"Religion of Peace?"

[Saint Frankenstein]

My claim was not that you didn't get good stuff from Christianity - it was that you did not learn your morals from the scripture! Because the scripture's set of moral teachings are medieval and immoral by today's standards.

And where does Christianity get its morals from, if not from a basis in Scripture, at least partially?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I might agree that folks like Stalin were anti-Abrahamic (although even that claim isn't as clean as you might think).

But they were NOT atheistic - they inserted their own flavor of theism / deism into the mix.

Even if you were to argue Stalinism was religious, it was neither theistic(Stalin was hero worshipped but not a non-physical divine being) or deistic(uninvolved creator god) Nor is it the only example. Mao and Pol Pot definitely weren't limited to Abrahamics.
Also this is besides the point that I am about as far removed from those violently anti-theistic political movements as your average Muslim and Isis.

 

[sun rise]

To repeat a few points - every religion has scripture which indicates that one should go to war, including Christianity. Every religion has scripture indicating that people should be loving and peaceful, including Islam. Every religion has a set of "thou shalt" which can be turned into laws (see Christian reconstructionism, for example) or religious laws in Israel or even old fashioned "blue laws" in the USA. Every religion has adherents who selectively apply what the scripture says.

About Islam, I've read translations which have a few passages that are absolutely contradictory leaving me to agree with Muslims who say that a translation is not the same as the original text.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Islam means submitting to the will of Allah.

Whoever says Islam means peace is an liar. It means submitting to the will of Allah.

However we grant kuffar safety aslong they dont fight against the muslims.

 

[icehorse]

However we grant kuffar safety aslong they dont fight against the muslims.

How magnanimous of you

 

[icehorse]

And where does Christianity get its morals from, if not from a basis in Scripture, at least partially?

You probably won't like this answer, but we probably get our morals via evolution and having to form groups and tribes to exist out there on the mean streets of the Savannah.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You probably won't like this answer, but we probably get our morals via evolution and having to form groups and tribes to exist out there on the mean streets of the Savannah.

Yeah, but what does that have to do with what I said? Are you saying that religious scriptures have nothing to do with the morality of the people who follow the religions? You're not being clear. You can't have it both ways in that all the good things religious people do are due to social evolution and all the bad things religious people do are due to religious writings.

 

[icehorse]

Even if you were to argue Stalinism was religious, it was neither theistic(Stalin was hero worshipped but not a non-physical divine being) or deistic(uninvolved creator god) Nor is it the only example. Mao and Pol Pot definitely weren't limited to Abrahamics.
Also this is besides the point that I am about as far removed from those violently anti-theistic political movements as your average Muslim and Isis.

I've never claimed that YOU were. But this equating of atheism to Stalinism is a common tactic and it's just not accurate. All of these guys, Stalin, Mao, and so on, created cults of personality (is that the expression?) which were to replace the existing religions with a new flavor of dogma.

 

[J2hapydna]

I've read the Quran cover to cover. I've read a bit of the Hadith and a couple of biographies of Muhammad.

As ALL of these documents were created by humans, they are all flawed and inconsistent. For almost any quote you can name from the Quran, you can find a different quote that contradicts the first.

The bottom line is that humans interpret these documents based on their own culture and innate sense of morality, not based on what the documents actually say.

If you learn your morality from any Abrahamic scripture, you will have bad morals.

Quite right, the Quran itself claims this to be true. One must have wisdom to understand any scripture Quran, Bible or any other

 

[Augustus]

But they were NOT atheistic - they inserted their own flavor of theism / deism into the mix.

That's just redefining reality to suit your ideological needs.

It's the atheist equivalent of saying Islam is a religion of peace.

 

[icehorse]

Yeah, but what does that have to do with what I said? Are you saying that religious scriptures have nothing to do with the morality of the people who follow the religions? You're not being clear. You can't have it both ways in that all the good things religious people do are due to social evolution and all the bad things religious people do are due to religious writings.

In this case, my only claim is that the source of YOUR morals is NOT from scripture, or you'd be in jail. So basically I'd say yes, if a person in recent history is a morally good person, that person did NOT get his moral compass from Abrahamic scripture. Instead, that person got good morals from society, and then cherry picked the scripture to find common ground.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In this case, my only claim is that the source of YOUR morals is NOT from scripture, or you'd be in jail. So basically I'd say yes, if a person in recent history is a morally good person, that person did NOT get his moral compass from Abrahamic scripture. Instead, that person got good morals from society, and then cherry picked the scripture to find common ground.

Interpreting a book isn't "cherry picking". It's putting the material in its proper context. I'm not a Jew living 2,500 years ago so I'm not going to be following ancient Jewish tribal law.

 

[sun rise]

I've never claimed that YOU were. But this equating of atheism to Stalinism is a common tactic and it's just not accurate. All of these guys, Stalin, Mao, and so on, created cults of personality (is that the expression?) which were to replace the existing religions with a new flavor of dogma.

Yes as well as new "scripture" whether Das Kapital or the Thoughts of Chairman Mao.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Is Islam a "religion of peace" as Muslims and an increasing number of people would have us believe?

With the current ongoing atrocities being carried out on practically a daily basis the question is asked and answered in the affirmative by Muslims, politicians and the public alike. But who are these people who are given air-time on TV, radio and the public leftist largely controlled media?

Is there another version of Islam which is being suppressed and hidden from general public viewing?

Facebook has recently submitted to demands from Muslims who accuse non-Muslims of the charge of "blasphemy" to have comments removed and at the same time blocked an advert promoting a Christian film. So where are we going with all this?

“Your ad wasn’t approved because it doesn’t follow Facebook’s Advertising Guidelines for language that is profane, vulgar, threatening or generates high negative feedback,” Facebook reportedly wrote to producers of the film. “Ads can’t use language that insults, harasses or demeans people, or addresses their age, gender, name, race, physical condition or sexual preference.”

If Islam isn't a religion of peace (meaning it's doctrine isn't peaceful) then all the peaceful Muslims are not real Muslims unless they are not peaceful to reflect the name of their unpeaceful religion?

 

[icehorse]

That's just redefining reality to suit your ideological needs.

It's the atheist equivalent of saying Islam is a religion of peace.

I disagree. These fascists created new religions. just like Christianity replaced older religions. But these fascist regimes had very religious-like characteristics, starting with the regime's rigid enforcement of the ideology's dogma.

 

[Augustus]

Instead, that person got good morals from society, and then cherry picked the scripture to find common ground.

Don't forget society got its morals, in part, from scripture.

It's an endless mobius effect.

 

[icehorse]

Interpreting a book isn't "cherry picking". It's putting the material in its proper context. I'm not a Jew living 2,500 years ago so I'm not going to be following ancient Jewish tribal law.

Cool! So by what means to you decide how to interpret the scripture? How do you know that the instruction to stone non-virginal brides should be disregarded?

 

[Augustus]

I disagree. These fascists created new religions. just like Christianity replaced older religions. But these fascist regimes had very religious-like characteristics, starting with the regime's rigid enforcement of the ideology's dogma.

All guiding ideologies have 'religious' type aspects.

Just like religions though, some are more ritualistic and/or hardline than others.

There have been violent and oppressive atheistic ideologies since the enlightenment. They have just as much right to be considered atheistic as your or my ideology.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Cool! So by what means to you decide how to interpret the scripture? How do you know that the instruction to stone non-virginal brides should be disregarded?

I follow the Church's interpretations of the Bible, Catholic and Orthodox theologians, etc.

 

[icehorse]

I follow the Church's interpretations of the Bible, Catholic and Orthodox theologians, etc.

Well somewhere along the line over the last 2000 years someone decided that bride stoning was no longer a good idea. And the scripture didn't change, right? So at some point society updated morality. The church is forced to keep adjusting its relationship to increasingly errant scripture. It used to be only 5% was wrong. Then it was 10% wrong, now who knows, 40% wrong?