What is the "not to do" lesson when god tells them "to do" it?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Interesting experiment with violence in Scriptures
What is the "not to do" lesson when god tells them "to do" it?
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Common Sense before Divine Sense
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Is it an unfair or unreasonable opinion that scripture from an ancient and distant culture doesn't serve as an ideal moral compass for the modern world?
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Is that even possible?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Doesn't sound like bible bashing to me. Instead, it's just stating an observation.
Both books indeed are quite horrible sources to use as moral guidelines.
You can call that "bashing" if you want. I call it stating obvious facts.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Back when I was in a catholic high school, we also had a one hour religion class per week. It obviously also included bible readings followed by discussion.
We never even came close to such verses. The verses / chapters brought forward for discussion were obviously cherry-picked to make it all about peace and love and forgiveness.
Then I decided to read the whole thing and started asking questions about god condoning slavery and alike. I was quickly shut down with things like "we're not discussing exodus today". I then asked "when will we?".
And the best I got was "Not this year". (spoiler alert: we also didn't the year after that. or the year after that. or ... ever.)
Once I also got a "will you please shut up so we can continue?".
I laughed and sarcastically said "gotcha...."
here we disagree. Quran says followers of Islam should kill today, as I see it.
Bible never teaches stuff like that.
Why does the Quran say that infidels should be killed?
(Question/Answer)
The verse of the Holy Quran is often mentioned to malign Islam. The verse does not say infidels it says idolaters. (9:5) And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful. [...]
It says here: Why does the Quran say that infidels should be killed?
So, while the source found out that Muslims should "only" kill idolators as opposed to non-believers, this is a great difference to the Bible that never says things like that.
I hope anyone won't lump Bible and Quran together again.
Thomas
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
To be fair, the very article that you quoted to "prove" your statement, literally mentions that it refers to a commandment for a specific time in a specific context, back when mohammed was even still alive. It does NOT say that this commandment is active today. In the actual chapter it even mentions the targetted tribes.
In that sense, it really is no different from Jawhe in the OT ordering the Israelites to go on genocidal and infantacidal killing sprees against the amalakites who were branded the enemies of Israel, for example.
From the article:
Looking at the context of the verses, it becomes obvious that the commandment of this verse only relates to those tribes who continued hostilities against the Muslims even after they had migrated. In particular, reference is made to 5 tribes (‘Banu Khuza’ah, Banu Mudlij, Banu Bakr, Banu Damrah, and Banu Sulaiim) that did not honor the treaties they made with Muslims.
Not at all.
That is absurd at best.
that's their interpretation. Nowhere in the Quran does it say that it should be applied to that time only. And, as we all know, terrorists disagree with the interpretation the source gives for that Quran passage.
The source could not find a verse that would back this interpretation up. It only says "context" as to make us believe that it is so.
the difference is that the Israelites of back then are meant.
I can give you the scripture for it:
Exodus 17:10 shows that specific people were meant at a specific time.
The source I linked back to for the Quran never could provide a single Quran passage that would actually prove that the passage I was referring to has to be applied to a specific time only.
That's according to them. Anyone might disagree here because it's not mentioned in Quran that only specific people of a specific time should kill.
The problem I could see in said Quran verse is that it simply says kill the idolaters. The Bible in contrast is specific and says "the Amalekites" and it also says who was supposed to kill them.
So there is no room for any interpretation to be applied to killings in todays world, too. As opposed to the Quran verse. Even if you see the kill-the-idolators-verse as applying to menioned 5 tribes... you could easily go ahead and find out there are idolators around in todays world, too.
EDITED
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You didn't read the whole thing, did you?
Not necessarily.
It's rather a case of them reasoning along the lines of "if it was okay then, it is okay now also".
It links to the entire chapter. You can read it. It talks about treaties and to fight those who don't honor those treaties. The treaties referred to are the treaties early muslims had with other polytheist tribes in and around Mecca in the 630's. The chapter explicitly mentions treaties agreed upon in al-Masjid al-haram. Which is in mecca.
What terrorists do, is not really reinterpreting this. It rather is saying "we find ourselves in a similar situation, so the same commandments apply".
Christiand and Jews could say the same thing while referring to the genocide and infantacide of the amalakites. They could identify a nation today and say it is the same situation, so the same commandments apply.
The difference is that they don't do that. Not because of the text, but rather because of the people themselves. The text didn't change. The people simply moved on from barbarity, and tend to ignore the horrible bits.
As demonstrated in the OP video.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
How so? Does it not factually state horrible things?
Is it "bible bashing" to point out that the bible calls for the death of homosexuals?
is it "bible bashing" to point out that god in the bible ordered genocidal and infantacidel killing sprees?
Is it "bible bashing" to point out that god in the bible condones and regulates slavery?
I don't see how stating facts, qualifies as "bashing".
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
IMO:
It should be mentioned in the Koran, otherwise it does not count. Such lose "killer thoughts" should never be unspecified. That would be like "giving a gun or a sharp sword to a toddler"
God (as defined loving, responsible and stuff) would never do that, hence those verses are man concoction if left without responsible context (same paragraph)
but it would not be a reasonable comparison, I think.
What the Amalekites did, is described in Deuteronomy 25:18.
You wouln'd find this again today, as a matter of fact. Maybe the Nazis did that 80 years ago to the Dutch or the French or the British... but you don't have this situation occuring against any Western country today.
Furthermore, Western countries know how to defend themselves using other means than just killing everyone. As of today, they have: Iron domes, air forces, ships and so on...
The Israelites did not have all this, they had swords at best.
So, the situation as outlined in Deuteronmy did change... and no comparison to today can reasonably be made.
there may have been treaties indeed. But the killer verse does not specify that anyone should kill them because of the treaties.
And that's the point. Bible is totaly different in this regard. It mentiones the reason quite frankly in above cited passage.
Oh wait - the killer verse does give a reason for the killings: But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
It's about a pillars of Islam that they did not keep.
These kinds of situations you'll find all over the planet - today.
So if the terrorists make a comparison to today's world, they are right, it seems.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Thanks for sharing your experiences, my "probably that's the reason" , changed into a fact
Important for certain Christians/Muslims to read such stories, so their eyes may open to see what's off here
Reading your experiences it was not even "discussion"; you were shut down to express your thoughts.
Comes close to brainwashing even (I wish I could make it sound any better; I do prefer to see the positive)
Such teachers should be educated that their behavior might lead to undesirable results:
1) Not taking a child serious might create a monster who can't take others/himself serious (hence killing, why not?)
2) Belittling a child might create another arrogant monster; they belittled me, so now I do the same to others
3) Not showing respect to a child creates ... well you get the drill ... unhealthy teaching methods
Besides that, if a child does not get therapy or figures a way out of this him/her self, all these imposed emotions make him a boiling volcano.
And those teachers are the cause that Christianity is doomed to tumble one day, as this is Anti-Truth, meaning Anti-Christ
(Realizing this might make it impossible for such teachers to change though, as it means they must go on their knees)
Important for certain Christians/Muslims to read such stories, so their eyes may open to see what's off here
IMO:
Reading your experiences it was not even "discussion"; you were shut down to express your thoughts.
Comes close to brainwashing even (I wish I could make it sound any better; I do prefer to see the positive)
Such teachers should be educated that their behavior might lead to undesirable results:
1) Not taking a child serious might create a monster who can't take others/himself serious (hence killing, why not?)
2) Belittling a child might create another arrogant monster; they belittled me, so now I do the same to others
3) Not showing respect to a child creates ... well you get the drill ... unhealthy teaching methods
Besides that, if a child does not get therapy or figures a way out of this him/her self, all these imposed emotions make him a boiling volcano.
And those teachers are the cause that Christianity is doomed to tumble one day, as this is Anti-Truth, meaning Anti-Christ
(Realizing this might make it impossible for such teachers to change though, as it means they must go on their knees)
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
True.
The West should be very aware of this (thanks to the terrorists their killings), and take action. Which they do now, more and more.
The terrorists finally opened the eyes of the gullible West by:
1) 9-11
2) Charlie Hebdo
3) Dutch "nuke threa
This is not just an incident, there is something wrong in the core of Islam **, otherwise this would not happen (Christianity has been cured mostly)
(Once can be coincidental; the proverbial donkey does not make a mistake twice, we should not make more mistakes than this donkey)
Notes **:
IF there were no violent verses in Koran, ISIS would not exist.
But I believe these verses are just a reflection of what already is in the killers
And I believe it is good that these things come out now, like the sex-scandals all over
Just put these atrocities in the spotlights and they will slowly transform; humans do tend to evolve
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
People who want to, can easily make comparisions. What I read there, could be phrased as people that are kicking you while you are down. So any nation that takes advantage of you in a moment of weakness, could be compared here imo.
Off course you could. And it wouldn't even be that hard. Especially not today, with the COVID19 thingy seriously weakening nations. If Palestinian militia's for example would make use of the COVID19 problems to capitalize on it, it would perfectly fit the description.
Suppose they bomb an overcrowded hospital full of COVID patients on intensive care for example.
That certainly would qualify as kicking them while they are down.
Considering the timescales of abrahamic religion, I'ld say the nazi's pretty much qualify as "today".
So indeed, they sure could have went all biblical on the germans if they would have thought like that.
And God, or the Israelites with god's backing, didn't back in those days? Is that what you're saying?
Indeed, instead, they only (supposedly) had the most powerfull being in existance and the creator of literally everything in their camp. Clearly their only option was to kill everyone, including toddlers and babies, while keeping the young virgin girls as spoils of war
The sentences before and after that sentence, do. You know... the sentences you didn't read, or don't want to read.
The point is that you happily misrepresent the actual text just to get your dishonest point accross?
Sounds about right.
So does the Quran. But off course, if you are simply going to ignore those parst, you might miss it.
"repent" from what again?
Ow, right.... not upholding the treaties.
It even says later on that they (the polytheists) are the ones that draw first blood in 9:13
Will you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, and who plotted to turn out the Messenger, and they were the first to commence hostilities against you?
You ignore a whole bunch of the chapter, only in an effort to make the quran look worse then the bible.
Don't get me wrong, the quran (as well as the bible) reads as a collection of the worst ideas ever conjured up by human beings - they are like the motherload of bad ideas. But I don't see the point in misrepresenting what they actually say.
They are bad enough already when read honestly. There's no need to pile on by misrepresenting it. In fact, misrepresenting them will only hurt the case that they are bad. An honest case is always better then a dishonest one.
EDIT: I'll add, that if you wish to convince muslims about how horrible their book is, then making such silly arguments is only going to have an adverse effect. Like the site you quoted itself says, this is a verse that is often used by non-muslims to "show" just how evil the book is. And it might very well work on non-muslims by means of propaganda - as they don't tend to pick up a copy to double check it. But any muslim worth his salt will know better. And in their eyes, your credibility will instantly drop to 0 because of it. There's MORE then enough horrible bits to work with, without misrepresenting it. I suggest you do so, if your goal is to open people's eyes, muslim eyes in particular.
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
What I mean is that here was discussion. But only on those topics they were prepared to discuss. Only those topics that THEY brought forward. Obviously in a one hour class we couldn't cover the entire bible. Not even over the 6 years of high school. So they had to pick what to discuss and what not.
And what I'm saying is that the stuff they picked, was obviously cherry picked explicitly to stay away from all the horrible crap.
When I brought up issues like slavery, I didn't expect it to be discussed. Even only for the simple reason that it wasn't part of the lesson plan. I just felt it was important to let the teacher at the time know that "hey... i know what you're doing there...I know why we are reading *this* chapter and not *that one*. Because *this one* makes it look all nice and dandy, while that one makes it look rather primitive, barbaric and evil"
He knew that that was what I was doing. Which is why he got annoyed and shut me down.
Needless to say, we weren't the best of friends after that.
He tried his best to fail me as well... but seeing as I had almost perfect scores on all classes that actually mattered, it was an exercise in futility. And that just annoyed him even more.