Scripture gives bad behaviors credibility

[Etritonakin]

There are many examples of this. Here's ISIS (horrifically), taking sex slaves based on Islamic scripture:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/w...t&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article

But we see Christians behaving badly as well. Denying condoms to AIDs torn Africa, shielding pedophiles from prosecution, denying climate change, and on and on.

If the perpetrators of these actions relied on old books that weren't in vogue, they'd get a tiny fraction of the support they get. ISIS's recruitment activities are empowered because they can so easily use Islamic scripture as marketing material. This would be much harder if ISIS was trying to use a 1400 year old book that no one ever heard of.

Coupled with the fact that most of scripture is horribly flawed from moral and ethical perspectives, it strikes me that scripture is a LOT more trouble than it's worth.

Why do folks keep defending their scripture?

p.s. Please note that I'm not wrapping "religion" into the question, in this thread I'm trying to keep scripture separate and distinct from religion.

If there were no scriptures, men would find other justification or excuse for their actions.
It would not change a thing.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Hi DawudTalut,

As populations grow and weapons become more powerful, we must all converge on Universal Human Rights. Until now, Islam tends strongly AGAINST human rights - this is true right up the level of the OIC. I hope for all of us that Islam either undergoes serious reformation, or that it shrinks in the world.

Augustus,

Is your Nazi and commie comparison for real, or is this just a gambit? This particular argument doesn't hold up to even the most basic scrutiny, do we have to go over it again? (Think about how religion, fascism, and secularism compare to each other - or don't - when it comes to dogma.)

As far as scripture's "good influences", wouldn't it be the case that purer, more consistent moral teachings would do a far better job of helping societies than the seriously flawed scriptures the world is currently saddled with?

There is no room for any subjectivity in materialism. It only provides room for facts. So with the aid of science that is more efficient destruction of all subjectivity than any that the world has seen before. That is why the West with it's materialism invented and popularized nazism and communism, which are the biggest evils of history by far in my opinion.

Nazism and communism were much more popular at universities than with the population in general is my impression of it. There were thousands of eugenics study programs at universities. And whole universities were "red", as in that communism held favor there.

And the nazi's and communists were defeated by democracies, which were also in the West. And to a large extent they defeated each other, communists killing nazi's and vice versa. In any case atheists / materialists with their denial of freedom are not the defenders of humanity at all, they are the worst anti-human in history. Not to say that the current radical Islam isn't dangerous, but it does not compare with communism and nazism if you ask me.

 

[icehorse]

If there were no scriptures, men would find other justification or excuse for their actions.
It would not change a thing.

I agree to some degree. As the world goes on, conflicts are sure to occur. Ultimately, conflicts are solved by talking or by fighting. When a person believes he has the perfect, unbendable, unevolve-able, "perfect" ideas (such as scripture), real conversations become impossible.

 

[icehorse]

There is no room for any subjectivity in materialism. It only provides room for facts. So with the aid of science that is more efficient destruction of all subjectivity than any that the world has seen before. That is why the West with it's materialism invented and popularized nazism and communism, which are the biggest evils of history by far in my opinion.

Nazism and communism were much more popular at universities than with the population in general is my impression of it. There were thousands of eugenics study programs at universities. And whole universities were "red", as in that communism held favor there.

And the nazi's and communists were defeated by democracies, which were also in the West. And to a large extent they defeated each other, communists killing nazi's and vice versa. In any case atheists / materialists with their denial of freedom are not the defenders of humanity at all, they are the worst anti-human in history. Not to say that the current radical Islam isn't dangerous, but it does not compare with communism and nazism if you ask me.

Your understanding of science (and more importantly critical thinking) is wrong. There is a lot of room for subjectivity AND for the unknown in science. The difference is that critical thinkers admit when they don't know stuff, and people who rely on scripture pretend to know things they don't. Now it's certainly true that in general science tries to replace subjectivity with objectivity when it can, but no reputable scientist would claim to have a totality objective view of the universe.

But make no mistake, critical thinkers and scientists love art and music and nature and the cosmos as much as anyone (and I think more than most).

As far as Nazis and fascists go (and please, let's not confuse communism with fascism), those ideas were absolutely fraught with dogmatic thinking.

Finally, I think your use of the terms "atheist" and "materialist" aren't really appropriate here. It could be that some of these folks feel the way that I do about scripture, but for the purpose of the OP, I think both ideas are orthogonal. Put another way, it's false to claim that a person is EITHER a believer in scripture OR a materialist. There are many other possibilities.

 

[Etritonakin]

I agree to some degree. As the world goes on, conflicts are sure to occur. Ultimately, conflicts are solved by talking or by fighting. When a person believes he has the perfect, unbendable, unevolve-able, "perfect" ideas (such as scripture), real conversations become impossible.

True -but that is only the fault of scripture if the scripture is truly in error. It is the fault of men if they twist truth to their own will or obey scripture which aligns with their own evil will.

True scripture, true understanding of it and true adherence to it would solve all conflicts -otherwise it cannot possibly be true.

Scripture might tell us to not kill, steal, lie, etc. -but men will find excuses and make exceptions for themselves.

 

[icehorse]

Hi Etritonakin,

But scripture is rife with error, are you really disputing that?

 

[Augustus]

Augustus,

Is your Nazi and commie comparison for real, or is this just a gambit? This particular argument doesn't hold up to even the most basic scrutiny, do we have to go over it again? (Think about how religion, fascism, and secularism compare to each other - or don't - when it comes to dogma.)

As far as scripture's "good influences", wouldn't it be the case that purer, more consistent moral teachings would do a far better job of helping societies than the seriously flawed scriptures the world is currently saddled with?

Your point is about a blanket rejection of scripture, you don't get to pick and choose the positives and negatives of this. it doesn't matter about individuals, just the totality.

I'm not religious and have no horse in this race, you have to accept the rough with the smooth though.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Your understanding of science (and more importantly critical thinking) is wrong. There is a lot of room for subjectivity AND for the unknown in science. The difference is that critical thinkers admit when they don't know stuff, and people who rely on scripture pretend to know things they don't. Now it's certainly true that in general science tries to replace subjectivity with objectivity when it can, but no reputable scientist would claim to have a totality objective view of the universe.

To replace subjectivity with objectivity does not make any sense. The statement "the painting is beautiful", cannot be replaced with an objective statement. But the pathology to surpress and destroy subjectivity runs wild at universities, regardless that it doesn't make any sense. Acknowledgement of the human spirit, on a subjective basis, is generally frowned upon in universities. All questions about what is in the spiritual domain are reconstrued as objective matters of fact, and consequently the entire spiritual domain is denied for lack of evidence. Scientists commonly regard emotions as measurable processes in the brain.

So there is a clear pattern of systematic and efficient destruction of all subjectivity, for the reason that it is not objectivity, the likes of which is unique in history. The head vs heart struggle is a common human occurence, but it takes on a whole new dimension with the ruthlessness of science. That is why nazism and communism squarely belong to the modern age, and are not some regression to the middle ages or something. And the evil is still looming large, in my estimation.

Certainly we cannot criticize Islam from the point of view of Western science, because Western science is highly immoral. Islam can be criticized from the point of view of common discourse. Or so to say that knowledge which have been given everybody, the knowledge that comes naturally. I don't really know how radical Islam functions, it is kind of obscure. But no doubt there is a denial of human emotions in radical islam, just as there is a denial of emotions in modern science.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

The problem is the scriptures especially Islamic practice a form of revenge law.
Im sure if the rapist was captured he would be made to face a system of justice for his actions, 12 years old wow is sick. The guy is scum id keep him alive for weeks
Revenge is a basic knee jerk emotional instinct these people are 20th century barbarians

 

[icehorse]

Your point is about a blanket rejection of scripture, you don't get to pick and choose the positives and negatives of this. it doesn't matter about individuals, just the totality.

I'm not religious and have no horse in this race, you have to accept the rough with the smooth though.

No, that's not my point - read the OP again. I never claimed that scripture was benefit-free. The claim was that it's more trouble than it's worth.

 

[icehorse]

To replace subjectivity with objectivity does not make any sense. The statement "the painting is beautiful", cannot be replaced with an objective statement. But the pathology to surpress and destroy subjectivity runs wild at universities, regardless that it doesn't make any sense. Acknowledgement of the human spirit, on a subjective basis, is generally frowned upon in universities. All questions about what is in the spiritual domain are reconstrued as objective matters of fact, and consequently the entire spiritual domain is denied for lack of evidence. Scientists commonly regard emotions as measurable processes in the brain.

So there is a clear pattern of systematic and efficient destruction of all subjectivity, for the reason that it is not objectivity, the likes of which is unique in history. The head vs heart struggle is a common human occurence, but it takes on a whole new dimension with the ruthlessness of science. That is why nazism and communism squarely belong to the modern age, and are not some regression to the middle ages or something. And the evil is still looming large, in my estimation.

Certainly we cannot criticize Islam from the point of view of Western science, because Western science is highly immoral. Islam can be criticized from the point of view of common discourse. Or so to say that knowledge which have been given everybody, the knowledge that comes naturally. I don't really know how radical Islam functions, it is kind of obscure. But no doubt there is a denial of human emotions in radical islam, just as there is a denial of emotions in modern science.

You're arguing against arguments I never made. If you want to start a separate thread concerning objectivity vs. subjectively, it might be an interesting discussion. But your topic has little if anything to do with my claim that scripture is more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Looncall]

Scripture is a tool that villains use to hoodwink the gullible, the vulnerable, the stupid etc.

That would at least be more difficult without the imagined authority of scripture.

 

[DawudTalut]

Hi DawudTalut, As populations grow and weapons become more powerful, we must all converge on Universal Human Rights. Until now, Islam tends strongly AGAINST human rights - this is true right up the level of the OIC........

Peace be on you.
OIC is no more than Oh I see.

All Messengers come to establish rights of God and rights of human. Same was true with true Islam.

One wishes those who are engaging in brutal acts on any level by using name of Islam, and bringing bad name to Islam by their misdeeds should read the following:

‘O mankind, We have created you from a male and a female; and We have made you into tribes and sub-tribes that you may recognise one another. Verily, the most honourable among you, in the sight of Allah, is he who is the most righteous among you. Surely, Allah is All-knowing, All-Aware.’ (Quran ch49: v14)

‘Verily, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; and forbids indecency, and manifest evil, and wrongful transgression. He admonishes you that you may take heed.’ (Quran ch16:v91)


The Holy Prophet of Islam (pbuh) reminded Muslims in his farewell address:
"''An Arab has no preference over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab over an Arab; nor is a white one to be preferred to a dark one, nor a dark one to a white one.” While he was saying this the Prophet Muhammad ( صلى الله عليه وسلم ) raised his hands and joined the fingers of the one hand with the fingers of the other and then said: “Even as the fingers of the two hands are equal, so are human beings equal to one another. No one has any right, any superiority to claim over another. You are as brothers. Do you know what month this is? What territory we are in? What day of the year it is today?” The Muslims said in reply, they knew it was the sacred month, the sacred land and the day of the Hajj. Then the Prophet Muhammad
( صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “Even as this month is sacred, this land inviolate, and this day holy, so has God made the lives, property and honor of every man sacred. To take any man’s life or his property, or attack his honor, is as unjust and wrong as to violate the sacredness of this day, this month, and this territory.""
https://www.alislam.org/egazette/eGazette-August2007.pdf


More reading:
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Islam-HR.pdf
www.jalsasalana.org/mauritius/2010/speeches/Human_Rights_and_Islam/

 

[Augustus]

No, that's not my point - read the OP again. I never claimed that scripture was benefit-free. The claim was that it's more trouble than it's worth.

I know that, and I think that the statement 'scripture is more trouble than it is worth' is a very difficult one to sustain in the face of the evidence.

The problem is that you aren't making a narrow point like 'secular humanism is better than scripture based society', but instead 'getting rid of scripture = improvement'.

The 'getting rid of scripture = improvement' argument is damaged by the fact that societies that try to radically split from their history have often ended up tyrannical - French Revolution, Communism, Nazi Germany, etc.

When you argue against religion/scripture in general you can't simply ignore these 'inconvenient' examples and pretend they are some kind of an anomaly. That is being intellectually dishonest.

 

[icehorse]

Hey DawudTalut,

The problem with quoting scripture is that Muslims cannot agree which verses they should agree with and which they should either ignore or which have been abrogated. I trust that you take these peaceful passages to heart, but over the last 1400 years millions of Muslims have taken the opposite view, and the problem is that because Muslims hold the scripture to be perfect and unalterable, there is not room for discussion and compromise, there is only violence.

 

[icehorse]

I know that, and I think that the statement 'scripture is more trouble than it is worth' is a very difficult one to sustain in the face of the evidence.

The problem is that you aren't making a narrow point like 'secular humanism is better than scripture based society', but instead 'getting rid of scripture = improvement'.

The 'getting rid of scripture = improvement' argument is damaged by the fact that societies that try to radically split from their history have often ended up tyrannical - French Revolution, Communism, Nazi Germany, etc.

When you argue against religion/scripture in general you can't simply ignore these 'inconvenient' examples and pretend they are some kind of an anomaly. That is being intellectually dishonest.

Sorry Augustus, yours are strawman arguments. I made it clear that I was discussing scripture as distinct from religion. For example, I'm sure that there are religions that take the approach of fostering community, encouraging spirituality, and teaching good morals and ethics, all while supporting secularism and critical thinking, and without the need for scripture. I have little issue with this sort of religion.

 

[Etritonakin]

Hi Etritonakin,

But scripture is rife with error, are you really disputing that?

No -but the nature of the errors need to be understood.

It depends which scriptures you are referring to -and what you mean by error.

The first problem is that human languages are based on -and from the perspective of -a limited understanding of things in the first place.
They leave room for much misunderstanding. A perfect or "pure" language would be based on -and from the perspective of -complete understanding of things.
"Zep 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent."

The same is true of absolute truth -it would not be from our perspective, but from the perspective of one who knew the whole truth about everything.

So -true scripture would necessarily be from "God".

Then -even if you have the truth written down in imperfect language, it can be misunderstood -man can impose his own preconceptions onto the words being read -and you also have the problem of man altering the words based on imperfect understanding, or for other reasons.

(Potential alteration of scripture was a consideration....
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.)

For example... in some translations of the bible, Passover is changed to Easter. That is an error, but not the fault of scripture itself. Easter is another spelling of Ishtar/Astarte -chief goddess of the Babylonian Mystery religion. What's that doing in there?
Another example is when a word can have many meanings....

Based on the definitions of the words, both translations that follow are possible....
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void;

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen 1:2 And the earth had become waste, and ruin;

The second allows for any amount of time between the completion of the Earth -its becoming waste and ruin -and the events that follow.

and again.... the following seems to personify the "holy spirit" -which has led to the trinity doctrine (or vice-versa). First -there is capitalization -which suggests a proper name -which is not original.
Then, there is the translation of "he" -which can just as correctly be translated "it" -"whom" which can be translated "which" -and also confusion as to whether "he" or "it" or "whom" or "which" refers to the comforter, the Father, Christ, etc...
[my notes in brackets below -possible translations in bold]

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he [the Father or the Comforter?] may abide with you for ever;
Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth [is the Father the Spirit of truth -or is the Comforter?] ; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you [the Father shall be in one -or the Comforter?].

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that it may abide with you for ever;
Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; which the world cannot receive, because it seeth it not, neither knoweth it: but ye know it; for it dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Then... in the next line..... Joh 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

and then.....
Joh 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

So -what or who is the comforter? How many individual persons are being discussed? How is everyone going to be in the others? If Christ is leaving, and sending another comforter -but it will be Christ that comes to us... ?????

All of that can leave on rather confused -but that is not to say the truth has not been expressed. It is not necessarily understood.
...............

Perhaps you could pick one "error" to discuss?

 

[icehorse]

Hi Etritonakin,

It strikes me that you want to eat your cake and have it too? You cannot take both of the following two positions at the same time, you must choose one:

1 - Scripture is the perfect, unalterable word of god.
2 - Scripture is man made, subject to interpretation and revision.

(I suppose you could claim that scripture is the imperfectly executed word of god, but that creates its own set of problems.)

 

[Augustus]

Sorry Augustus, yours are strawman arguments. I made it clear that I was discussing scripture as distinct from religion. For example, I'm sure that there are religions that take the approach of fostering community, encouraging spirituality, and teaching good morals and ethics, all while supporting secularism and critical thinking, and without the need for scripture. I have little issue with this sort of religion.

What do you even mean 'scripture as distinct from religion'? We don't have Christianity without the Bible or Islam without the Quran.

It's not a strawman, you are just shifting your argument. Your point wasn't that 'religions without scripture would be better better than religions with scripture' but 'scripture is more trouble than it is worth', which must take into account existing scripture based religions.

Scripture acts as a brake on change, good when it prevents negative changes and bad when it prevents positive changes. The problem is we tend to lack the ability to predict the effect of changes on the future.

You can't just choose to say 'scripture made these bad deeds more legitimate' yet ignore that 'adherence to existing religious scripture would have prevented these bad deeds'.

As you said to someone else, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[icehorse]

What do you even mean 'scripture as distinct from religion'? We don't have Christianity without the Bible or Islam without the Quran.

Actually sometimes there are sects or denominations that do!

It's not a strawman, you are just shifting your argument. Your point wasn't that 'religions without scripture would be better better than religions with scripture' but 'scripture is more trouble than it is worth', which must take into account existing scripture based religions.

Agreed.

Scripture acts as a brake on change, good when it prevents negative changes and bad when it prevents positive changes. The problem is we tend to lack the ability to predict the effect of changes on the future.

You can't just choose to say 'scripture made these bad deeds more legitimate' yet ignore that 'adherence to existing religious scripture would have prevented these bad deeds'.

As you said to someone else, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I'm not ignoring anything. And I'm also not primarily doing an historical analysis. Let's take "The Ten Commandments" as they apply to 2015: First off, would you content that these are - in any stretch of the imagination - the ten most important moral guidelines we should pursue today?

Assuming you wouldn't claim that, then look at the enormous effort that goes into the cherry-picking and interpreting and arguing over these outdated ideas. Couldn't we easily come up with a cleaner, better, far less controversial set of guidelines? How about the UNDHR?