"Religion of Peace?"

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well somewhere along the line over the last 2000 years someone decided that bride stoning was no longer a good idea. And the scripture didn't change, right? So at some point society updated morality. The church is forced to keep adjusting its relationship to increasingly errant scripture. It used to be only 5% was wrong. Then it was 10% wrong, now who knows, 40% wrong?

You have a very strange way of reading scripture. That the Bible contains parts that are viewed as historical and that portrays behaviors we don't personally partake in or endorse doesn't mean that that part of the Bible is "errant". It's merely documenting a historical culture, a story or a myth.

 

[icehorse]

You have a very strange way of reading scripture. That the Bible contains parts that are viewed as historical and that portrays behaviors we don't personally partake in or endorse doesn't mean that that part of the Bible is "errant". It's merely documenting a historical culture, a story or a myth.

And I'll ask again: When the scripture was originally written, stoning brides was sometimes a good idea. As time passed it became a bad idea. The scripture however did not change. Are we agreed so far?

At some point, some person decided that that part of the scripture should be viewed as "historical". By what means did they make that determination?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And I'll ask again: When the scripture was originally written, stoning brides was sometimes a good idea. As time passed it became a bad idea. The scripture however did not change. Are we agreed so far?

At some point, some person decided that that part of the scripture should be viewed as "historical". By what means did they make that determination?

Cultures change, obviously.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I've never claimed that YOU were. But this equating of atheism to Stalinism is a common tactic and it's just not accurate. All of these guys, Stalin, Mao, and so on, created cults of personality (is that the expression?) which were to replace the existing religions with a new flavor of dogma.

Sorry for delays. Replying between patients.
I know you didnt, I'm just using myself as an example.
Atheism is not anti-dogma and cults of personality, while they can be religious (though not always), are not theistic (unless they actually say X person is a god, and Pol Pot and Mao were certainly not considered to be.)
Those regimes were atheistic, no question about it. But to argue that 'you are atheist, therefore your beliefs are equitable to the beliefs of Stalinists is inaccurate.
It is also inaccurate to say 'You are Christian, therefore your beliefs are equitable to the conquistadors' or 'You are Muslim, therefore your beliefs are equitable to Isis.'

 

[icehorse]

Cultures change, obviously.

Let's refresh the context here. All I'm saying is that you got your morals from society not from scripture. In this post, I sense you might be close to agreeing with my claim.

 

[icehorse]

Atheism is not anti-dogma and cults of personality

I would agree that the two are technically orthogonal (i.e. not-related or independent).

But in practice, most atheists are anti-dogma.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Is Islam a "religion of peace" as Muslims and an increasing number of people would have us believe?

With the current ongoing atrocities being carried out on practically a daily basis the question is asked and answered in the affirmative by Muslims, politicians and the public alike. But who are these people who are given air-time on TV, radio and the public leftist largely controlled media?

Is there another version of Islam which is being suppressed and hidden from general public viewing?

Facebook has recently submitted to demands from Muslims who accuse non-Muslims of the charge of "blasphemy" to have comments removed and at the same time blocked an advert promoting a Christian film. So where are we going with all this?

“Your ad wasn’t approved because it doesn’t follow Facebook’s Advertising Guidelines for language that is profane, vulgar, threatening or generates high negative feedback,” Facebook reportedly wrote to producers of the film. “Ads can’t use language that insults, harasses or demeans people, or addresses their age, gender, name, race, physical condition or sexual preference.”

I would say 'no'. If the violent, intolerant parts of Islam (I'm talking about the doctrine, not the followers, mind) don't make it violent then the peaceful aspects like charity and the like don't make it peaceful.

One of the most frustrating parts about this sort of argument is that Muslims who defend Islam so often cite the actions of other religions' adherents or the doctrines of other religions as a sort of 'we're not worse than them' argument (tu quoque fallacy) while at the same time accepting the doctrine of Islamic exceptionalism - that Islam is the complete & pure religion of God, that all others are either corrupted versions of originally pure doctrines or at worst purely man-made with no divine revelation. So basically they try to set Islam up as being superior to other religions, then try to defend their position by using inferior religions as a benchmark for what the rest of us should put up with from Islam & its followers.

99.999% of Muslims are peaceful.

Now when you say this, do you mean that 99.999% of Muslims don't actually engage in acts of violence themselves? Because while that might be true, the number of Muslims who hold attitudes sympathetic with such violent & intolerant actions is far larger than many would like to admit.

 

[Aberamentho]

I am a Muslim and I am certain it is a peaceful religion.

I am certain that the people commiting said atrocities work for people who want to destroy Islam and what better way than to pretend you are Muslims but don't practice what it teaches, which is peaceful, but practice vile deeds to stain Islam in the minds of the gullible and in need of justification for hatred.

Because it is nothing new for Europeans to slander Islam, it's been that way forever and now we have America in on it.

However, IS is not a religion and doesn't represent the 1.5 billion Muslims on 6 continents who have nothing to do with the mere thousands who give it a bad name.

Talk about a few bad apples spoiling the bunch!

And they aren't even apples!

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I would agree that the two are technically orthogonal (i.e. not-related or independent).

But in practice, most atheists are anti-dogma.

I disagree, and have said as much before. In fact I'm willing to bet there are still more dogmatic atheist communists in the world as there are any other variety of atheist, let alone the religiously dogmatic atheists and the dogmatic anti-theists.

But like I said, nobody is responsible for the behaviors of others simply by sharing an umbrella term like Christian, Muslim or Atheist. Which was my point.

 

[Aberamentho]

I doubt you learned your morals from your scripture. My guess is that you brought good morals into your studies of your scripture and you used those pre-existing good morals to know which parts of scripture to agree with and which to disagree with.

Or maybe I have it wrong! Are you one of those people who believe that if a husband discovers that his bride is not a virgin she should be stoned to death?

I think you watch too much television my friend! They love to portray Muslims as barbaric, but who is this non virgin you know that got stoned, that's terrible?

What was her name?

 

[Aberamentho]

A common definition of "Islamist" is any Muslim who thinks that Sharia should be the law of the land. That's the definition I use. This Sharia worldview is in stark conflict with secularism. The two are simply not compatible. So I guess it's a matter of definition, but for my money, it's unlikely for secularists to be at peace with anyone who wants the world to be ruled by Sharia. Sadly, their are hundreds of millions of Islamists in the world. Maybe 25% to 40% of all the world's Muslims are Islamists based on this definition.

If a Muslim wants to live in a Sharia system of law it is their culture and worked for a very long time.

However, importing it to European countries or America is not something that Islam has any wish to do, in any form or sect.

They can live Sharia in Europe and America, anywhere, it doesn't need to be enforced by the law of the land to be practiced.

Just like American Jews and Halakha. Same thing.

Except the television hasn't told you to fear Halakha, although it is a bigger threat, because, well, you know why.

Noachide Law, anyone?

 

[icehorse]

I think you watch too much television my friend! They love to portray Muslims as barbaric, but who is this non virgin you know that got stoned, that's terrible?

What was her name?

Actually in this case I was discussing the Bible

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Let's refresh the context here. All I'm saying is that you got your morals from society not from scripture. In this post, I sense you might be close to agreeing with my claim.

It's like @Augustus said, in how society and scripture influence each other. They aren't formed in a vacuum. I view humanity's understanding of God in terms of how He wishes us to live in relation to each other, to be evolving and yet timeless.

 

[Aberamentho]

Actually in this case I was discussing the Bible

Apologies then.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

There is no such thing as a religion of peace. None of them; not even Buddhism.

 

[Aberamentho]

Actually in this case I was discussing the Bible

Since you brought it up...

How about the guy killed for gathering kindling on the Sabbath?

Jephthahs daughter? Human sacrifice willingly done because of fear of God and His acceptance of as a condition for victory?

Revenge at Schechem.

The treachery of David?

 

[Aberamentho]

There is no such thing as a religion of peace. None of them; not even Buddhism.

Thats pessimistic.

Of course there is a such thing, all are if practiced as preached.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

That's realism. All religions have elements that while not outright hostile, are not peaceful either.

 

[Aberamentho]

That's realism. All religions have elements that while not outright hostile, are not peaceful either.

Actually that's a human trait, present wherever humans dwell, not specific to religion or any one segment of society, indeed everywhere you go you will encounter human nature.

Unless you get a cabin in Montana or something.

 

[icehorse]

Don't forget society got its morals, in part, from scripture.

It's an endless mobius effect.

I would say that when the scriptures were created - by humans - they documented the best moral thinking of the day.