Freethought & Rationalism Archive

metacristi · 03-21-2010, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by metacristi

the fact that they are quite different at the level of doctrines.

1. how different;
2. how is this "fact" ascertained?
3. Who or which body has validated your claim?

avi

Have you read the link I gave above regarding the islamic memeplex? The answer is there, islam has much more internal 'special mechanisms' to prevent non trivial change or total replacement; in short in islam there is little room for fallibilism and critical thinking applied to the basis of religion (despised; consequence, among others, also of the fact that in islam humans are seen as slaves of allah not mere 'servants' of God). A muslim Enlightenment (without external help) is not far from the probability of the spontaneous generation. Not so in Christianity where Protestantism had at least the merit of encouraging critical thinking and of tolerating those positive forces that shaped Modernity (happily the Christian memeplex let much more room for critical thinking). The politically correct guys from here (many as I see but this does not make the qur'an less violent and islam less reactionary) should take a look at the discussions regarding the nature of islam taking place on this very site and, especially, see what ex-muslims themselves have to say about islam (see Mughal); postmodernist political correctness (with its extension of tolerance to the intolerant islam and its 'turbans of the mind') is far from being the most rational path...

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....76#post6256376
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....59#post6321359
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....79#post6317579

DCHindley,

Read better Why I am not a muslim by ibn Warraq, the fact that an Enlightenment first appeared in the Western Christian countries is by no means an accident of history...

avi · 03-24-2010, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apostate Abe

But, for the Koran, there is only one testament, and it encourages far more violence than a Christian's understanding of the Bible. The single violent element of the New Testament--hell--is taken to an even greater extreme in the Koran, where specific sorts of unbelievers are punished with very specific and illustrative tortures.
Therefore, I rate the Koran as far more worthy of hate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't think that the different versions of the Bible differ on the issue of violence against unbelievers.

Luke 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byzantine Majority

plhn touV ecqrouV mou ekeinous touV mh qelhsantaV me basileusai ep autouV agagete wde kai katasfaxate emprosqen mou

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hort & Westcott

plhn touV ecqrouV mou toutouV touV mh qelhsantaV me basileusai ep autouV agagete wde kai katasfaxate autouV emprosqen mou

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke 19:27

But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

The Christian violence as I see it originated with Catholicism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OAO

The question is, which texts sanction violence.
The OT is clearly bloody, with the genocide the Canaanites and brutal policies. However, genocides were only sanctioned in particular cases, not as a general rule. The NT is more ambiguous, but clearly shows a preference toward non-violent behavior.

I agree with your first sentence, "which texts..." (and how frequently) but I disagree with you and steve claiming that the NT is ambiguous. Luke repudiates you both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

In that context, the NT is non violent going by the words attributed to JC.

mountainman · 03-24-2010, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And to get back to Pete's new hobbyhorse, satire is usually tolerated as a release of social tension. Satirists are the fools and clowns who are allowed to mock the king (at the proper time and place) so everyone can laugh and then get back to being good citizens. The dissenters who were executed were quite serious.

I don't know if you are aware but when the Salman Rushdie fatwa was declared by Khomeini, the fairly liberal Al-Azhar islamic legalists protested that this attack on artistic expression was un-Islamic and lacked scriptural foundation. Khomeini issued a cynical retort denouncing the Egyptian infidels and quoting from the Sirat Rasul Allah (the Life of the Prophet of Allah by Ibn Ishaq, which is considered sacred history by all islamic legal schools) an incident in which Muhammad himself ordered the killing of a poet (Ka'ab bin Al Ashraf) who mocked him. Actually, there were more such incidents, as Muhammad was by all accounts sensitive to any form of criticism, lampooning included. Nothing further was heard from Al-azhar concerning Rushdie.

I doubt whether Toto is aware of these political "nuances"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.