Islam, the unexploded bomb

[nPeace]

It helps in so far as it's clear that there are many miscommunications between us at this point. Overall, you should know that you are not understanding my points. No need to place blame, it's just that so far we're not understanding each other.

So I want to start with one idea and grow from that idea, okay?

Recently a large, worldwide poll was conducted, concerning what Muslims believe. The results of this poll were that overall, of the 40,000 or so Muslims polled - from many countries - something like 50% of those Muslims would like to see Sharia be a part of the legal system where they live.

This is an example of the sort of statistical claim I've been making. A person doesn't need to have any knowledge of any Islamic scripture to determine that 50% of Muslims want to live in at least a partially theocratic country. Does this much make sense?

Would you agree that as far as this poll is concerned, no knowledge of scripture and no knowledge of what individual Muslims think is necessary to come to this "50% want Sharia" conclusion. Agreed?

Okay. So see if you can understand what I am saying.
Did you say this all along, or are you now saying it?
Why did you say the following, and what did you mean, and can you please show how they are in harmony with what you say above?

1. What's important to me is how these books have impacted people in the past, and how they continue to impact people today.

2. I am relying on what official spokesmen for the church said.
I try to take people at their word.
I tend to be concerned only with trends.

3. It is not enough to focus on one verse at a time. One must also step back and look at the bigger patterns in the book as a whole. Sadly, one of those bigger patterns is the message that Muslims should be intolerant of nonMuslims.

What is it you are really interested in? This is the confusing situation for me.
So you are interested in worldwide polls on what exactly - what religions do, or believe?
Then I have to ask. Can you explain what you understand from my post?

 

[icehorse]

Okay. So see if you can understand what I am saying.
Did you say this all along, or are you now saying it?
Why did you say the following, and what did you mean, and can you please show how they are in harmony with what you say above?

1. What's important to me is how these books have impacted people in the past, and how they continue to impact people today.

2. I am relying on what official spokesmen for the church said.
I try to take people at their word.
I tend to be concerned only with trends.

3. It is not enough to focus on one verse at a time. One must also step back and look at the bigger patterns in the book as a whole. Sadly, one of those bigger patterns is the message that Muslims should be intolerant of nonMuslims.

What is it you are really interested in? This is the confusing situation for me.
So you are interested in worldwide polls on what exactly - what religions do, or believe?
Then I have to ask. Can you explain what you understand from my post?

answer #1 - yes, this is one of several ideas we're discussing in this thread

answer #2 - yes, this is another one of the ideas we're discussing in this thread

answer #3 - yes, this us yet another idea from this thread.

As these conversations evolve, it's not uncommon that related ideas come up. You have just listed three of these related ideas. It's often useful to draw analogies or similarities from one idea to another as a way to communicate a point. But I can discuss these ideas one at a time, if you'd prefer.

Having said all of that, at this point it would be time consuming to trace back how, when, and why in the conversation each of these ideas came up.

As I recall, we probably started by talking about idea #1 - how scripture has impacted people. If we start here, then I would say it would be useful for you to answer my previous post concerning statistical claims.

 

[nPeace]

answer #1 - yes, this is one of several ideas we're discussing in this thread

answer #2 - yes, this is another one of the ideas we're discussing in this thread

answer #3 - yes, this us yet another idea from this thread.

As these conversations evolve, it's not uncommon that related ideas come up. You have just listed three of these related ideas. It's often useful to draw analogies or similarities from one idea to another as a way to communicate a point. But I can discuss these ideas one at a time, if you'd prefer.

Having said all of that, at this point it would be time consuming to trace back how, when, and why in the conversation each of these ideas came up.

As I recall, we probably started by talking about idea #1 - how scripture has impacted people. If we start here, then I would say it would be useful for you to answer my previous post concerning statistical claims.

You did not show how those statements are in harmony with what you said in post #140.
Nor did you explain what you understood from my post #139.
I think that will help you to see they can't all work together - they conflict.

However, if you want to skip those and start over taking each of your statements, one at a time, we can do that.

 

[icehorse]

I think it's best if we take one idea at a time. You choose whether you first want to discuss one of mine or whether you want me to respond to one of yours...

 

[nPeace]

I think it's best if we take one idea at a time. You choose whether you first want to discuss one of mine or whether you want me to respond to one of yours...

Okay. Since I get to choose...

I think now that we have some specific details to work with, I think it's best we start from where this began.

Is the Bible to blame for the inquisitions, the rapes and sodomizing of young girls and boys, the tortures, the drugs and guns trade, the terrorist attacks, the civil and world wars, the genocides, the pollution of the planet...?

Sadly, to a large degree, I'd say yes it is.

So let's go ahead and include the points we looked at.
Please show me how you arrived at your conclusion.

Here is your opportunity to use your points.
Keep in mind that since you used several, one may not stand alone, but don't worry. I'll be sure to let you know when the others are required.

 

[icehorse]

So let's go ahead and include the points we looked at.
Please show me how you arrived at your conclusion.

Here is your opportunity to use your points.
Keep in mind that since you used several, one may not stand alone, but don't worry. I'll be sure to let you know when the others are require

Let's go ahead and dispense with lame attempts at humor please.

You asked if the Bible was to blame for all manner of horrible occurrences throughout history, and I said that IMO, to a large degree, it is.

First off, I understand that when we look to place blame for complex events, we can never demonstrate that blame can be placed entirely on one factor. So when I say to a large degree, I'm agreeing that things like wars and torture and terrorism and so on, are many faceted.

I will go back to the example of AIDs in Africa. The RC church has had a strong influence in Africa for quite some time now, and for decades it has used that influence to attempt to reduce or eliminate the use of condoms and other forms of birth control. This is a part of the RCC's long standing policy of growing the population of christians all over the world, presumably based on the biblical edict to "be fruitful and multiply". Of course it's also handy for the church when it has more members. At this stage in human history, the idea that we should continue to multiply is no longer a good idea, It's not a neutral idea, it's an evil idea. But, true to the bible, the church tried to ban condoms in Africa. As Hitchens said of the church: "Their messages was that, while AIDs might be bad, very bad indeed, it's not as bad as condoms."

To reiterate (and perhaps expand on an earlier list), we can add, in a similar fashion:

- The church's ongoing defense of widespread pedophilia in its ranks.
- The church's ongoing stance that homosexuals are born in sin and cannot be members.
- The church's support for Hitler.
- The church's harassment of teachers of evolution.
- The church's support for anti-science ideas like intelligent design, masquerading as science.
- The church's support for corporal punishment in schools.
- The church's denial of climate change.

And that's just some of its recent activities.

Now you can say "well the bible doesn't instruct christians on those matters", and of course it does not - directly. But its adherents will tell you themselves that for them the bible's instructions are only a short hop away from the actions I listed above, and that those actions are in keeping with its teachings.

These are the religious saying these things. I think we should take them at their word, don't you?

 

[nPeace]

Now you can say "well the bible doesn't instruct christians on those matters", and of course it does not - directly. But its adherents will tell you themselves that for them the bible's instructions are only a short hop away from the actions I listed above, and that those actions are in keeping with its teachings.

These are the religious saying these things. I think we should take them at their word, don't you?

I think that if we are going to be reasonably, then we must consider the fact that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), is not the authority on the Bible, even if it tries to project itself as the authority on all things, including politics - what government should do, or should not do.

So I think right now you are using one religion to arrive at your conclusion about the effect of the Bible, which I don't think is reasonable.
To give an example...
Let's suppose that the RCC was not a religion that sought to lift itself up over everyone, and everything, and it stayed quietly in the background, like a mouse.
Let's say, another religion was more outspoken, and this religion did not oppose the distribution and use of condoms, or the other things in your list. Would you then be inclined to say that, in your opinion, the Bible is not responsible for the horrible occurrences throughout history?
Using such reasoning how could there be any consistency, and how can we reach a reasonably fair conclusion?

To reach a reasonable and fair conclusion, one must use reasonable judgment.
If one claims that the Bible is responsible for the horrible occurrences throughout history, then show that that is true - not by poor examples of those who claim to be an authority of the Bible - many of which there are, all of which operate differently - but show that the message in the Bible dictates these things.

The RCC's involvement in the inquisitions was not supported by others of vast different faiths who say they follow the Bible. Nor does the Bible support or dictate what the RCC did.
In fact, many of those brutally tortured, raped, and murdered, were people who loved the Bible - people of the same RCC faith.
Isn't that evident that this is a religion that cares more about authoritative power, than it is with the Bible's message?

You are not exactly right that the Bible does not instruct Christians about these matters. To the contrary, it instructs Christians against these.
It condemns rapes and sodomizing of young girls and boys, the tortures, the drugs and guns trade, the terrorist attacks, the civil and world wars, the genocides, the pollution of the planet...

More than that, it tells how those who are right now living by God's standards and principles promoted in the Bible, are living in a spiritual paradise, where unity and peace exist, and how they are involved in educating millions throughout the world to leave waring factions, and change from angry activist to peaceful, and satisfied individuals.
Oftentimes, people tend to overlook the good and focus on the bad in support of their world view.

The bad however, is done by religions that do not follow the Bible's teachings.
This is not an opinion. It is a fact, which the Bible itself supports.
2 Timothy 3:1-5 American Standard Version (ASV)

1 But know this, that in the last days grievous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; 5 holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof: from these also turn away.

This is what makes religion a problem. Religion - not the Bible - is the problem.
One may argue, "Well isn't religion based on the Bible?"
Well if that were true,should we not include all religion, including those some consider outliers?
No. Religion for the most part is based on its ideologies, and follows it ideals. We see evidence for that in such things as the inquisitions, and crusades, the so-called hoy wars, the Rwandan genocide, and the list goes on.