Religion, what's the point?

Wasn't Mohammed a warrior as well as a prophet? It just seems that it gives more evidence that it(the book) could be very destructive in the wrong hands(teachers of extremists ect..).
Anyway with none to no knowledge of the religion, it's getting above my pay scale to discuss. Too bad no one here can really clarify what is meant by the passages in question and should they be taken literally or not by real Muslim believers.
 
Revan said:
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



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.
Click to expand...

I think that is a very misleading line, because who is to decide on the definition of a civilian? It's not like the Quran was written with the Geneva Convention in mind. Going by the thousands of people Muhammad had killed according to the Quran and Hadith, their categorisation as non-civilians is very different to how most people today would define a non-civilian. He literally executed entire tribes of people (including children)...something that today would be classified as genocide. Based on Muhammad's slaughter sprees it would be very easy for modern day jihadists to justify the killing of the citizens of a country that is bombing their caliphate.
 
Mihajlovic said:
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.
Click to expand...
Except God is a delusion and therefore there are no miraculous powers. And what you are describing apart from that are secular humanist values, not definitively Xtian ones.
 
njred said:
Wasn't Mohammed a warrior as well as a prophet? It just seems that it gives more evidence that it(the book) could be very destructive in the wrong hands(teachers of extremists ect..).
Anyway with none to no knowledge of the religion, it's getting above my pay scale to discuss. Too bad no one here can really clarify what is meant by the passages in question and should they be taken literally or not by real Muslim believers.
Click to expand...

Yes, and a very brutal one at that. One of the things that sets Islam apart from other religions is that its main figure was an absolutely terrible person who killed and raped to excess. When such a man is regarded with such reverence....this is a problem.
 
rednev said:
Yes, and a very brutal one at that. One of the things that sets Islam apart from other religions is that their main figure was an absolutely terrible person who killed and raped to excess. When such a man is regarded with such reverence....this is a problem.
Click to expand...
Well then a question I would have for a typical believer is, "do you think homicide is justifiable in certain situations according to the Quran"?
I want to hear that answer.
 
Revan said:
How many people you know in real life who do so? In my case, it is somewhere near zero.
Click to expand...

I know a few. And I know a few more who at least aspire to reach those ideals. You wouldn't really think that forgiving someone would be such a hard thing to do. Or bloody caring for people who can't repay you. It's so ridiculously simple and yet so difficult at the same time.
 
It's amazing what religions can do though...

My recent investigations into Japanese culture have shown that Buddhist priests (you know... kill no animals etc) were involved in inter-temple disputes where the opposition where killed and temples burned to the ground. Mind boggling idiocy!!
 
rednev said:
Yes, and a very brutal one at that. One of the things that sets Islam apart from other religions is that its main figure was an absolutely terrible person who killed and raped to excess. When such a man is regarded with such reverence....this is a problem.
Click to expand...

:lol: you clearly have no understanding of Islam.
 
Feedingseagulls said:
It's amazing what religions can do though...

My recent investigations into Japanese culture have shown that Buddhist priests (you know... kill no animals etc) were involved in inter-temple disputes where the opposition where killed and temples burned to the ground. Mind boggling idiocy!!
Click to expand...

Tibet under the Dalai Lama basically had a Buddhist version of Shari'a Law, with amputations, etc.
 
Feedingseagulls said:
Except God is a delusion and therefore there are no miraculous powers. And what you are describing apart from that are secular humanist values, not definitively Xtian ones.
Click to expand...

Listen I have no intention going into a deep theological debate about the existence of God and whatnot, I was just responding to Revan's post about what constitutes a Christian according to the Christian faith.
 
njred said:
Well then a question I would have for a typical believer is, "do you think homicide is justifiable in certain situations according to the Quran"?
I want to hear that answer.
Click to expand...

In my experience you have to be very specific. An apologist of the Quran could easily answer no by twisting the definition of homocide. Instead, perhaps ask the question "do you think it is ever justifiable to take a sword and behead a human being" and the only logical response from a believer must be "Yes.."
 
Sigma said:
:lol: you clearly have no understanding of Islam.
Click to expand...

Let me guess, Muhammad wasn't a rapist because sexual slavery was legal at the time and he treated his concubines relatively well?
 
Mihajlovic said:
Listen I have no intention going into a deep theological debate about the existence of God and whatnot, I was just responding to Revan's post about what constitutes a Christian according to the Christian faith.
Click to expand...
But your idea of what constitutes a Xtian is completely wrong...if commonplace.

A Xtian is someone with faith that Jesus died on the cross for his sins, to save him and give the chance of eternal life. Modelling yourself on his ethical behaviour is meant to stem from that faith, not be the essence of Xtianity.
 
rednev said:
In my experience you have to be very specific. An apologist of the Quran could easily answer no by twisting the definition of homocide. Instead, perhaps ask the question "do you think it is ever justifiable to take a sword and behead a human being" and the only logical response from a believer must be "Yes.."
Click to expand...
Not that different to US capital punishment if you phrase it that way though.
 
Feedingseagulls said:
But your idea of what constitutes a Xtian is completely wrong...if commonplace.

A Xtian is someone with faith that Jesus died on the cross for his sins, to save him and give the chance of eternal life. Modelling yourself on his ethical behaviour is meant to stem from that faith, not be the essence of Xtianity.
Click to expand...

What's up with this Xtian/ Xtianity crap? It's weird.
 
Just standard abbreviations in pagan/occult circles when I was studying those subjects in the 80s-90s. Also meant to stop the reader briefly to encourage reevaluation, given that you may be looking at unfamiliar aspects of those religious variations.

If I had to guess I would reckon dropping the t would be a slightly later American trait.
 
Feedingseagulls said:
Just standard abbreviations in pagan/occult circles when I was studying those subjects in the 80s-90s. Also meant to stop the reader briefly to encourage reevaluation, given that you may be looking at unfamiliar aspects of those religious variations.

If I had to guess I would reckon dropping the t would be a slightly later American trait.
Click to expand...
Given the "X" in Xian/Xianity symbolises the cross, which is a placeholder for the word "Christ", I would reckon the version without the 't' is and has always been conventional, as far as convention about unorthodox abbreviations go. I've never seen someone spell it Xtmas for instance.
 
rednev said:
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.
Click to expand...

:lol: Thats weak even for you.

If it continues from above why is the number going from 57 to 61? :lol:
 
All I know is that if the Quran was meant to encourage a peace loving religion then it was an extremely sloppily drafted book. When I read it I certainly didn't come away with the overall impression of peace and love.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
All I know is that if the Quran was meant to encourage a peace loving religion then it was an extremely sloppily drafted book. When I read it I certainly didn't come away with the overall impression of peace and love.
Click to expand...
Tbf none of the religious books I've read do so. The Bible has its share of violence, and so does the Mahabharat. They are representative of the times they were written and collated in, not of some ideal utopia.
 
Akshay said:
Tbf none of the religious books I've read do so. The Bible has its share of violence, and so does the Mahabharat. They are representative of the times they were written and collated in, not of some ideal utopia.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We have much better books now.
 
MJJ said:
:lol: Thats weak even for you.

If it continues from above why is the number going from 57 to 61? :lol:
Click to expand...

I just randomly read the entire chapters 33-35. The reoccurring theme is the promise of a severe and painful punishment for disbelievers and there are two references to immediate acts of cruelty, one the cutting to pieces of unbelievers and two the putting in chains. The first one seemed to be of universal nature, wherever a hypocrite is found that continues to cause trouble the authority is given to seize him and cut him to pieces. There is another earlier reference to the slaying and taking captive the people of the Book which seem to be connected to a specific event.
 
AtlMuppet said:
Given the "X" in Xian/Xianity symbolises the cross, which is a placeholder for the word "Christ", I would reckon the version without the 't' is and has always been conventional, as far as convention about unorthodox abbreviations go. I've never seen someone spell it Xtmas for instance.
Click to expand...
True. I reckon the need for a foolish consistency produced exactly that change.
 
Vato said:
Yes, of course there are. But they are still a very small minority in comparison.
Click to expand...

And the muslims most of the time come from family not very religious. Though I have met muslims from very religious families and the men were crazy, the women were fine but the men were living in the medieval era.
 
Mihajlovic said:
I just randomly read the entire chapters 33-35. The reoccurring theme is the promise of a severe and painful punishment for disbelievers and there are two references to immediate acts of cruelty, one the cutting to pieces of unbelievers and two the putting in chains. The first one seemed to be of universal nature, wherever a hypocrite is found that continues to cause trouble the authority is given to seize him and cut him to pieces. There is another earlier reference to the slaying and taking captive the people of the Book which seem to be connected to a specific event.
Click to expand...

Pscht! You are not allowed to criticise Islam by actually reading and quoting it. It's obviously a religion of piece and everyone behading ppl according to Qoran is a non believer and everything happening in the name of god has nothing to do with religion at all. I mean it's actually crazy suggesting it. The Crusades and Christianity? What no! Religion is not the problem there.
 
Religion is the most sophisticated method of controlling a society I have ever seen. The people who invented it were brilliant.
 
The trouble with such conversations is that nuance is everything and that tends not to work well on the interwebs.
 
On the one hand religion can't claim that terrorism is nothing to do with religion, in the same way that you can't claim that rape is nothing to do with sex. Of course religion/sex are not the main motivator for rape/terrorism but they are involved and can't be ignore totally. That said to concentrate on these factors alone won't solve anything. Context is very important.
 
VorZakone said:
Religion is the most sophisticated method of controlling a society I have ever seen. The people who invented it were brilliant.
Click to expand...

Which religion are you talking about? Christianity in Europe is hardly controlling the society. If anything the reverse is in effect.
 
Godfather said:
Pscht! You are not allowed to criticise Islam by actually reading and quoting it. It's obviously a religion of piece and everyone behading ppl according to Qoran is a non believer and everything happening in the name of god has nothing to do with religion at all. I mean it's actually crazy suggesting it. The Crusades and Christianity? What no! Religion is not the problem there.
Click to expand...

Much tougher case to argue, though. There just isn't anything in the life and teaching of Christ that calls for a perpetual holy war, conquest, taking captives, etc. In fact one of the main doctrines includes the concept of the kingdom of God which is NOT to be established on earth, by any means whatsoever. The person of Christ is just fundamentally different to Mohamed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.