Last I looked Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc, were all human beings. And human beings are gullible enough to believe the ramblings of long dead prophets as the truth they should follow to the death, or more likely, the death of others.
And before someone goes off about communism and capitalism, no economic system says explicitly to kill their enemy like many religions do in one form or another. Some are more obvious about it like Islam. Do I blame the religion for what its followers do in its name specifically if the religious writings they follow condone their actions? Of course I do. Why wouldn’t I or any other rational person?
But to address your example, does Jesus condone killing? Would he have agreed that the priest acted correctly? So, we can somewhat safely say that the priest acted outside what his prophet would have wanted him to do. It would be much harder to make the same argument with regard to Mohammed as he wasn’t afraid to slaughter whole tribes who disagreed with him.
No but there must be some sort of significance to the WWII benchmark. I thought was that you were trying to somehow dostinguish war in a good cause versus war with ambiguous moral substance. My point is that by your definition, America was engaging in terrorism while it was fighting Hitler and Ito. Is that your position?
I’ve no particular desire to ‘proceed’ with you.
[/quote]
Then WTF are you doing in Great Debates?
I think that my definition is VASTLY superior AND more widely accepted than your definition. I don’t think its just a matter of opinion either.
Still not how terrorism is defined. Lobbing missiles at civilians might be a war crime but it is not terrorism.
You are. Words don’t mean whatever you want them to mean. If I make up definitions on my own without considering the commonly accepted definition of words it makes communication difficult.
I never said that terrorists are cowardly and I never said that everything the US does is legal (I think the invasion of Iraq was a war crime by our own standards) but terrorism means something more specific than “stuff we personally don’t like”
You mentioned domestic violence earlier as an example of terrorism. I am no big fan of domestic violence either but it is not terrorism.
You act as if the Spanish Inquisition never happened (why do you think there are so few jews in Spain, they didn’t kill them all, that was not the purpose of the inquisition).
You act as if that happened yesterday rather than 500+ years ago.
Re. The Crusades: Who do you think the Muslims got that land from in the first place? It wasn’t ALL peacefully. But the point being, Jesus probably wouldn’t have condoned those actions whereas Muhammad probably would have.
Points to the Muslims for getting their own bloody religion right then.
Saying “yes, we did those terrible things in the name of Jesus, but at the time we’d just warped the basic tenets of our faith beyond any hope of recognition. So we oughta get a pass on that” is a really weaksauce excuse.
It’s kind of like saying “Yes, y’r’honor, I shot my wife. But in my defense I thought she was a spider demon from Mars at the time. Can I go now ?”, innit ?
I never said anyone should get a pass. But to use Jesus as an excuse to kill others, you have to go quite a bit further down the delusional path than if you were using Muhammad as an excuse for your actions.
Not really, no. Both of them are long dead, and both of them are historical yet have quite a bit of fictional/mythical dimension tacked on long after they died and couldn’t object anymore.
Putting any words or philosophy whatsoever in either of their mouths is a snap. Especially since both their holy books say everything and its contrary and we get to cherry-pick for victory.
Be much harder to go down the delusional path by using Joe Pesci as an excuse, cause he’ll fuck you up.
Did Jesus ever say to kill anyone? Did Mohammad? I’m pretty sure Jesus didn’t and Mohammad did. There is no tacking on of facts that Mohammad butchered people and said god condoned the acts.
You do realize that Islam acknowledges the old testament, right? Link. So, whatever happened before either prophet pretty much equals out and they should be evaluated on their words alone, not what happened before.
Possibly the reason that Islam never outgrew it’s violent past is that it’s progenitor was a warrior who codified a strict enforcement of the rules whereas Christianity advanced beyond the old testament’s brutality and focused on the new testament’s non-violent prophet.
The idea that its a few extremists doesn’t add up when you start to look at the size of organization such as Hamas, Hezbolla, the Taliban and a plethora of other groups committed to an extremely harsh interpretation of the religion. For that matter, there are entire countries that subscribe to the mentality of Hamas.
Or it could be socio-economic factors, not getting in on the New World action, endemic poverty, living in a damn sand bucket, colonization and de-colonization, intermittent meddling by the Western powers backing up this or that petty tyrant…
And the West became more open and enlightened because humanist philosophers clashed against religion and broke its yoke on society, because two World Wars liberated women, because hippies fucked in the mud and because scientists defied Church interdicts in secrecy. It has nothing to do with the benevolent guiding light of Christianity or any sort of religion whatsoever.
People don’t go to religion to find a way to act, they act some way and then make religion say it’s OK. It’s what happened in the Crusades, it’s what happened during the Catholic/Protestant wars, it’s what happens with the Taliban, and it’s what happens with that stupid book burning.
@Uzi : “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”, Matthew 10:34. And FWIW, while I’m no Koran scholar, I believe most of the fire and brimstone in it is in the form of “Allah will deal with them” rather than “go and kill 'em”.
No, he is only claiming to be the voice of the god who killed the first born of Egypt. Again, a wash.
That isn’t what I’m arguing. I’m saying that if your book says to go and kill the heathens then it is more likely that you will do so because of it. Whereas if it tells you to do the opposite, then you are more likely to do that action instead.
People in this very thread acknowledged that Muslim’s give to charity. Why do they do that? Well, it is written down in their book as one of its key principles. Jihad is another. Why would you expect them to follow one and not the other?
I guess you have to do some interpretation. Jesus says he is bringing a sword. Any evidence that he wielded it? Nope. The Koran revers Jesus as a prophet. So, whatever he said is added to by what Muhammad said. So, we have a sword and we have Muhammad wielding it.
I’m not defending the Bible. It is evil, too. But there is a scale of evilness and the Koran is higher on that scale. Not all religions are equal. Well, unless you think that Scientology and Unitarianism are equal in which case there is no point in continuing the discussion.
History kind of argues against you, though. Thou shalt not kill, while seemingly quite clear, didn’t lead to peace on Earth. And for all Jesus’ preaching of tolerance and charity, Christendom was hardly a nice place to live and be poor in. Or be a Moor/Jew/heretic in.
As I said before, people may say they follow religion, but they don’t. They act any way they feel like, then use religion to make it OK. Nice people don’t give money to beggars because God says so, they do because they feel empathy and compassion for them. Nasty folks don’t burn people at the stake because God says so, they do because they’re cruel and have the power to unleash that cruelty on others.
It’s also been pointed that “jihad” doesn’t mean war or any sort of violence per se, though.
Which was my point : you can, if you’re bent on cleaving heads, find a Jesus quote that makes it OK if you’re willing to squint right. Just as, say, the Taliban are squinting hard to make the Koran say women should wear beekeeper suits at all times, for instance.
Having not read the Koran, I cannot say. Hell, for that matter I haven’t read the Bible much, either. During catechism, I always gravitated back to the Song of Songs, cuz it’s got naughty bits in it.
I do know that the Muslim people I have met, went to school with, worked with or lived next to haven’t proven to be any more or less “evil” than atheists or Christians.
So, when Hitler was exhorting his people to kill Jews, they really would have done so without having him say it was okay to do it first? Yuhuh.
Wrongly, btw. Why are people ignoring what Muslims actually believe say and believe?
There is little ambiguity in what the Koran says with regard to those not Muslim. Yeah, we may all be people of the book, but we are not all to be treated similarly.
I worked with Muslims in Yemen for 9 years. They were very nice people, for the most part. But like anyone else on the planet they are subject to the culture they were raised in. Geert Hofstede calls culture the ‘software of the mind’ for good reason. Part of that culture is the religion. To say that people are not influenced, good and bad, by their religion is ignoring facts, plain and simple.
