An example of "Diversity" crossing the moral line.

[jefferiah]

I couldn't give a hoot about the violent incidents mentioned in the Qur'an. The Bible is no different.

The difference is the Koran encourages that violence. The New Testament does not.

[Michael Hardner]

The New Testament does not.

And the Old Testament does.

So there goes your rationale that evil holy books corrupt entire peoples...

[jefferiah]

And the Old Testament does.

So there goes your rationale that evil holy books corrupt entire peoples...

Do you mean wars against the Amalekites and such. Michael Hardner. Bad bad example. Those were specific commands for a specific time. There is no ongoing call for jihad to expand the Dar al Christ or the Dar al Moses. But the Koran and Hadiths say Christians and Jews are the enemy.

Edited November 12, 2007 by jefferiah

[Michael Hardner]

Do you mean wars against the Amalekites and such. Michael Hardner. Bad bad example. Those were specific commands for a specific time. There is no ongoing call for jihad to expand the Dar al Christ or the Dar al Moses. But the Koran and Hadiths say Christians and Jews are the enemy.

There are directions to kill homosexuals, cut off sinful limbs and so forth.

To accredit the financial success of Christianity to its holy books is myopic.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Michael Hardner

[jefferiah]

There are directions to kill homosexuals, cut off sinful limbs and so forth.

To accredit the financial success of Christianity to its holy books is myopic.

And in which nations are they doing this today-- Jewish, Christian or Muslim nations.

[maxsyno]

Marxists tend to be atheist. In fact Marx referred to religion as the'opium of the people'. A form of 'alienation' arising out of the political economy, even before capitalism, and its by product of 'self estrangement' (Hegel's term).

Marx drew from the works of Hegel and Feurerback (sp?).

Hegel argued that the human mind, thought or rather 'spirit'comes before the material world itself in relation to how humanity proceeds in survival.

Feurerback, on the contrary to Hegel asserted that religion is a social phenomenon arising out of the material world and relations of production. People turn to religion in order to 'aspire' to what they would like to be, religion provides an explanation of why people suffer so much and it gives them meaning and hope, much needed, to hide the truth of peoples shoddy life conditions and stunted development.

Marx was more in allignment with Feurerback but took it further to specifically include its direct relationship to and with political economy. In the 1844 Manuscripts published before the volumes of Kapital, he stressed that working with nature together enables human survival and production. The material activity of production then leads to 'ideas' about production, communication and so fourth. Only this way do we realise our 'species being'.

Besides all that, Marxists have always offered a critique of religion as it is still a part of political economy and how we view the world and how we act within it. It will look at different modes of production along with its reflective ideologies as seen between owners and workers, class, class within culture of many whom are religious and have to contend with the rapid changes in production through the ages. New and old religions globally still have to depend/function/react/object in the political economy.

I have not read the Koran, but regardless of whether it is a book like the bible that is riddled with brutality, people that do follow the Koran suffer from the first worlds economy which caters to its dominant form of religion and ideology. We need only look to how policy is continually being debated/ammended over such things as abortion and gay rights in order for the most popular candidate to win as Bush did. I do not think the muslims compromise so much, they do have differences of opinion, but nonetheless due to being lumped together have suffered for it -economically unless the US chooses not to for its own economic benefits.

[Michael Hardner]

And in which nations are they doing this today-- Jewish, Christian or Muslim nations.

Today as in this very day, or in recent times ?

Brutality happens in lots of nations, some with tribal religion, some Christian, some not.

But to associate it with the holy books is incorrect.

[jefferiah]

Today as in this very day, or in recent times ?

Brutality happens in lots of nations, some with tribal religion, some Christian, some not.

But to associate it with the holy books is incorrect.

But the point is you provided one example. Homosexuality. Islam is the only religion which has in its writings an ongoing call toward spreading the Dar al Islam and jihad against the infidel.

[Michael Hardner]

But the point is you provided one example. Homosexuality. Islam is the only religion which has in its writings an ongoing call toward spreading the Dar al Islam and jihad against the infidel.

And as I said, the old testament calls for stoning, killing, dismemberment.

It may be something else other than the holy books causing this, wouldn't you say ?

[jefferiah]

And as I said, the old testament calls for stoning, killing, dismemberment.

It may be something else other than the holy books causing this, wouldn't you say ?

We are talking about warfare not legal punishments. Old Testament Jewish laws and punishment are not applicable to Christianity. Moral laws do apply. But not ritual cleanliness laws, and not one of the punishments. This is why Jesus did not approve of stoning the adulteress. But the moral about adultery was still applicable. He told her to sin no more. Despite the horrendous acts of those who call themselves Christian throughout history, one can easily point out that these men were not following Jesus' teaching. With Islam conquest is an integral part of the doctrine.

Edited November 13, 2007 by jefferiah

[Michael Hardner]

So, let me get this straight:

The message of 'conquest' in holy books is listened to, but those of extreme punishment are not ?

Seems dubious to me. I think it's more likely that you'd like to find a reason to condemn Islam that doesn't make it seem like you're a xenophobe.

[JerrySeinfeld]

So, let me get this straight:

The message of 'conquest' in holy books is listened to, but those of extreme punishment are not ?

Seems dubious to me. I think it's more likely that you'd like to find a reason to condemn Islam that doesn't make it seem like you're a xenophobe.

You mean besides the ongoing self-detonations and hatred of infidel pigs?

[Michael Hardner]

That argument is a perfect circle, of course.

[ScottSA]

Marxists tend to be atheist. In fact Marx referred to religion as the'opium of the people'. A form of 'alienation' arising out of the political economy, even before capitalism, and its by product of 'self estrangement' (Hegel's term).

Marx drew from the works of Hegel and Feurerback (sp?).

Hegel argued that the human mind, thought or rather 'spirit'comes before the material world itself in relation to how humanity proceeds in survival.

Feurerback, on the contrary to Hegel asserted that religion is a social phenomenon arising out of the material world and relations of production. People turn to religion in order to 'aspire' to what they would like to be, religion provides an explanation of why people suffer so much and it gives them meaning and hope, much needed, to hide the truth of peoples shoddy life conditions and stunted development.

Marx was more in allignment with Feurerback but took it further to specifically include its direct relationship to and with political economy. In the 1844 Manuscripts published before the volumes of Kapital, he stressed that working with nature together enables human survival and production. The material activity of production then leads to 'ideas' about production, communication and so fourth. Only this way do we realise our 'species being'.

Besides all that, Marxists have always offered a critique of religion as it is still a part of political economy and how we view the world and how we act within it. It will look at different modes of production along with its reflective ideologies as seen between owners and workers, class, class within culture of many whom are religious and have to contend with the rapid changes in production through the ages. New and old religions globally still have to depend/function/react/object in the political economy.

I have not read the Koran, but regardless of whether it is a book like the bible that is riddled with brutality, people that do follow the Koran suffer from the first worlds economy which caters to its dominant form of religion and ideology. We need only look to how policy is continually being debated/ammended over such things as abortion and gay rights in order for the most popular candidate to win as Bush did. I do not think the muslims compromise so much, they do have differences of opinion, but nonetheless due to being lumped together have suffered for it -economically unless the US chooses not to for its own economic benefits.

Who are you talking to, and why does it include a rehash of the early Marx?

[maxsyno]

Nobody in particular. In fact Iv just had to reread the thread again to see what prompted my response.

It is a general response to the posts refering to Marx/ or left. It is also an endeavour to touch base with what he thought about religion though as you know it was not his main concern. I brought in the Young Marx to highlight the differences of philosophical opinion he arose out of. THe relevance would be that any body who calls themselves Marxist or left in the Western world would agree with him in the main; religion is a result of alienation wrought by political economy. Radical religions clash over it today because Western PE is forced down there throats. They want to protect against it (regardless of what we think about it either way).

[jazzer]

And as I said, the old testament calls for stoning, killing, dismemberment.

It may be something else other than the holy books causing this, wouldn't you say ?

Jesus must have been lying when he said this: Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [/i]

Edited November 15, 2007 by jazzer

[Michael Hardner]

Jesus must have been lying when he said this: Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Why do you say that ?

[jefferiah]

So, let me get this straight:

The message of 'conquest' in holy books is listened to, but those of extreme punishment are not ?

Well, in reality it certainly seems to be. I am not trying to condemn Islam or have it banned, and I am well aware that as you say people can ignore certain harsher parts. The reality is that it seems to be more prevalent among Islamic societies. And add to that the fact that it does encourage ongoing violence and conquest, then there is no denying that scripturally Islam is the most violent of the three.

The law is the moral, Jazzer. The way we define what is sin. Christianity introduced the concept of mercy on sinners (since we are all sinners) but the obvious way to twist this is to say that since there is no punishment there is no such thing as sin. And this is why it is necessary to say that the law remains.

Edited November 15, 2007 by jefferiah

[Michael Hardner]

The reality is that it seems to be more prevalent among Islamic societies.

The question is, then, why does it seem that way ? Not, why IS it that way ?

800000 or so were killed in Rwanda in a conflict that had nothing to do with Islam, but our world view starts from our own backyard, and events that are relevant to us.

[ScottSA]

The question is, then, why does it seem that way ? Not, why IS it that way ?

800000 or so were killed in Rwanda in a conflict that had nothing to do with Islam, but our world view starts from our own backyard, and events that are relevant to us.

Right. That had to do with racial disharmony...the thing you regularly deny is a threat. Walked into the swamp with that one, eh?

[Michael Hardner]

Right. That had to do with racial disharmony...the thing you regularly deny is a threat. Walked into the swamp with that one, eh?

Scott, you can't jump in at the end and change the context of what I was saying.

I was commenting on jefferiah's post.

You've been trying for years, but still haven't put together a convincing argument that Islam is a threat. And reading all of your posts together, it seems that your arguments spring from an inherent dislike of different cultures.

[Argus]

Fundamentalist does not necessarily mean Christian fundamentalist.

And you can express all the right-winged ideas you want until you're blue in the face, it just doesn't make sense to plug them uselessly and claim that people who disagree are strange nazi-hippies or whatever you call leftists.

I usually just call them idiots. It saves time.

[Argus]

Whatever you say. I see I've struck a nerve in your rightist hearts.... that's usually when you start pointing the finger at me and accusing me of being a leftist. I'm not.

Why is it so many radical lefties refuse to admit they're lefties? Is it shame? Do they, in their heart, realize how silly their ideological beliefs are? This is not something one sees much among the extreme right. They're not going to deny being right wing.

Or is that these extreme lefties, being so ideologically blind, imagine they are somehow in the centre? The 1% centre with 99% of the population being "right wing extremists".

And I cannot just say nothing when somebody outright claims that Islam is a twisted religion. There is something seriously wrong with such a bigoted statement. There's a difference between extremism and fundamentalism in Islam.

Islam as practiced today is fast becoming a twisted religion, and hardly limited to a few extremists. When you have polls taken which show that in all Muslim nations the majority of the population wants Sharia law implemented - complete with hands chopped off and women being stoned to death for having sex - well, few of us would call those people moderates.

For that matter, if the poll were taken of Christians and more than half of them wanted some kind of cruel, crude, medieval religious based law put in place you'd have no difficulty labeling them as fanatics, extremists, etc.

You simply can't bring yourself to condemn brown people.

[Argus]

And the Old Testament does.

So there goes your rationale that evil holy books corrupt entire peoples...

Comparisons between the Koran and Bible are pointless since the interpretations of the Bible have changed over the years while the interpretations of what the Koran says have not. In fact, it is illegal to change or even challenge the interpretations of the Koran in most Muslim nations. It is locked in medieval days and with a medieval mentality.

You would be hard pressed to find many Christians willing to embrace many of the violent instructions in the old testament, but you'd have no difficulty finding Muslims everywhere who wholeheartedly embrace the vicious violence of the Koran.

[Argus]

There are directions to kill homosexuals, cut off sinful limbs and so forth.

There are, but no one pays any attention to them. That's the point. We have altered our interpretation of ancient scripture, but the Muslims have not and will not.

The Koran also has directions on killing homosexuals - and they still carry them out.