Peak Australian Islamic groups seek to whitewash religion of religiously motivated terrorism in my view

[Shadow Wolf]

Does the bible contain a verse that says to burn heretics at the stake? I know it was done, but to blame the doctrines of Christianity such atrocities have to be explicitly called for.

Try reading the Bible ***Staff Edit***.
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

 

[Revoltingest]

What did I claim? Reread my post.

It's just some needed advice.

 

[stevecanuck]

No, the Bible definitely wants me dead over a few things. Like knowing Jehovah and leaving and saying to another ket us go worship other gods.
There's stuff like thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. If a man lies with a man as a woman they are both to be put to death, their blood is on their hands. Killing women who aren't virgins on their wedding night. Kill rebellious kids. Kill adulterers. Kill those who work on the Sabbath. Kill everyone (even the cattle) but the women you can keep as sex slaves. Happy is he who dashes your little ones against the rocks.

Yes, I've heard all of those. That Jesus really commanded some horrible stuff.

 

[stevecanuck]

It's just some needed advice.

Again, what dd I claim?

 

[Revoltingest]

No, the Bible definitely wants me dead over a few things. Like knowing Jehovah and leaving and saying to another ket us go worship other gods.
There's stuff like thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. If a man lies with a man as a woman they are both to be put to death, their blood is on their hands. Killing women who aren't virgins on their wedding night. Kill rebellious kids. Kill adulterers. Kill those who work on the Sabbath. Kill everyone (even the cattle) but the women you can keep as sex slaves. Happy is he who dashes your little ones against the rocks.

The Bible wants me dead too....just less as much.
So it'll likely come after you first.
Be aware of your surroundings out in public.
And carry a bullet.

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, what dd I claim?

That isn't the issue.
Did you claim anything?

 

[stevecanuck]

Try reading the Bible ***Staff Edit***.
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

You might find this interesting. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live: A murderous mistranslation?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, I've heard all of those. That Jesus really commanded some horrible stuff.

Of course. He does affirm, after all, that he hasn't done away with, lessened or changed the Laws and Prophets and warned against teaching otherwise.

 

[danieldemol]

I'll check those out.

I know the bible describes the killing of many people, but the question is whether it also "prescribes" it. That's not just a difference; it's the difference. Maybe the answer is in those quotes.

As for Islam, the Qur'an explicitly does prescribe it (2:216 - Yusuf Ali: Fighting is prescribed for you ...)

Why do you consider the Bible as the only source of doctrine for Catholics for example who I believe are not sola scripturists according to my understanding?

'Within Fulcher of Chartres account of pope Urban's speech there was a promise of remission of sins for whoever took part in the crusade. All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins.'

Source: Pope Urban II - Wikipedia.

 

[danieldemol]

You might find this interesting. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live: A murderous mistranslation?

Its irrelevant though as translations believed to be the word of God form part of peoples religious beliefs and thus religiously motivated them in my view.

 

[Augustus]

Tautologically: using two words or phrases that express the same meaning, in a way that is unnecessary and usually unintentional:

I only see one word. I've underlined it for you.

Wrong definition.

That is a rhetorical tautology. Your one was a logical tautology.

See for example:

Tautology | Definition & Facts

Tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied without inconsistency. The notion was first developed in the early 20th century by the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, and the term itself was introduced by the Austrian-born British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein.

www.britannica.com

How do you differentiate a cow from a horse? Well, one's a ......... cow. And the other is a ........ horse.

Imagine all the scientific advances we’ve missed out on because we wasted time actually defining words and concepts in a meaningful way.

We can revolutionise teaching and save the need for years of wasteful and inefficient education.

“Today we will be learning about alcohols and esters. An alcohol is an alcohol and has the properties of an alcohol and an ester is an ester. Class dismissed.”

So now you’ve learned that defining a amorphous and highly subjective word like “religious” by itself is pretty silly, how would you demarcate religious from “not religious” ideologies”?

 

[Glaurung]

In the most extreme Islamic countries there is no line to blur. Their religion and their laws are 'nafs el hagga' (the same thing).

I don't disagree. Islam is a legal system as much as it is a religion. The distinction between the "spiritual" and the "temporal" is Christian.

If Trump wins, I wouldn't be surprised
to see revival of the auto da fe.

I'm not American but I remember when people said Trump was going to inaugurate a far-right Christian theocracy when he won the presidency in 2016. It didn't happen. And it won't happen. Although I do agree that another Trump presidency will be bad for the U.S. and the world, it's not going to be the apocalypse should it happen.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't disagree. Islam is a legal system as much as it is a religion. The distinction between the "spiritual" and the "temporal" is Christian.


I'm not American but I remember when people said Trump was going to inaugurate a far-right Christian theocracy when he won the presidency in 2016. It didn't happen.

Many people make predictions that don't come true.
That wasn't one I made.
Many fundies believe Trump is sent by God to "save
America". More loopy beliefs.
A friend who listens to right wing & Christian radio
all day says they predicted that Obama would refuse
to leave office. That was wrong. But isn't it ironic
that it was Trump who tried to stage a coup to stay
in the White House, eh.

However, you're somewhat wrong about no
theocracy. It creeped somewhat into the law
of the land, ie, SCOTUS, is now determined by a
majority of Catholics (6 of 9). And Trump's justices
over-turned the constitutional right to abortion.
That was a largely Christian vs secular decision.
And now Clarence Thomas has been emboldened
to challenge other rights, eg, gay marriage.
Christian Dominionism has gained strength
since Trump became Prez.

And it won't happen. Although I do agree that another Trump presidency will be bad for the U.S. and the world, it's not going to be the apocalypse should it happen.

Why argue about a point that I've not made?

 

[stevecanuck]

Why do you consider the Bible as the only source of doctrine for Catholics for example who I believe are not sola scripturists according to my understanding?

'Within Fulcher of Chartres account of pope Urban's speech there was a promise of remission of sins for whoever took part in the crusade. All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins.'

Source: Pope Urban II - Wikipedia.

I only get dragged into discussions of Christianity and the bible kicking and screaming. It's everybody's favorite diversion and occasionally I fall for it. As to the pope, he can say whatever he wants and call it Christian doctrine, even if it isn't.

 

[stevecanuck]

Its irrelevant though as translations believed to be the word of God form part of peoples religious beliefs and thus religiously motivated them in my view.

That's where Islam is much more homogenous than Christianity. All Christians understand that the bible is a translation of stories and commands from three (afaik) languages written by about 40 different authors over many hundreds of years, whereas the Qur'an is believed to be direct dictation from Allah to one man over 22 years in the origianl Arabic. It's much easier to glean an agenda from the latter.

 

[stevecanuck]

So now you’ve learned that defining a amorphous and highly subjective word like “religious” by itself is pretty silly, how would you demarcate religious from “not religious” ideologies”?

Okay, ask the same question substituting the word "practices" for "ideologies". Does that change the question?

 

[Augustus]

Okay, ask the same question substituting the word "practices" for "ideologies". Does that change the question?

You seem to have a consistent inability to answer direct questions and usually seem to reply with a question.

Directly answering your question rarely produces a reciprocal response, but let’s try again.

Yes, practices (actions) are different from ideology (beliefs, values and guiding principles) so obviously this changes the question. Actions are often consequences of beliefs though.

No, I don’t think this change makes it easy to demarcate religions from “non religious” belief systems.

So how would you demarcate religious from “not religious” ideologies?

 

[stevecanuck]

So how would you demarcate religious from “not religious” ideologies?

One demarcates physical entities A from B by examing the physical properties of each (I'm willing to bet I'm the first person in history to actually realize that). A quick scan of a cow and a horse precludes the need to investigate futher. A closer look is needed with emus and ostriches.

One demarcates ideological/religious entities A from B by examing the basic tenets of each and whence they came.

Anyway, this rabbit hole is getting very boring. Dig all you want, but I'm done indulging you. Don't forget to declare victory.

 

[Augustus]

One demarcates ideological/religious entities A from B by examing the basic tenets of each and whence they came.

You still don’t conceptually understand the question

That explains a lot…

Anyway, this rabbit hole is getting very boring. Dig all you want, but I'm done indulging you. Don't forget to declare victory.

What an odd thing to say.

You started the conversation by replying to my post to someone else.

You misunderstood the point you replied to so I pointed this out to you. Instead of just correcting your misunderstanding, you tried to be smart with your LOL schtick, then by (incorrectly) being a pedant.

Eventually, you tried to answer the original point again, demonstrating you still didn’t understand it.

Then declared being asked to respond to the exact point you initiated the conversation on was a “rabbit hole” and an “indulgence”.

I’m not sure why someone failing to respond to the point they started to discuss would qualify as a “victory” for anyone, but whatever floats your boat.

As I said earlier, it has been very informative as to why you struggle to understand something like Islam with any degree of nuance though.

 

[danieldemol]

I only get dragged into discussions of Christianity and the bible kicking and screaming. It's everybody's favorite diversion and occasionally I fall for it.

It is relevant to expect the law to treat Muslims and Christians fairly in my view. Personally I'm in favour of naming and shaming both their religiously motivated terrorism.

As to the pope, he can say whatever he wants and call it Christian doctrine, even if it isn't.

It is Catholic doctrine though, which makes it a subset of Christian doctrine in my view.