Whitewashing religions?

[danieldemol]

My point is that we must differentiate between Islam the religion and [the] “Islamic State”, because the latter is not a religion

Who are you to decide their religion is not a religion? And perhaps more importantly on what criteria are you defining religion without arbitrarily cutting out say - the writers of the Jewish scriptures who wrote things as violent in their works as Islamic state did in my view?

and far from all Muslims interpret the Quran as they do. These are important differences, that should not be ignored or trivialised.

Humbly,
Hermit

Why do you think I'm ingnoring or trivialising them?

 

[danieldemol]

When we study religious scripture as Scripture, we do so theologically and in calm spiritual reflection; not as we would an archaeological piece of work, analysed academically.

I think the trouble is that far from studying scripture in a state of calm spiritual reflection, people who take the scriptures at their word and believe them are likely enough to become panicked by such imagery.

People who observed the recent thread Why do some Atheists say Christianity is harmful? and followed it through will be aware of the Christian OP apologising in the posts that follow that Jews were murdered out of concern for their souls. Now the question to me is shouldn't an All-knowing God be aware of the ridiculous kind of dangerous panic that such imagery inspires in the hearts of it's believers? If the answer to that question is yes (and I believe it is) then either God did not write that (what I believe) or God intended the fanatacism that results from believing in it.

However either case seems contradictory to your view that violent religions are not religions and that Islam is a religion as I see it.

 

[justaguy313]

Imam Ahmed Al Hassan from him is peace said that 99% of the religion today is corrupt. And that includes the so called religion of islam and its sects.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Imam Ahmed Al Hassan from him is peace said that 99% of the religion today is corrupt. And that includes the so called religion of islam and its sects.

All religions have truths and mistakes. The idea is to find the religion you think is the most truthful and helpful, not one that is perfect.

 

[metis]

The idea is to find the religion you think is the most truthful and helpful, not one that is perfect.

Or to belong to one and accept the truths found in others as well. I don't think any religion or philosophy has a monopoly on truth.

 

[justaguy313]

All religions have truths and mistakes. The idea is to find the religion you think is the most truthful and helpful, not one that is perfect.

Exactly. That's why our idea is to share the common ground, not the differences. Basically all religions have truths in it but they were infiltrated by the clergy and the scholars

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Exactly. That's why our idea is to share the common ground, not the differences. Basically all religions have truths in it but they were infiltrated by the clergy and the scholars

Clearly, sometimes you have to say "this religion is wrong on this particular issue." Something cannot be both x and not x at the same time. For example, Jesus is either god or not god. He cannot simultaneously be both.

 

[justaguy313]

Clearly, sometimes you have to say "this religion is wrong on this particular issue." Something cannot be both x and not x at the same time. For example, Jesus is either god or not god. He cannot simultaneously be both.

We believe that Jesus was not absolute God, but more like God in creation. He also created birds out of clay and other creations, so he was indeed also a creator so to speak.

 

[Bthoth]

Saw this statement on another sub-section;
"We shouldn’t be trying to demonise any religion"
It was followed by what looked to me to be a complete whitewashing of all religious texts so I thought to myself, true we shouldn't be trying to demonise any religion because that would be both dishonest and harmful, but isn't it just as dishonest to whitewash religions and their texts? Could this not also be a potential source of harm through lowering the guard of one against peoples whose intentions are hostile towards them?

After 911, the hate for islame was so bad, that hindi were being murdered just for wearing a rag on their head.

In today's world, the flagrance of people willing to attack about anyone not having the same beliefs goes in every direction.

I am now observing that the atheist and agnostic type are the nicest of most all posters. The buddha and hindi, rarely waste their time arguing or debating religion.

For example suppose I were to say - the theology of Islamic State never teaches anything but the love of God and humanity, to be of upright and virtuous character and to live in peace with one another.

You would be telling far more truth than many would accept and then be lambasted by the peanut gallery.

If people were to buy what in my view is such an evident dishonesty could they not be harmed by a people with clear intentions to militantly subjugate them theocratically if they were to let their guard down against such a people?

So I propose that when dealing with dogmatic narratives, rather than demonise them or whitewash them, we should simply seek to understand them accurately as we can, as to go to either extreme (of demonising or whitewashing them) is dishonest and potentially harmful as I see it.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are Thank You for that solid observation, empathy and kindness.

 

[metis]

For example, Jesus is either god or not god. He cannot simultaneously be both.

Unless one uses "essence".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My point is that we must differentiate between Islam the religion and [the] “Islamic State”, because the latter is not a religion and far from all Muslims interpret the Quran as they do. These are important differences, that should not be ignored or trivialised.

Humbly,
Hermit

The Islamic State doesn't represent all Islam, but it is part of the spectrum of Islam. Probably a small part, but definitely a part.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

The Islamic State doesn't represent all Islam, but it is part of the spectrum of Islam. Probably a small part, but definitely a part.

No, [the] Islamic state is not a religion.

I don’t like adding links but here’s one regardless, because people really don’t seem to get that Islamic state is a militant organisation that (ab)uses religion (that of Islam) to dominate and suppress territory.

Islamic State | Mapping Militants Project

cisac.fsi.stanford.edu

 

[vulcanlogician]

Your thoughts?

I dig it. Understand the doctrines first. Islam is not a religion about beheadings. It's only certain people who see beheadings as (somehow) central to their faith. But there are plenty others who practice Islam who never think about beheadings at all. It's only skeptical folks like you and I who say to these folks, "What about all the beheadings?" And we kind of corner these folks into answering for the religion of others.

It's human nature to want to speak up for your own tribe. I grew up Catholic. I've been an atheist for decades now, but it still irks me when some protestant mischaracterizes some aspect of Catholicism. Why? I couldn't tell you. I reject nearly all the tenets of Catholicism, yet I still feel compelled to defend it. Strange but true.

People who practice a given religion needn't answer for everything the religion supposedly espouses. But by the same token, I also concur that "whitewashing" a religion is equally pointless and deceptive.

 

[DavidMcCann]

In English law we have the offence of gross negligence manslaughter, where death is the result of a grossly negligent (though otherwise lawful) act or omission on the part of the defendant. In most US states the term would be Involuntary manslaughter. In other words, we are held responsible for the unintentionally evil consequences of our actions when any reasonable person would see that the action in question could well have such consequences.

Surely the same rule should apply to scriptures? Even if the Bible or Quran did not explicitly encourage violence, their language should not be such as to provide an excuse for it. If a group of people commit enormities in the name of a religion and they can site texts which appear to justify this, then surely the religion should be held responsible. To say that the extremists are not true members of their faith is no more than the "true scotsman" fallacy.