Islam is foul

Originally posted by rwingett
The time you spent on this post could have been put to better use elsewhere, I'm sure.

Religion teaches unquestioning belief. If religious instruction were done away with, we could spend the same time and effort teaching critical thinking skills. Mankind would be better off for it.

We can teach critical thinking and still allow, even promote religious beliefs. I insist that it's not
the religion itself that is foul, but the people using it, and such people won't magically disappear
overnight simply because you do away with religion. They find other means to keep people
uneducated and poor, in need of their "guidance" (such as a very specific political ideology I can
think of). Religion is not the problem.

Scribbles gave a list of phrases from the Qur'an about how disbelievers will eventually be
punished by Allah. Only one of them encouraging Muslims to take on the task of Allah (which sort
of has me in doubt about that one, but I have little time to write this as my vacation begins today,
so I can't look it up.)

When you talk to any normal religious person (the vast majority of religious people I've met) you
always get the same answer about the meaning of their religious beliefs, and it's rarely about
going out and destroying everyone else by all means possible. They read about how disbelievers
will rot in hell and are genuinely disturbed at the thought. So much so that they're willing to make
fools of themselves trying to convert the disbelievers. Most religious people are good people who
mean well (whether or not you consider them to be in the dark about the reality of things). Most
people are. Then again, some people aren't, and religion is a mere tool to such people.

Do you honestly believe that if we do away with religion, people will start thinking more critically
and analytically, and corrupted leaders will suddenly fail to congregate the masses? You teach
critical thinking first, and then you see what happens to their religions, if you ask me.

Pound a man's convictions to a folly and his determination will persist ever more so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope, these things must be viewed in their historical and social context and juxtaposed with other systems, and a comparison made, so as a correct evaluation may be ascertained, for example why don't we compere the treatment meted out to Roman slaves and those governing with biblical principles, that should be enough to sober you up! once again your ...[text shortened]... atter would result in a self incriminating statement, but i not buying it, noobster me old son!

I'm not trying to simplify anything. You are, as usual, dancing around the subject so you don't have to give me a straight answer.

These things do, as you rightly pointed out, have to be viewed through the lens of history. But even so, slavery is slavery, it doesn't matter if it happenned 3,000 or 300 years ago. It's abhorent and must be rightly condemmed. But you didn't do that, you chose to defend the Bible.

Originally posted by Jigtie
We can teach critical thinking and still allow, even promote religious beliefs. I insist that it's not
the religion itself that is foul, but the people using it, and such people won't magically disappear
overnight simply because you do away with religion. They find other means to keep people
uneducated and poor, in need of their "guidance" (such as a ve ...[text shortened]... Pound a man's convictions to a folly and his determination will persist ever more so.

I do not advocate suppressing religious belief, but I steadfastly maintain that it would be to the benefit of mankind if religious belief withered away of its own accord. Failing that, the second best scenario would be if religious fundamentalism and evangelicalism withered away. If all theists became agnostic theists, then I would have no problem with theism. If theists renounced any certainty that their particular belief was the sole correct one, then religion might provide a net good for mankind. As it stands, religion is a net detriment. It is not the only problem facing mankind, but it a very large one.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm not trying to simplify anything. You are, as usual, dancing around the subject so you don't have to give me a straight answer.

These things do, as you rightly pointed out, have to be viewed through the lens of history. But even so, slavery is slavery, it doesn't matter if it happenned 3,000 or 300 years ago. It's abhorent and must be rightly condemmed. But you didn't do that, you chose to defend the Bible.

Yep, ol' robbie is doing his apologetics dance again:

Take a step to the left
Take a step to the right
As long as god commands it
every crime is alright

Originally posted by whodey
Before you cast stones, you may want to take inventory of yourself. If I recall, you posted many offensive threads in the past. One that comes to mind was a thread in which you questioned the Holocaust as not be really as bad as people say it was.

So tell us, which religion tries to convince people that the Holocaust never occured or that it is not that bad?

I said that many called it a completely anti-Jewish massacre where over 6 million Jews died. I also said that wasn't true: the Nazi holocaust killed 13 million people, of which between 5 and 6 million were Jews. I'm not sure how that can be called "denying" the Nazi holocaust.

Originally posted by daniel58
Allah; the name of God among Muslims

And among Arab Christians and Jews. It's not specific to Islam; it's merely the Arabic word for "God."

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm not trying to simplify anything. You are, as usual, dancing around the subject so you don't have to give me a straight answer.

These things do, as you rightly pointed out, have to be viewed through the lens of history. But even so, slavery is slavery, it doesn't matter if it happenned 3,000 or 300 years ago. It's abhorent and must be rightly condemmed. But you didn't do that, you chose to defend the Bible.

oh please, you people want some pretext, but in providing none, you must adopt some other strategy. it is a complete refusal to acknowledge that there were codes of conduct governing Israelites and non Israelites, written almost 3,000 years ago, which are nothing short of astonishing, considering the practices which have ensued since. you have not commented on voluntary servitude, nor the protection under such a system. if you would be pleased to compare it to the Roman system where slaves had no rights and were always subject to the whims of their owners you will realise that it had a moral element, found wanting elsewhere. I do not condone slavery in any shape or form, as has been erroneously asserted, it was practised and recorded in Biblical times, but i will not stand it being put on a parr with other reprehensible forms, for it is clearly something quite different.

Dico Tibi Verum Libertas Optima rerum
Nunquam servili Sub nexu vivito fili

My Son, Freedom is best, I tell thee true, of all things to be won. Then never live within the Bond of Slavery.

William Wallace monument, Robroyston, Glasgow

http://www.glasgowguide.co.uk/ww2002/gg-image7.htm

Originally posted by scherzo
And among Arab Christians and Jews. It's not specific to Islam; it's merely the Arabic word for "God."

Right but I was just making a point that some people who use it aren't always Christian.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
perhaps you can point out these contradictions Karoly, for in almost every instance, they are readily and easily reconciled to the text, and please do not do as our friend ringwett has done, simply goggling the bible and contradictions, 🙂

Dont worry I wont google anything-not my style🙂
Its enough for me to know that you agree that there are contradictions.
And I dont doubt that they can be reconciled. Maybe not 'easily' as you put it but I dont doubt it.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Dont worry I wont google anything-not my style🙂
Its enough for me to know that you agree that there are contradictions.
And I dont doubt that they can be reconciled. Maybe not 'easily' as you put it but I dont doubt it.

actually umm, i don't believe that there are contradictions and most of the ones I have heard are easily reconcilable, i was just afraid that I would have to go through the 400 so called 'inconsistencies', and reconcile them. i dont mind the major ones, like where did Cain get his wife, where did the water come from for the flood etc etc, the usual drivel, but little petty ones containing numerical values would be quite draining. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually umm, i don't believe that there are contradictions and most of the ones I have heard are easily reconcilable, i was just afraid that I would have to go through the 400 so called 'inconsistencies', and reconcile them. i dont mind the major ones, like where did Cain get his wife, where did the water come from for the flood etc etc, the usual drivel, but little petty ones containing numerical values would be quite draining. 🙂

Depends on your viewpoint. I dont doubt that in your mind you can reconcile the contradictions in the bible. (not joking). It takes a well educated individual to be able to see past apparent contradictions, to understand why there would be opposing 'facts'.

No you dont have to go through '400 so-called'inconsistencies'' it is enough for me that you acknowledge that this is an important chechpoint on the road to reconciliation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
for example why don't we compere the treatment meted out to Roman slaves and those governing with biblical principles, that should be enough to sober you up!

If I find an example of slavery that was say 10 times worse than what the Romans meted out would it make what the Romans did OK? Would it make what the Romans did less bad?

Originally posted by daniel58
Right but I was just making a point that some people who use it aren't always Christian.

That's very true. Non-Arab Muslims also use it as their word for God.