Religion of Peace

[philam15]

well the religion is surely not the source of the cult...the people who turned it into a cult-like religion are to blame, I mean honestly If there were more christian people there in the middle east I suppose they could have turned the bible around and make it like what the Muslim religion "is" now

 

[pixiedustboo]

Should have titled this, "Religion of Pieces"

 

[MontyB]

dont think you'd even need to do that monty, a lot of things on that list read like your garden variety murders almost


what bulldog is doing is tarring an entire faith with the same brush, coated with the moral failings of a view illiterate, violent bigoted throwbacks who, chances are, haven't even read a koran with their own eyes



kinda like calling all catholics peadophiles

I was just trying to make his research a lot easier (I am sure he is interested presenting balanced cases and given his constant criticism of the "biased media" I am certain he doesn't want to fall into the same trap).

I also felt that with the Serbian/Bosnian thing being so recent it would be a fine example of how the Orthodox Christians can coexist harmoniously in a predominantly Muslim area bringing peace, love and moonbeams to all.


Now if you will excuse me I have strange desire to shower for a day or two.

 

[senojekips]

I feel that "religion" per se is not the problem, but intolerance. It also seems to me that the more religious (fanatical) a person is, the more intolerant they become of others outside of their group, thus flying in the face of their own teaching.

There is no denying that religion does funny things to people. My wife is an "Avon lady" and has many customers who have over the years become very good friends. When one died several years ago Shirley (my wife) thought that she would go to this ladies funeral as a mark of respect, knowing that she had been very religious. Many of those attending were people whom we both know well, but because Shirley was not of their faith, and whilst they were among their own kind, they completely shunned her, and not one of them so much as acknowledging her, in fact several of them glared her down, as if to say, "What are you here for, this is not your church?

Shirley later stated that it gave her a whole new insight into some of our "good christian" townspeople. Being somewhat pragmatic, none of this surprised me in the least.

 

[bulldogg]

More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2003/madden.htm

More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/death95w.htm

Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html

19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals executed in the last 65 years.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ESPYdate.pdf

“Verses of violence are taken out of context.”​

The Muslim Game:
Verses like, “Slay the infidels wherever ye find them,” were issued during times of war, according to the apologists. They accuse critics who use Qur’anic verses to discredit Islam of engaging in “cherry-picking” (pulling verses out of context to support a position, and ignoring others that may mitigate it).

The Muslims who rely on this argument often leave the impression that the Qur’an is full of verses of peace, tolerance and universal brotherhood, with only a small handful that say otherwise. Their gullible audience may also assume that the context of each violent verse is surrounded by obvious constraints in the surrounding text which bind it to a particular place and time (as is the case with many Old Testament passages).

The Truth:
The truth, unfortunately, is just the opposite. This is why new Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who begin studying the Qur’an and Hadith, are often confronted with an array of disclaimers and warnings by well-meaning Muslims who caution that it takes “years of study” to fully understand the meaning of certain passages. Neophytes are encouraged to seek the counseling of a Muslim scholar or cleric to "help them along" with interpreting what they read.

It is not the verses of violence that are rare, however, it is the ones of peace and tolerance. Neither is the “historical context” of these verses of violence at all obvious from the surrounding text (in most cases).
In the Qur’an, ideas and topics often seem to come from nowhere, emerging almost at random in a jumbled mess that bears no consistent or coherent stream of thought. But, with external references to the Hadith and early biographies of Muhammad’s life, it is usually possible to determine when a Qur’anic verse was “handed down from Allah,” and what it may have meant to the Muslims at the time. This is what apologists opportunistically refer to as “historical context.” They contend that such verses are merely a part of history and not intended as imperatives to present-day Muslims.

But “historical context” cuts both ways. If any verse is a product of history, then they all are. Indeed, there is not a verse in the Qur’an that was not given at a particular time to address a particular situation in Muhammad’s life, whether he wanted to conquer the tribe next door and needed a “revelation” from Allah spurring his people to war, or if needed the same type of “revelation” to satisfy his lust for more women (free of complaint from his other wives).

Here is the irony of the “cherry-picking” argument: Those who use “historical context” against their detractors nearly always engage in cherry-picking of their own by choosing which verses they apply “historical context” to and which they prefer to hold above such tactics of mitigation.

Islamic purists do not engage in such games. Not only do they know that the verses of Jihad are more numerous and authoritative (abrogating the earlier ones), they also hold the entire Qur’an to be the eternal and literal word of Allah… and this is what often makes them so dangerous.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Games-Muslims-Play.htm

“Muslims only kill in self-defense.”​

The Muslim Game:
Muslims often claim that their religion only orders them to kill in self-defense (ie. when their own lives are in danger).

The Truth:
In fact, self-defense is is just one of several conditions under which Muslims are permitted to take the lives of others. The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproved from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life as recorded in Islam’s sacred texts (with which Muslim terrorists are only too familiar).

Muhammad’s career of killing began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved here at all. This was old-school armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot).

The very first battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it lies at the very beginning of the long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed right through the heart of America on September 11th. The Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

Muslims try to justify this early violence by claiming that Muhammad and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in an earlier episode, in which Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. The only Muslim to have died in Mecca was the elderly mother of a Muslim, and she was said to have been overcome by stress.

Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value even than the very lives of others. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. The only thing that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims.

Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded, and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of these were done during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense. To this day, Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy.

Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the East as well, including Iran, Afghanistan and well into the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Games-Muslims-Play.htm

 

[bulldogg]

And for all the Muslim apologists, bon appetite...

“Other religions kill, too.”​

The Muslim Game:
Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence. Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber? Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems?

The Truth:
Because they don’t.

Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man. At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for God.

The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do, and this is what makes it a very different matter.

Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.

Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There were five deadly attacks over a 35 year period in the U.S. Seven people died. This is an average of one death every five years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists have staged over seven thousand deadly attacks in just the five years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.

In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and a radical clergy that supports the terror.

Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Games-Muslims-Play.htm

No matter how you slice it, the religion in its own holy book advocates murder. Convert or die and apostasy is certain death. Show me that in the Bible. The Torah. Buddhist texts. I'll wait, take your time.

 

[Infern0]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.[SIZE=-1] -- Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Some of the acts of intolerance cited in this section were actually ordered by God. Among the most serious were the genocides in which God instructed that every Canaanite newborn, infant, child, youth, and adult be slaughtered by the Hebrews without mercy. Consider two passages from Deuteronomy:
[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2, NIV. 1[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]"...do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." Deuteronomy 20:16, NIV. 1

[/FONT]New Research Sees Correlation Between Violent Bible Passages and Aggression

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/02/27/...etween-violent-bible-passages-and-aggression/

We were not saying that reading the scriptures is bad, but we were pointing out that if a person was seeing that kind of (violent) literature, it could have some negative effects… when you think about terrorists and they say, ‘God will sit in judgment,’ and they sometimes refer to a scripture, our question was, ‘Could that really make a person behave more aggressively?’ And the answer is, yes, it could.

We’re not saying that just in and of itself violent media is uniformly bad but oftentimes there is no redeeming context to it… But if a person dives into (a violent passage) without the context, you could probably get some increased aggression.

Whenever we read ... the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize humankind. And, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel. -- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

 

[Infern0]

and i am NOT a "muslim apologist".....BUT, i will defend innocent members of that faith, from sweeping attacks from misguided fundy members of islam. just as i would do for christian, if that were the problem.

many of these insurgents, and pawns of al quida and such, will be illiterate....and relying on religious leaders to translate the koran for them....and THATS where the problem lies.


christianity has been just as violent and bloodthirsty in the past....but that changed as the bible was translated from Latin, and the people became more literate.


as i suggested before, you are tarring 8 million people with the same brush, would you expect that it would be fair of me to list all the cases of molestation in the catholic church to make the point that all catholics are child abusers?

 

[bulldogg]

Before you attempt to pigeonhole my views on Islam, it would do you good to read my other posts on the subject. You're off the mark by a country mile.

I have already responded to the "poor illiterate muslim pawn" argument with MMarsh some time ago with empirical proof to the contrary. I hate repeating myself.

Two wrongs do not make a right and I don't give a good God damn about what happened three thousand years ago... today, right here, right now, which religion is killing THOUSANDS around the globe? Who is shedding more blood and to what end? When mainstream muslims rise up and denounce these extremists as perverting the religion en masse will I then give credence to it being a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a violent minority. As it stands today their silence is tacit approval. FULL STOP. Cowardice be damned.

 

[MontyB]

But you see this the great weakness in his argument because the whole process comes down to individual interpretation.

However lets leap into the painting with large brushes approach to arguments:

The Bible

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19)

This one is so wide open to interpretation it isn't funny does it mean god will take out of non-believers or should I interpret it as saying to kill non-believers is fine as I am carrying out gods will?

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)

Whole towns seems a bit excessive but hey a guys gotta do what a guys gotta do right?

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)

Well there goes that tolerance thing guess we didn't need that either.

I will leave the Torah and Buddhist faith out of this argument because to date the only people running around claiming the Koran to be "evil" and aggressive seem to Christians you know the religion of tolerance.

 

[senojekips]

Having taken into account all of the arguments on both sides, no one will ever convince me that Christians, or for that matter any other group that relies on fear to spread their teaching is good for mankind.

For every argument there is an equally valid counter argument, I could spend the rest of my days trawling through libraries and the Internet and I'll guarantee that I'd be none the wiser at the end of it all.

A "bad" man dies early or from some horrible affliction, and the religious persons of the world will tell you that "their" god punished him. The same happens to an innocent child or a deeply religious person and they will tell you that god called him to a better place early to save him from the sins of this worldly life. It might fool some kids, but I grew out of boogie man stories when I reached school age.

[SIZE=+1]Do not make statues of gods[/SIZE][SIZE=+1] that look like anything in the sky or on the earth or in the waters. Do not bow down to them or worship them.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]I am the Lord your God. I am a jealous God..."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]Deuteronomy 5:8-9[/SIZE]
​

That doesn't sound like anyone I would want to worship or emulate. He sounds like a god with feet of clay to me. If he didn't wish for man to sin, well,....he had the abillity to make him such that he could not, problem solved.

Choose the relevant chapter and verse of the book to suit your needs, then interpret it the way you want, Lo and Behold! you have a religious man. this applies equally whether you are Christian, Muslim, Calathumpian or other.

Nahhh! it's all just far too "convenient" for me......

 

[Infern0]

^^^
hear hear

 

[MontyB]

^^^
hear hear

Hehe no arguments here either.

 

[bulldogg]

Without religion imagine the world... no moral compass to guide our lives... what's that you have a moral code devoid of religious roots or context? Let's hear it.

And MontyB, psssst, the people who follow the Torah are called Jews and they live in this country called Israel. They seem to have some problems of some kind with their muslims and muslim neighbours. And you might want to ask the majority Buddhist population of Thailand their thoughts on Islam, jihad and all that, they seem to also some sort of problem with them as well.

 

[senojekips]

Without religion imagine the world... no moral compass to guide our lives... what's that you have a moral code devoid of religious roots or context? Let's hear it..

Be honest. Would you call me a person totally without moral compass?

I'll bet you a month's wages that I have higher moral values than many of our more religious brothers and definitely the ones that I know personally. I'm certainly more tolerant than most "Christians" that I know. The most glaring example of their intolerance lies in the fact that they can't even get on with other types of Christians let alone people of a completely different persuasion.

Too many "followers of the faith" (whatever it is) seem to think that they have a prior claim on morality, and it just ain't so in my experience.

 

[MontyB]

Without religion imagine the world... no moral compass to guide our lives... what's that you have a moral code devoid of religious roots or context? Let's hear it.

And MontyB, psssst, the people who follow the Torah are called Jews and they live in this country called Israel. They seem to have some problems of some kind with their muslims and muslim neighbours. And you might want to ask the majority Buddhist population of Thailand their thoughts on Islam, jihad and all that, they seem to also some sort of problem with them as well.

Yeah but much like the various other religions they don't on these boards all I see is someone I strongly doubt is a particularly pious type jumping on the religion bandwagon to push a hatred which oddly enough sounds a lot like the bin Ladens of this world.

 

[Infern0]

Without religion imagine the world... no moral compass to guide our lives... what's that you have a moral code devoid of religious roots or context? Let's hear it.

ER...i'm not religious. i believe in no god.


by your reasoning i should be out raping, pillaging and murdering.


if the only way you can keep your "moral compass" is to base your life around a book 2000 years old...i think you have bigger issues my friend. words in a book can be twisted, bent to others will....or to justify actions that have no earthly justification


at the end of it all, the only person you should hold yourself accountable to is yourself. having some invisible, vengeful and jealous entity hanging over your head is counter productive imo

 

[bulldogg]

I asked for your moral code. I passed no judgement on you. I asked a question. Does the code you live by have roots free of any religion's tenets? Shall I rephrase the question to enhance understanding?

What are the guidelines you live your life by and judge right from wrong on a daily basis? And what are its origins?

 

[senojekips]

My guidelines are based on one thing, Personal Integrity.
From this stems all of the other aims that I try to aspire to. Honesty, Tolerance, Loyalty, etc.

I guess it all comes down to an innate sense of duty to my fellow man. Having no desire to cause ill feeling or damage to those who wish me no harm. There's nothing special about that, because in reality it is no more than a form of self preservation that still allows me to have pride in myself and the way I live my life.

This is what I mean when I state that the "religious" have no prior claim on morality.

 

[A Can of Man]

Senojekips, you have a good point but most of these ethics you speak of actually originate from religion. These days they often pull God away from these messages that were brought to the world through religion.
Even people in America who say they are not Christians actually display a lot of Christian values and beliefs despite the fact that they do not believe in God.
The Protestant work ethic for example is NOT universal.
Honoring one's parents is rooted in religion so old that we don't even know what it originally was.
Do you feel okay with your body being left out to be eaten by vultures or would you rather your body be buried? Usually it is the latter and that too would be something from Christianity.
Do you feel that owls would make a strange meal and that roaches are disgusting? These attitudes often come from religious teaching roots. For that matter, Muslims find dogs and pigs to be disgusting (though this is changing).
Obeying societal rules and negative views on crime also have religious roots.
This is not to say that all people who believe in religion have an excellent moral compass.
We have people in the military who sell military secrets for profit.
We have judges that accept bribes.
Either way I hate arguing about religion. It's an endless cycle of argument that leads to mutual hatred. This is the one thing about Christianity I sometimes dislike... at least the Korean organizations. They go to other countries and practically force feed Christianity to the local populace. I believe that is wrong and brings about useless conflict. To teach others about Christianity is good, to force feed is another matter altogether.
I believe that many of these moral ideals and values that even secular people exhibit originate from religion and now that the world is a bit more comfortable people are thanklessly throwing out religion and ignoring all the GOOD that it's done in the world.
Religion on earth is not perfect because it enters the realm of people and people, regardless of what they stand for, can go wrong.
There are many flaws with religion when it comes to people run organizations but people are overlooking the many good that it has brought to us.
I am by no means a good Christian and for a large part of my life I have been an athiest but I believe a lot of these values we hold to be right and true originated from religion, in my case, Christianity, and therefore I will think twice before throwing it out so unceremoniously.