Reading the Quran by itself doesn’t tell you much. The best analogy I can come up with is this: Imagine reading a version of the Gospels that only tell you Jesus’s words, but don’t give you the context that they were spoken in.
The Hadith provide the context to the Quran. Unfortunately, they don’t make it any more peaceful. Quite the opposite.
exactly what context are we supposed to derive from “keep your sex slaves and have sex with them whenever you want”
Prior to the abolition of slavery in the US, both slave owners and abolitionists used the Bible to justify their points of view. What do you make of that?
People don’t derive their values from religious texts, they* insert* their values into religious texts.
If you want to understand context, you need to study the history, you cannot simply pull isolated quotes from biased websites.
No,it specifically says keep your sex slaves and have sex with them whenever you want.
Did you read or understand a word of what I posted?
What was the context?
How many Muslims keep sex slaves today? How many Christians keep slaves, or kill people who eat shellfish? How many Jews slay people who don’t worship Yahweh?
Every religious text contains contradictions. People put weight on the verses that reinforce their own values.
Just as angry atheists pull quotes out of context to direct their anger towards others, and reinforce their own values.
So you’re not denying either claim:
1- That Mohammed and his followers kept slaves
2- The Quran specifically says you can keep (non muslim) women as sex slaves and have sex with them whenever you want
That was not in question. You asked about context, and that is what I replied to. You still haven’t addressed any of it.
Are you denying anything I’ve said? Why are you avoiding it?
You’re the one avoiding the point! If people no longer practice the barbaric tenants of their holy books that is not a defense of the religion. No, it just shows how flawed and backwards the religion is.
You will not get an answer. The agenda is making distorting comments. It does not matter that the Torah law of the jews has old terms virtually identical to the quranic permission (it is not an injuction it is a permission) or that the quran injunctions and the actual operation of slavery was greatly inclined to freeing of slaves and it was rare to have multi generation of bondage in islamic societies, in great contrast to the european christian practice that drew on the bible for justification…
(of course it is then getting into the silly and stupid dueling quotes of bad behaviours justified)
the op has brought the usual bigots with hatred out … it is boring.
so then slavery is ok as long as it is not multi generational?
Moved to the In My Humble Opinion forum.
So your only point is that all religions are flawed and backwards? How does that contradict anything I’ve said? You had asked about context. Were you just pretending to be interested in an answer to that?
Again: People use religion to reinforce their own values, they do not derive their values from religion.
The flaws (contradictions) in religious text is what allows them to do so, as the texts can be interpreted in different ways, and are still debated and studied even today.
Do you disagree with that?
Okay. Now take your pants off your head and slide them on your legs. Basket-weaving class begins in the solarium in ten minutes.
Yes, I disagree with the idea that any such book should be consulted for moral guidance. Any book that says you can keep sex slaves or that you should stone people to death for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week, no such book should ever be used as a moral authority since it outlines practices that are so clearly violent, archaic and barbaric. The fact that it also says some good things is irrelevant.
The US was founded by slave holders, some of whom had sex with their slaves. Thomas Jefferson has a monument, his image is on our money. Why doesn’t that inspire your outrage? Shouldn’t they be reviled as flawed and backwards?
Context. Look it up if you have to. Maybe the study of religion is premature in your case.
Sigh. You’re not getting it. Where did I say it was consulted for moral guidance?
You are very mistaken if you think I hold the founding fathers in high esteem. They were a bunch of rich men who started a war that only benefited other rich men. They complained about taxes when in fact they paid less tax that the people back in England did. The colonies were neither subjected no oppressed in any meaningful way. In fact the colonists were, as you pointed out, oppressing and subjecting blacks and native americans. Their only agenda was corrupt self interest.
Nothing.
I do not waste my time arguing with members of the Westboro Baptist Church, the Young Earth Creationist at work, the militant/evangelical atheist at a previous job, the Tridentine Blue Army member who would show up at parish meetings to condemn us all as heretics, or anyone else whose sole approach to discussion is dependent on unthinking adherence to a set of beliefs. If any person’s source of “Truth” is an unconsidered acceptance of some other set of beliefs, there is no point to any effort at discussion.
I have had discussions that were both spirited and friendly with Muslims, Fundamentalist Christians, atheists, and extremely conservative Catholics, but in each case, the person with whom I was talking was open to hear my side. When that door closes, the discussion is at an end.
You don’t. But many people do.
Okay.
So, based on your posts here, you are a literalist, and you think context is irrelevant.
Is that correct?