It wouldn’t be hypocritical for me. But it is for a believer who only applys part of the book. They are the ones who claim it is moral authority and that god is infallible. And yes, even for a trivial matter such as a ham sandwich, a jew can’t eat it and not be hypocritical. A minor infraction, to be sure, but still a departure from what they are commanded to do.
Quite frankly, the only way to reason with these Muslims is with an equal religious faith - Christianity. I’m sorry but secular humanism alone will not win them over.
In my church I know an Iranian man who is a former Muslim. Sadly even in the US he sometimes fears for his life or the life of his family back in Iran.
Valteron, you didn’t reason with that guy, you insulted him and ignored what he had to say. My guess is that you reaffirmed his belief that infidels are morally inferior. Next time, you might try being polite and listening to to person you want to engage.
To be more explicit, people read the story of Noah to justify the perpetual enslavement of black Africans, the descendants of Ham. At the end of the story, Noah gets drunk, and Ham walks in and sees him naked, and goes out to tell his brothers. The brothers walk backwards into the tent with a garment to cover the nakedness of their drunk father. Ham’s punishment for violating his father by seeing him naked is that Noah cursed him and all his descendants to be laves to the other two brother’s heirs.
Genesis 9
24When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. 25So he said, “Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers.”
The old testament has all sorts of regulations about slavery. No bans, just rules for how to keep your slaves. Jesus tells slaves to obey their masters.
And yet, the abolitionist movement in the US was largely run by Christians. There is NOTHING in the Christian Bible condemning slavery. But Christians were moved to abolish is, nonetheless.
The cynic in me thinks that slavery is okay when it is economically valuable. But there’s no question that Biblical slavery, and the slavery practiced by early Muslims was less horrible than the slavery that was practiced in the US.
I think this is obvious to all people who were reared and educated in a religion who are not, themselves, fundamentalists.
You asked a question about living in a country without the First Amendment.
Canadians and Europeans don’t.
It isn’t hypocritical if he doesn’t insist that someone else do what he excuses himself from doing.
If the believer states outright, “I think that some of the laws are valid, and others are not,” then he isn’t a hypocrite. I think you’re using the wrong word here.
If the believer says, “God is infallible, but the Bible isn’t necessarily,” then he isn’t being a hypocrite. Some people really do believe parts of their holy texts…and reject other parts. That can be perfectly self-consistent.
Don’t make the mistake of going all C.S. Lewis here, where you must believe everything, or else you believe nothing. That’s a false dichotomy, and bad logic.
(I believe in the validity and legitimacy of our judicial system…but I also believe that certain Supreme Court decisions were mistaken. This is not hypocritical.)
Why didn’t you respond to the points in post 116?
As far as the First Amendment, another poster said he did not think every country needed a First Amendment… which I took as his way of saying Freedom of Speech.
1- God exists
2- God is infallible
3- God is the source of morality
4- The bible is the word of god
5- Therefor, if one claims to honestly believe in god, they have to believe every word of the bible
Note, of course, that these standards don’t apply to the “spiritual but not religious” category. Agnostics are free to pick and choose what morality comes from god. People who claim to be religious are not. Also, in your example of the ham sandwich, A jew (or christian) can say I choose to reject god’s rule, but he can’t claim it is ok for him to do so, only that he knows the rule but rejects it.
Well, if he says the Bible was written by god, and he disregards part of the Bible, but regards others, he is a hypocrite.
The judicial system does not claim to speak for god and god’s infallible, perfect, moral order. Religion does however. If they claim it comes from god then it is impossible to say any part of it is a mistake.
Good points you are making but I think you are being far too generous with your standards of internal consistency.
Arab hostility against Israel is not antisemitism, despite its occasional use of antisemitic tropes. That’s because the concept of antisemitism assigns an inferior, victim status to the Jews, and that just doesn’t apply to Israel - they’re our enemies, and we’re theirs. We’re equals.
Antisemitism is something that happens to diaspora Jews, not to Israelis. That was the whole point of founding the country.
The Bible was written by human beings. Religious people often believe those human beings were inspired by God, or took dictation from God. But they were still human, and fallible. The Bible was also written in a now-dead language, and needs to be translated, by human beings.
Jews believe that in addition to the written law, there was also oral law (talmud) that explained how to apply the written law. The Talmud wasn’t written until the diaspora, and in some sense, it is still a living body of law, like common law.
I’m not sure exactly how the hadiths work, but my understanding was that is similar.
I think Catholicism also has a tradition of interpretation, dating back to the letters of the apostles.
The idea that the literal text of the King James Bible is the whole complete transparent truth is a relatively new idea, and not a very solid one, imo.
Because people all over will claim extreme and dangerous religious beliefs, but when push comes to shove they don’t act on them. It feels good to believe it and to rant and rave, but that doesn’t always translate into action. See: religious people across America decrying the evils of homosexuality and gay marriage, almost all of whom don’t physically assault or kill gay people.
I don’t have any comprehensive figures, but there’s this report from the Law Library of Congress, which directionally indicates that the numbers of people executed for apostasy is likely to be vanishingly small. From the summary:
If so many Muslims enthusiastically support killing apostates, why isn’t the death penalty more frequently applied in countries where such laws exist? The characterization of huge swaths of the Muslim world that come out of the Pew survey is undermined by a huge “dog that didn’t bark” problem. Unless one can compellingly explain away that problem, I think it makes more sense to take the Pew numbers with a very large grain of salt.
Yep - that’s one of the advantages of the fact that most people are full of shit.
You can’t argue or change a persons mind that gets there ‘facts’ from ‘God’.
Most, not all but most Christians have been able to interpret the Bible with a grain of salt. Same with Muslims. There are nutballs on both sides though. And unfortunately the Muslim nutballs are worse than the Christian nutballs, at least at this point in history.
Ah, well: no worries.
My personal approach to religion is that any belief is valid…when it is stated in a subjective form.
If someone says, “God exists, angels speak to me, my soul is immortal,” and so on, I think he’s jack full of hooey.
But if he says, “I believe God exists, I believe angels speak to me, and I believe my soul is immortal,” hey, great. Those statements are probably perfectly true, and I don’t have any possible rebuttal to them.
Right
Gays are bad: Written by God
Shellfish is bad: Written by man
See the problem?
1- I am well familiar with those passages
2- You don’t think the Koran calls for the death of infidels???
It does, in some situations. So fucking what? The Bible calls for the death of naughty children, for fuck’s sake. There’s no moral difference between these 2 competing fairy tale collections.
So if 80+% of Egyptians believe apostates should be killed, and if ISIS or the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in Egypt (go ahead and laugh; you would have laughed a year or two ago at the concept of ISIS and Boko Haram taking over large areas of the middle east and west Africa), and if they bring in a death penalty law for apostates, they will have good, solid support from the Egyptian people, won’t they?
Arab and Muslim hostility to Israel serves to legitimize levels of anti-Semitism that can turn your stomach. Look at this blood-libel video from the TV series “Al-Shatat”, broadcast on Jordan’s Al-Mamnou TV, 2005. And Jordan is considered a “moderate” when it comes to Israel!
And yet Muslims riot, burn embassies, and massacre cartoonists when they feel Islam is insulted.It is unbelievable to me that the Muslim apologists on these message boards constantly compare situations in Judaism, Christianity and Islam that are entirely different for one simple reason: the historical period in which they are or are not practised.
If today you killed a naughty child in Israel (where the Old Testament was written) or in ANY western, (historically) Christian country, you would be found guilty of murder and NO court in Israel or the west would accept the argument that it is mandated by scripture.
The OT also says to kill homosexuals, and even people who work on the Sabbath. If a girl is found on her wedding night to have a ruptured hymen, she is to be stoned to death on her father’s doorstep.
DEMOCRATIC, JUDEO-CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES, in the Americas or Europe, as well as Israel, would NEVER regard any of those biblical injunctions as anything but a left-over nightmare of primitive beliefs that have no applications in the modern world.
Now compare this with the Muslim world. Where seven states have a death penalty for homosexuals, and dozens more have flogging and imprisonment. NOT thousands of years ago but right NOW, in the 21st century. Right now in the 21st century homosexuals are imprisoned, tortured and put to death in Muslim countries. And where are the mobs of angry Muslims who demonstrated in Europe, America and the middle east against harmless cartoonists? Why are they not outraged and demonstrating when Iran kills gay men by pushing a wall over on them?
Right now is when Raid Badawi in Saudi Arabia may eventually be killed or perhaps flogged to death for expressing an opinion on a blog. Where are the crowds we saw demanding the blood of the Danish cartoonists?
Videos of people being stoned to death for adultery are circulating NOW, in 2015, on the internet.
Do you apologists really see this situation as morally equivalent to the existence of a few barbaric rules in the Old Testament that have been gathering dust for centuries?