One of my good friends (who I don’t argue with) has said that if you agree with everything God says, you’re probably just being self-serving. There is inevitably going to be friction between God’s will and your desires.
I may not share his beliefs, but I can respect that. It’s a more intellectually honest faith than just assuming your worldview is God’s worldview.
The even better version I’ve heard is “If God agrees with you on everything, then it’s probably your own thoughts.”
Although, of course, some Christians handwaved it away as, “Oh, I’ve become so attuned to God over decades that by this point He and I see eye-to-eye on everything, that’s why there’s no disagreement from Him.”
That’s bonkers because my friend is a minister and Biblical scholar and he has expressed many times that he doesn’t agree with God about some things and that wrestling with your faith is endemic to the process of serving God.
I’m not religious but I’ve been religious and I’m very familiar with the internal conflict that often results from wrestling with your faith.
So the idea that some people think they have it on lockdown is pretty amusing.
But I think some people approach matters of faith in a more intellectual way. If you’re intellectual to begin with you’re probably going to analyze your faith all the time. And read all the religious philosophy and ask the big questions etc.
So maybe it’s just the type of person you are impacts the way you approach your religion.
Oh yeah, I figured there’s a whole story. Probably several, argued and re-argued over the centuries. Pretty sure I’ve read at least one at some point — something about the destruction of the Temple?
Judaism mostly does grapple.
That whole section reads to me like it was written by people who had only recently taken up farming and land ownership, and weren’t entirely certain that either was a good idea.
The Jefferson Bible is an experiment, but I had in mind the progressive religionists of today. They build the communities they want to belong to. As in: Be the change you want to see in the world.
I appreciate the cites. I do think you’re making 2 logical fallacies, though. The first is that perpetrators of violence are not 1:1 to victims of violence; data seems scarce (since most abuse goes unreported and most abusers don’t have any incentive to incriminate themselves), but here’s a cite that says that the average incarcerated abuser had 18 victims. Ergo, a small number of violent people can still account for 31.6% of women globally experiencing some form of abuse.
Secondly, while I can’t verify the methodology from your cites, I’d like to know what counts as “physical violence” against children. Your second cite requires a purchase, the first includes “psychological aggression” and may include things like spanking, and the 3rd seems specific to sexual abuse which is likely more rare than 6/10. So I think it’s a stretch, but this is off-topic and probably not worth digging into.
Because, I mean, what’s the result of assuming that violence isn’t rare? If violence is common, then violent Muslims are common. If violence is common, then violent Canadians are common. If violence is common, then violent teachers are common. Is there any group we couldn’t disparage with a wide brush using this logic?
I think in an ideal world we could probably draw statistically significant differences between various identifiable groups, but at the end of the day, it doesn’t mean we can say, “Muslims are violent”, or “Canadians are violent,” or “teachers are violent.” Which is, I think, what this thread is really getting at.
I don’t think “Islam is a religion of peace” is a falsifiable claim, but neither do I think we can allow people to disparage an entire religion based on some percentage of adherents who might exhibit violent behavior. It’s a human thing, nothing more.
This is why I think you can say violence is common but violent people are not common.
And it’s a lot less common than it used to be.
You’re going to have to point to the chapter and verse for this one. As I recall, the only people who are described as going to hell in the Bible are not “the unsaved,” but rather people who call Jesus “Lord” but don’t practice charity, and rich people who don’t practice charity. Unsaved people who practice charity are explicitly not going to hell.
My progressive denomination (Reform Judaism) has been tweaking the sacred texts. Which in this case means the standard prayers recited at every service. Instead of remembering “the patriarchs” our prayers now mention both the patriarchs and the matriarchs. The mourner’s kaddish ends by asking God for peace. When we pray for peace, we don’t just pray for “peace for all who mourn, and for all Israel”, we add the rest of the world into that request. In general, the translations refer to God as “God” or “Eloheynu”, rather than using masculine pronouns. The changes aren’t dramatic, and it’s basically the same old prayers, but they’ve been gently updated.
A good example of the sort of thing I meant.
Only if you commit the opposite logical fallacy of assuming that each abused person is only abused by one person.
You have “physical violence” in quotes like it’s something I said. My post mentions “physical punishment” only.
My first cite on children (second cite overall) links to a discussion of the data on violence against children that includes a fairly comprehensive definition for the physical punishment part:
Physical (or corporal) punishment is an action intended to cause physical pain or discomfort, but not injuries. Physical punishment is defined as shaking the child, hitting or slapping him/her on the hand/arm/leg, hitting him/her on the bottom or elsewhere on the body with a hard object, spanking or hitting him/her on the bottom with a bare hand, hitting or slapping him/her on the face, head or ears, and beating him/her over and over as hard as possible.
Feel free to play No True ScotsViolence all you like with that.
My stance is that if it’s bad enough for Unicef and the WHO to be concerned about it, it’s bad enough for me to be.
None of my cites required a purchase. My second child violence cite (third cite overall) is to a WHO article. The academic review article referenced in it does require academic journal access - if you think the WHO is lying or exagerating about what it says, you could probably get journal access for free through a public library, but the full article is also available online on ResearchGate.
No, it definitely includes “things like spanking” - assuming “beating him/her over and over as hard as possible” meets that lofty threshold. The 51% figure is for that aspect alone, NOT the psychological aggression part.
Although I’m not sure why you’re apparently trivializing psychological aggression as a thing.
Both things I specifically mentioned in my post.
Each cite goes with its corresponding point - cite 1 is for the 51% of under 5s, cite 2 is for the >1 billion of youth overall, and cite 3 is for the 20%/16% where it’s sexual. Sorry if that correspondence wasn’t clear.
No. All groups are violent because humans are by-and-large inclined to violence. Kind of my point. I definitely was not trying to defend or disparage any one group.
You seem to be edging towards appeal to consequences there, though, which is, as I’m sure you know, not a very solid argument against humans being violent.
Possibly, but not my point at all. I was just countering the notion that violent people are some rarity. They are not. And note I didn’t even cover warfare or criminal violence as types (of course, all those have crossover, just like GBV and child violence do.)
It’s a fair counter; but if the average incarcerated abuser has abused 18 people, then we’d need evidence that the average abuse victim was abused by 18 perpetrators for the numbers to even out. I don’t think either of us want to go down that rabbit hole, and it’s off topic – I think it’s fairly obvious that most violent people account for more than one victim, and that skews the numbers. I don’t think 1/3 of people walking around have commited sexual assault, and I think you’d agree with me on that.
Apologies if that’s how it came off; my point was simply to redirect the conversation back to the sort of violence described in the OP, that is the sort perpetrated by radical extremists (e.g., terrorism) and away from things like corporal punishment against children. I think this is where the conversation should live, not about Christian parents spanking their kids. If you disagree, we’ll just have to disagree, as I don’t think I want to take the thread there.
In any case, I’m the one who started with the premise that people aren’t inherently violent (as a way of saying that adherents of a sufficiently popular religion are therefore also not inherently violent). If you think that people ARE inherently violent, that doesn’t mean we necessarily disagree on our approach to Islamophobia.
Let me ask this – I say that “Islam is a religion of peace” is not a useful position because it’s unfalsifiable. What’s your take?
Book of Acts, Chapter 15. The Apostles gather in council and decide that the various Levitical purity laws will not apply to gentile converts save for those involving blood sacrifice, idolatry, and sexual conduct. It was an actual rulemaking decision by the OG founders of the Church. (Which, yes, means that even the Apostles did not believe in absolute inerrant literalism.)
Jesus said there is a new covenant with one principal commandment: Love one another as He has loved us. He kept it pretty simple.
Anything a committee of apostles comes up with (or St. Paul, for that matter) must be taken with a grain of salt. 
He also said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished”, where the Law refers to the Mosaic laws.
That’s the beauty of the Bible: you can always find a verse that directly states the opposite of another verse.
ETA: I’ve never read the Quran, but I bet it’s similar in that regard, especially when it comes to violence/non-violence.
People? No. Men? Not so fast.
Your original point didn’t classify or ringfence any particular kind of violence. You just said “violent people are rare and most people are peaceful” and my point was that’s just not remotely true.
But I’m happy to drop that in this thread - just don’t expect to make blanket statements about the rarity of violent people unopposed.
I think we probably differ quite a bit.
I think applying falsifiability criteria to social statements and issues like you would to science theories is a category error.
“Islam is a religion of peace” is as useful as society chooses to make it - if it inspires a bunch of Muslims to come forward and condemn terrorism, or if it prevents people from attacking non-terrorist Muslims, more power to it. If it is only ever used as cover by terrorists, then boo to it.
I have read it, but since I don’t understand Arabic, I didn’t get much out of it in terms of information 
On the other had I took six years of the Islamic Studies in school. Unfortunately it was in an environment where the suggestion that anything in the Quran was self contradictory would be very dangerous indeed. I was in a Catholic school in a Muslim country Walking a tightrope.
But yes, in numerous long running conversations with Muslims, it’s not so much the Quran that is interpreted by various people to justify their positions, but the Hadith (sayings of Mohammed) and Sunnah (behavior of Mohammed) that are furiously debated as sources of law and moral guidance.
Now watch me be spectacularly schooled by people who know better.
Yes, but Biblical scholars agree he likely had his fingers crossed when He said this bit.
All religions were liberal for their time.
Even the Amish make more sense as an antique hippy movement rather than 17th century cosplay.