I know differently. You pose it as if it counts everywhere and for every muslim. The FACT most do not act upon any of these violent messages should tell you something as well. Maybe reread the last couple of posts. You seem to be the one who is implying that
As I said Circles ! You Do That a Lot YOU are the only Person I see in this Thread That Has Difficulty Reading What has Been Posted !!
Just a couple of things - In medieval Europe, or in England anyway, the civil code of criminal law wasn't taken verbatim from the Bible, and neither were the punishments they meted out. They were pretty barbaric and cruel, but it was human ingenuity that thought up things like trial by combat, trial by ordeal, cutting off ears, and the whole range of other unpleasant stuff. Because it was human invention, when the time came, it could be changed. They didn't have to go against the Bible, because the punishments didn't come from that source. The Church did persecute people for heresy and witchcraft. I'm not actually sure though if the punishment of burning at the stake is enjoined in the Bible. But because of the separation of church and state, it was possible to reign them in as secular society got gradually going. Marked distinction to Islam, where punishments are specified in the Koran, and therefore can't be easily changed without going against the book. Turkey is one Muslim country where they have had a more secular agenda, and it maybe that other Muslim countries could follow the same path if there was a will to do that. But I don't see much sign of that. Rulers like the Sauds use Islamic law as a terror tactic to control their people and maintain their grip on power. I'm not promoting Christianity, but I think it was a lot easier for a Christian culture to make the transition from mediaevalism to the modern epoch with it's humanist and secular values enshrined in law. So really I do think there's a big problem with Islam specifically because it goes way too far in laying down laws, punishments and a general blueprint for society. Still, as we know there are many non violent Muslims who seem to have come to some kind of compromise. The trouble is that as long as it's there in black and white, there's always going to be people who will want to carry out the entire thing in detail. I accept that you can be a liberal Christian, but the phrase 'liberal Muslim' is rarely if ever heard. Moderate is the usual tag.
Asmo is taking the liberal point of view that a religion can be (and maybe should be) a living, dynamic thing, not entirely constrained by its past. The way my "real" life friend explains it to me, the Bible is their first source of truth, but the teachings of contemporary church leaders are also to be given considerable weight, as the church evolves with the times and society changes. They consider the Bible to be useful and important, but not perfect; not something to be blindly followed in all situations. To me, this sounds more like a philosophy than a religion; sort of like what I do with Zen Buddhism and Taoism. But they choose to call it a liberal church instead. I'd hate to be given the assignment of defending liberal religion in a formal debate with an atheist or agnostic. It would be tough. Still, it's much less toxic to society than fundamentalism. Many liberal churches fully accept and respect the LGBT community, and focus most of their energy on helping people in need, rather than giving people lists of things they can't do. Though more common up north, every larger Southern city (100,000+) seems to have one or two. Their members often include local Democratic Party leaders.
I AM JEALOUS! This young man in Australia wrote something so str8 forward and that succinctly expresses my thots exactly, that I wish I was the author of it. I think it clears up the misconception that I hate all Muslims because I openly state that I hate Islam. (I also hate Christianity as well - not all Christians) Hayden November 16, 2015 RELIGION! Perhaps I haven't made it quite clear, so let me clear it up. I do not hate people for being religious, I hate religion, I will always hate religion until the day it stops being the reason for people to be murdered, bullied and belittled. (How horrible of me, right?). I don't care what you believe, no matter how stupid I think it is, no matter how much I can't possibly understand how you believe or have faith in it, I don't care, you're a free person, believe what you want, you might think I'm stupid for not believing it, that's fine, so long as you're just as okay with me not believing it, as I am okay with you believing it. I do however, as stated, hate religion for being the hate mongering thing it is, so if you follow any of the specific beliefs inside of it that do any horrible things, that's when I'm going to hate you as a person. I do not hate Muslims for being Muslim, I hate Muslims killing people in the name of their faith, just as I hate Christians belittling gay people in the name of theirs, or any other religion for that matter treating anyone badly in any way due to what they believe. I do not assume all Muslims are terrorist, nor do I assume all Christians are homophobic, nor do I assume anyone who is religious is out to hurt other people physically or emotionally. I do however think that if your religion to this day, is still the reason for people to be killed, it needs changing. If it's the reason for people being belittled and bullied, it needs changing. If it holds people who don't believe the same thing, to be any less human or have any less worth, it needs changing. It doesn't matter how little the percentage is, if the teachings in your faith say those things and people still follow it, it needs changing. If it straight out says something and most people go "that's horrible" or "that's stupid" or even "that's inhumane" and they ignore it, that's fine, but if there's a percentage that are for what ever reason, reading or learning these things and not doing that and it leads to hatred and death, it needs changing. Just letting it go, has gotten us nowhere, its got more people bullied, hurt and killed, as i said, believe whatever it is you wish to, that is your choice, but it is my choice and many others choice, as a decent person to not let the hatreds in your very same religion just slide without criticism. The only thing we do however for the disagreement, is talk and debate. Our biggest problem with religion as a whole is, a percentage big enough to do many terrible things are bullying, belittling and murdering for the same disagreement and they consider it justified, which is why we believe it needs changing.
Shale, I've found the perfect religion for you, Pastafarianism! http://www.wikihow.com/Become-a-Pastafarian Unfortunately, some heretics have already crept into it. They meet at Olive Garden.
I am familiar with Pastafarians. Several of my FB friends are members. One woman insisted that her driver license pic be wearing a collander on religious freedom grounds. BTW, Olive Garden is my favorite restaurant. R'Amen.
I was listening to Public Radio today and some guy was on claiming that every Islamic scholar world wide has condemned radical Islam. He claimed that the terrorism and sharia law folks are not following Islam, but are instead using it as an excuse to justify their actions and to entice disaffected young men to their cause. Just thought I'd throw that in.
Atheists tend to prefer fundamentalism, because it's obviously absurd and makes a good target. If "making it up as they go along" means thinking critically about it, I'm one of those "liberal Christians".
Do you find that to be a credible claim? I thought leaders of the major factions within Islam rarely agreed on anything. How does that guy define a scholar? It's hard to be passionately opposed to liberal Christianity. You guys just don't give us a lot of material to work with. Doing good things for somewhat questionable reasons is far from being a high priority problem.
I don't think it's entirely true. Some Islamic scholars have been banned from entering the UK because of their stated views. One example - and there are others - is the case of Zakir Naik. From Wiki: Speaking of Osama bin Laden, Naik stated in a YouTube video that he would not criticise bin Laden because he had not met him and did not know him personally. He added that, "If bin Laden is fighting enemies of Islam, I am for him," and that "if he is terrorizing America – the terrorist, biggest terrorist – I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist. The thing is that if he is terrorizing the terrorist, he is following Islam. Not very encouraging.
I don't know. I just threw it out there for everyone to consider. I don't feel like doing the research....okay I'll do a little: This one is pretty good as it offers a point by point refutation based on the Quran, Muslim Scholars Release Open Letter To Islamic State Meticulously Blasting Its Ideology another: Think Muslims Haven’t Condemned ISIS? Think Again More Again So, I'm sure it's not every Islamic scholar, but most.
It may be a good future topic for a rainy winter day to take a look at how and where people draw the line between a religion and a philosophy. Both extreme ends of that continuum are easy enough to define, but they meet somewhere in the middle. If a so-called religion can be too easily and frequently changed by its participants, it becomes a floating mass of opinions that never stops changing. If it is tethered to a supernatural being, that linkage needs to be clearly defined.
I'm new here. I came to this forum about Islam hoping to find some kind of heartfelt condemnation from the Muslims about the Paris attacks and instead I find "Conflicted." To the author of this malicious vitriol, you are not conflicted at all. You want nothing more than to destroy all religion. You demonstrate a blinding unremitting hatred of Christianity, the Muslim religion and in fact all religions. That you would use this terrible tragedy to promote your own bullshit atheist views puts you on an equal footing with the Islamic extremists. Fuck 23% of the global population? Not likely. Yet It must really suck to realize that you are part of a dying breed. Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
To say that I think the world would be a much better place if all the Abrahamic religions never existed is an understatement. No Judaism, Christianity or Islam - Imagine the possibilities. How long should I have waited before writing about my rage at these fucked up Muslim terrorists? I wasn't even concerned about this until the tragedy happened. Perhaps I should go change the references to January of this year, when some other Muslim terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo. Or, consider it a 14-year very delayed reaction to the 3K ppl killed by Muslim terrorists in the U.S. in 2001. Could be a cumulative response to all of those that made me "use this terrible tragedy to promote my" rage.
last I checked the Muslims dont have warplanes with bunker bombs, that carry 600lbs of explosives.. They dont have billion dollar aircraft carriers decked out with the latest killing technologies .. Maybe if they did, the war of the roses would be a little more conventional, but its not. The United States and its allies have exploited the people of the middle east. Everyone pumping gas in their cars and using plastics has blood on their hands.. 14yrs ago a 14yr old Muslim seen his family and homeland destroyed, 14yrs later hes a grown man with vengeance on his mind .. Very little to do with Islam, pay back is a bitch..
He may be anti and you (and even me) may find that bullshit but that doesn't make atheist views bullshit or puts them or Shale in particular on equal footing with islamic extremists. It seems in fact an out of proportion exageration Atheists and agnosts really are not going anywhere Seems better ignored, Shale. I at least have a hard time taking him seriously...
