused in any shape of form. People should worry more about the capacity for humanity to commit evil on each other than using things like religion as scape hosted excuses.

How about we start electing decent people into public functions instead of greedy psychopaths with double agendas. Yes, I'm talking about the very politicians that are a significant reason for the misery in this world.

 

[njred]

Does the Quran promote violence is the bigger question. There seems to be many passages in which it does. I'm sure there's passages that promote peace as well. The Old Testament was a violent book,but I don't think there are many passages which basically tell people to go out and kill or put a heavy tax on non believers. I admit ignorance, but can anyone of knowledge of the book claim otherwise? Taking the book literally would give impressionable believers to justification to cause violence it seems. So if a Mullah teaches strict interpretation, isn't he promoting violence?
How can you combat that?

 

[Member 55443]

Religion is just used, it's an excuse and the problem of terrorism have far more ramifications than religion.

This is what I have been thinking the past few days, and what I came here to discuss. I'm wondering if religion has anything to do with the whole idea and actions of ISIS other than purely a recruitment tool. You have to ask yourself, not who are the misfit footsoldiers duped to a degree into committing atrocities, but who is in charge of these operations? I'm sure this 'organisation' is making hundreds of millions of dollars through oil production and no doubt other revenues, and whoever is profiting from this, I'm sure is no more interested in becoming some kind of martyr than you or I, and surely these are the people who are more dangerous than the odd balls who are recruited to carry out these attacks. If not religion then I've little doubt they would just use other means to carry out similarly horrific attacks, maybe just with less suicide variations.

 

[Mihajlovic]

Christian, but not a christian crusader. He didn't make wars in the name of Christianity. He was a radical nationalist, which is as bad.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a Christian in the truest sense of the word. Hitler was nothing. A Christian does exactly what Christ has done, it's that simple.

 

[Mihajlovic]

Does the Quran promote violence is the bigger question. There seems to be many passages in which it does. I'm sure there's passages that promote peace as well. The Old Testament was a violent book,but I don't think there are many passages which basically tell people to go out and kill or put a heavy tax on non believers. I admit ignorance, but can anyone of knowledge of the book claim otherwise? Taking the book literally would give impressionable believers to justification to cause violence it seems. So if a Mullah teaches strict interpretation, isn't he promoting violence?
How can you combat that?

The Old Testament stuff you are referring to were written thousands of years ago, they applied only at a certain time, at a certain locality and the judgement was spoken only against specific tribes. That entire chapter in regards to the use of violence during the described conquest of Canaan is done and finished literally 3000plus years ago. There is no ambiguity about this. It is nothing but a part of ancient history.

 

[Revan]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a Christian in the truest sense of the word. Hitler was nothing. A Christian does exactly what Christ has done, it's that simple.

Not many Christians in world then.

 

[njred]

The Old Testament stuff you are referring to were written thousands of years ago, they applied only at a certain time, at a certain locality and the judgement was spoken only against specific tribes. That entire chapter in regards to the use of violence during the described conquest of Canaan is done and finished literally 3000plus years ago. There is no ambiguity about this. It is nothing but a part of ancient history.

But the Quran was written when -7th century? There's a lot of extremism in it apparently. There are portions in which it makes it a moral obligation for believers to go out and use deadly force as a way to spread Islam- correct or not? If it is correct, then taking these words literally gives justification for true believers. That is scary.

 

[Mihajlovic]

Not many Christians in world then.

There are a few but not nearly as much as the numbers would indicate.

 

[RedTiger]

How about we start electing decent people into public functions instead of greedy psychopaths with double agendas. Yes, I'm talking about the very politicians that are a significant reason for the misery in this world.

I always thought it was a mistake to ever vote for people who's life ambition is to be in positions of power (probably 99% of the world's politicians)

 

[Mihajlovic]

But the Quran was written when -7th century? There's a lot of extremism in it apparently. There are portions in which it makes it a moral obligation for believers to go out and use deadly force as a way to spread Islam- correct or not? If it is correct, then taking these words literally gives justification for true believers. That is scary.

Not an expert on the Kuran but this would also be my assessment. Those passages in a sense appear timeless and binding simply because the way in which it is written doesn't give you clear historical/ spatial boundaries. Although I'm sure the Muslims in this thread would argue it all depends on the context.

 

[Revan]

But the Quran was written when -7th century? There's a lot of extremism in it apparently. There are portions in which it makes it a moral obligation for believers to go out and use deadly force as a way to spread Islam- correct or not? If it is correct, then taking these words literally gives justification for true believers. That is scary.

Not exactly correct. THere are verses spreading violence, but they are mostly either directed on specific events, or in specific conditions (like fighting in your ground when the enemy attacks). As far as I am aware, there is nothing which allows killing civilians ('we will spread terror' IIRC is God talking for himself, not 'you have to spread terror').

On the other side, Quran says that it is for every place and each time. So someone can justify his actions on those verses. And then all it comes how people interpret and teach it. There is no clear answer for that.

I could be wrong though, near a decade since I read the two 'holy' books (Bible and Quran).

There are a few but not nearly as much as the numbers would indicate.

You barely see completely selfless people who turn on the other cheek if you hit them.

 

[rednev]

Not exactly correct. THere are verses spreading violence, but they are mostly either directed on specific events, or in specific conditions (like fighting in your ground when the enemy attacks). As far as I am aware, there is nothing which allows killing civilians ('we will spread terror' IIRC is God talking for himself, not 'you have to spread terror').

On the other side, Quran says that it is for every place and each time. So someone can justify his actions on those verses. And then all it comes how people interpret and teach it. There is no clear answer for that.

I could be wrong though, near a decade since I read the two 'holy' books (Bible and Quran).

.

Are you claiming that the Quran doesn't permit the death penalty?

 

[rednev]

Qur'an (6:93) - "Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah?" If the death penalty is prescribed for lesser crime, then it stands to reason that it should be imposed for the most "wicked".

Qur'an (33:57) - "Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained"

Qur'an (33:61) - [continues from above] "Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter."

----------

Here we have just one example of where the killing of civilians is permitted by the Quran.

 

[Feedingseagulls]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a Christian in the truest sense of the word. Hitler was nothing. A Christian does exactly what Christ has done, it's that simple.

I think most theologians and philosophers of religion would beg to differ with that "definition".

It is, after all, rather difficult for us to be the divine incarnated as a mortal, then to sacrifice that divine incarnation to save all humanity...
The water into wine, walking on water and other miracles are a bit of a challenge too.

 

[njred]

Are you claiming that the Quran doesn't permit the death penalty?

Good question, because it seems it does according to some passages. If that's true, then again, strict adherence to these rules would cause more chaos that is not going to end...ever.

 

[rednev]

Good question, because it seems it does according to some passages. If that's true, then again, strict adherence to these rules would cause more chaos that is not going to end...ever.

It absolutely does. There is no question about it and I don't think any serious Islamic scholar would suggest otherwise, let alone any impartial (non-Muslim) scholar of the Quran.

 

[Revan]

Are you claiming that the Quran doesn't permit the death penalty?

Nope.

I am saying that IIRC, just killing civilians (like yesterday) isn't allowed. But as I continued in my post, there are some verses which can be interpreted both ways. Like

As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Someone might interpret that Allah would do so, someone else might decide to do it himself cause he is a soldier of Allah.

Anyway, considering the large number of verses which can be easily 'misinterpreted', and considering the large number of terrorist attacks by radical Islamic groups, then surely there is some large problem there. Obviously, the solution might be if Islamic States gets secularized and then people won't give more importance to those verses, than Christians do to some crazy stuff in Old Testament.

Until that happens, we will see similar stuff like yesterday.

 

[Mihajlovic]

I think most theologians and philosophers of religion would beg to differ with that "definition".

It is, after all, rather difficult for us to be the divine incarnated as a nortal, then to sacrifice that divinity to save all humanity...
The water into wine, walking on water and other miracles are a bit of a challenge too.

You don't need to be divine and perform miracles if you want to follow Christ. All you have to do is love your neighbour and your enemy, forgive those who persecute you, do not judge, show compassion towards those who are socially excluded, and be willing to sacrifice your own life to save someone else's.

Imagine if people would just try it out for a week or so.

 

[Revan]

@rednev

By not killing civilians, I was meaning that people cannot decide to do so. Obviously, if there is a process, they can be executed. And leaving Islam - as far as I am aware - is punishable by death.

Saudi Arabia - a state which is quite similar to ISIS, and whose law is based on a strict version of Quran - have a death penalty for atheism, and recently passed a law which labells atheists as terrorists.

 

[Revan]

You don't need to be divine and perform miracles if you want to follow Christ. All you have to do is love your neighbour and your enemy, forgive those who persecute you, do not judge, show compassion towards those who are socially excluded, and be willing to sacrifice your own life to save someone else's.

Imagine if people would just try it out for a week or so.

How many people you know in real life who do so? In my case, it is somewhere near zero.