And yet, you are willing to assert that all the evils related to Islam, most of which are very recent, are due to him.
Who was it that recently asked if the word being sought was “hypocrisy”?
Point #1:
1- General platitudes
2- Very specific orders
illustrated here
Point #2
The actual actions of a religious leader will influence heavily the actions of their followers. So Mohammed’s violent acts of MURDER, rape, villainy, thievery, slavery, war mongering, oppression the women, slandering the pagans… you know, his greatest hits list… those actions are — kind of — important to pay attention too in regards to how his “most fervent believers” act and react to his message.
Point #3
The actual words in the primary text from the primary demi-god/prophet/flavor of the week/whatever, the actual words of the primary figure head in the religious text… of a religion… are going to have a — much greater — pay attention now, I can feel you drifting off or getting ready to make excuses or call me stupid again… those words are going to have much greater impact on a “serious” member of a religion than say… some random sentence in a magazine that is 4 years old sitting in the waiting room at the doctors office.
I have to really give you credit for one thing, Tom, persistence. You just really really really hate it when I say bad things about religion.
So let me get this straight : on the one hand, Western civilization is great and peaceful and a model for the world today (ignoring the 1900 odd years we were either backward idiots or right bastards or both) because that Jesus, he was such a swell guy. Not one for broad feel-good platitudes, he.
On the other hand, the world of Islam is (supposedly) horrid and backwards strictly because of Muhammad, ignoring the 1700 odd years when they were great and peaceful and a model for the world, and the 200 more years they were mostly scrambling to keep the wheels on the cart if I’m being honest.
I’ll give you consistency in ignoring everything that didn’t literally happen yesterday, but I think your framework of the world needs more, er, work 
And yes, Muhammad did explicitly promote religious tolerance, and provided a new conception of statehood & civic reform. The further developments were not all on him obviously - it was built up incrementally from the basis he provided, and more than a little was improvised ad hoc. But to claim that Suleiman’s golden age owes nothing whatsoever to Muhammad the issuer of broad platitudes ? Come the fuck on, lad. Give us at least a little intellectual honesty and rigour, please.
General platitudes, while nice, are like a really comfortable pair of shoes or your favorite winter coat…
Platitudes are, in general terms, (1) stuff most people can already figure out by themself… (2) for the most part, relatively interchangeable between most modern religions. I mean they all talk about peace, harmony, feeding the hungry, etc etc etc… right?
BTW- I find that when those shoes wear out, it’s not too hard to find another pair… the same with a coat.
No, not at all, not in the least bit. Quite the opposite in fact. I think the fact that:
1- You don’t have to actually - do anything - to label yourself a christian, besides label yourself a christian.
2- You don’t have to actually - do anything - to get into heaven except “accept Jesus in your heart”, in other words, you don’t have to actually do anything… and a raping torturing serial killer (who accepts Jesus and quits killing) has access to heaven while most kind hearted doing good works atheist… is going to hell
I think these two concepts have created a PROFOUND lack of accountability in the mind of the average Christian and is one of the reasons why “christians” are so content to sit by and watch their political and corporate leaders rape rob and pillage the whole planet.
I’ll add to that that when you are convinced you will “go to heaven” and “everything will be better” then you are going to be less concerned with average day to day evils and wrongdoings here on earth while you are alive. This, as well, goes into the the lack of accountability that christians have for their leaders.
Let’s add to this one very simple concept: stupidity, arrogance, and short shortsightedness. Only the VERY MOST ARROGANT person can sit at a table and thank god “for their food” while meanwhile kids in Africa and are literally starving to death… this takes like a 3rd degree black belt in self centerdness to think that god thinks that - you - are that special.
So, yes, I am kind of critical of christinaity and their general lack of regard for the planet and general lack of accountability and short shortsightedness. I think it is a phenomena that has caused HUGE problems for this planet.
No, I do not dispute that at all. The “peaceful and productive” periods of Islam and that impact on the planet, I have not denied, not once, and do not see my self making any such declaration at any point in the future.
And yet, you mention no specifics. I’m not playing “gotcha”. You don’t even have to quote them directly or perfectly, a general account of his intellectual contribution(s) to the planet would suffice.
Of course it has - some - contribution. I’d never claim otherwise. Christ, for example, focused on forgiveness more specifically than any other religious or philosophical figure of the east or the west that I am aware of. I’m sure there are similar such concepts on which Mohammed shed more illumination than other similar figures.
I think the word you are looking for is:
Toxicity
In 2015, the very narrow band of followers of a very narrow band of passages from the Koran (increased by the actual acts of the founder) are making the world a lot lot lot - lot - worse than it would be if said religion, for example, had never existed. The ill and harm outweigh the benefit.
Suicide bombers and Burkas and hijabs and dead journalists we don’t need. Dusty old religious books? We already have enough of those…
Oh yeah, I almost forgot
That’s only been true for a very, very short time. And even then there are some rites that are shared by most every Christian denomination - communion, Sunday service, some variation on the Lord’s Prayer, etc…
That’s only true according to some rather minor sects, that AFAIK only exist in the US. The whole “accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour and you’re good to go” thing is pretty strictly confined to the fallout of the US Great Revival of the 1800s.
It most certainly wasn’t true back when we were crusading or colonizing. The crusades for example were specifically sold to the lower orders of society as a way to get into Heaven if your other behaviour made that fact doubtful to you (for the landed gentry it was also about that, but it was also about claiming lands for your second son self ; nabbing them silk road and holy relic profits, etc…).
He instituted the principle of dimmah, by which religious minorities within the lands of Islam would be allowed to practice their faith, visit their pilgrimage sites, keep their temples and so forth unimpeded, provided they paid for the privilege and didn’t make too much of a fuss.
Which, I’ve already told you, was a damn sight better than anybody else did at the time.
As for statehood, half of the Koran and *hadiths *are nothing *but *“this is how society should work”. Treaty making, war making, justice & conflict resolution, social mores and art… It’s a lot more detailed in this regards than the NT.
Christ did preach forgiveness in general terms (although I wouldn’t say it was a focus of his ministry at all, but that’s besides the point). What impact did that have over the history of Christendom, exactly ? Be specific.
Calm down everyone. I know, of course, that the Koran does not specifically call for these. But it does call for a woman to be modest… am I right? When you factor in all of the other women hating passages… can we really say we are surprised at the popularity of Burkas and Hijabs???
Pictured : a modest Christian woman. Pictured : a *very *modest Jewish woman. The Bible calls for that shit too, you know. As for women hating, you ever heard of that guy Paul of Tarsus ? He’s in the New T, you know ;).
Can you really declare yourself an expert on how the average christian viewed themself and their faith in 849AD or 1521AD or even 1807AD. I bet you can’t. Not with any degree of specificity or accuracy. So… I’m going to assume the literal words of the text were the most common interpretation in any/all periods of history.
Ummm… ok… I was standing in line at the office at St Patrick’s Cathedral in NYC and a lady in line came up and gave the receptionist like… 20 or 50 dollars and asked the receptionist to ask one of “The Fathers” to say a blessing for one of their loved ones who passed away… guess what… they took her money!!!
I’m not under the illusion that all of Christianity has been the same for the past 2000 years… I just think a straight reading of the text is the best way to try to figure out what christ/paul/john wanted you to think.
Ok… so basically he did what any “spiritually advanced” person would do anyway…
Ok… like really, I actually believe you.
Not much. In fact… from the way they act… I’d say most christians are unaware that he even talks about such topics… same for charity… but we both know this is not true, they do know that stuff is in there…
Wait…
I can feel/hear/see you getting ready to respond…
I am not really that concerned with the “good parts of the book” people ignore… the “bad parts of the book” that they actually apply are far far far more relevant… this is how I judge the impact of each various religion.
I’m going to the gym… TTYL
1- Hijabs and Burkas are a lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot… LOT more common than whatever kind of hat the lady was wearing in the first photo.
2- I was not aware the Hasidics had Burkas too… we can talk at another time about how much I hate Hasidim and how horribly oppressive in terms of a “social life” it is to it’s own members…
3- The worst Paul ever said was, Woman! Be quiet!.. now go fix me a sandwich… I don’t think he actually viewed women as de facto property… though some christians and some later times… did, based largely on his influence.
We do have access to shit they wrote, you know. About themselves, about their societies, about how other people behaved. I don’t have to be an expert in how the average Christian viewed themselves : like your average vegan or person who’s read ASoIaF before it became a hit show, don’t worry, *they *will tell us :).
And since I’m majoring in history then yeah, I’m not quite an expert yet but I feel like I’m growing a decent-ish handle on things dead folks said or believed ;).
Although obviously, the state literacy being what it was, as you move further and further into the past the pool of “average christian writers” dwindles pretty quickly, until you only have “part of the elite christians” to draw from. But they still talk about the average man, or at him.
And that’s one approach to Christianity - a specifically Protestant one, I might add, or rather heavily influenced by the ideas that drove the Reformation forward (some of which came from a subset of Catholics).
The mainstream Catholic Church does not agree with you at all, for example. It’s a rather influential Christian sect, you might have heard of 'em in the news 
Yet none had done so before. Jesus didn’t, Paul didn’t, Peter didn’t, Saint Augustine didn’t, Thomas Aquinas didn’t, none of the Popes ever did, Martin Luther didn’t 10 whole centuries later etc…
Well that’s awfully convenient, innit ? How about the good parts of the book(s) people actually put into practice on a large scale ?
Ok, I have to say, you won that round. Hands down. No contest.
Meh… like a good hat, it keeps out the rain but almost any hat will do… (that is my serious answer).
Are you familiar with these books:
Meditations - Marcus Aurelius
Tao Te Ching
I bet you haven’t heard of this one, I’d be really rally surprised if you had:
All these books have the advantage of being rather practical and straightforward… you don’t have to be part of any creed, era, or nationality to apply/appreciate them. So the bible… The NT and OT and the Koran and the Texts of Buddha and Confucius… they are all good to one degree or another… but also limited in one degree or another… whereas other books are not limited to any creed, nationality or era.
I think I showed this to you before… off to the gym now will answer other points later… think you will like this site: Historum.
Oh come now. The Tao is hardly practical *or *straightforward. I read it cover to cover twice and I still have no clue what the fuck Laozi was on about. “We put thirty spokes together and call it a wheel; but it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the wheel depends.” ? No ! No it’s not ! You can make perfectly serviceable wheels that have no empty space whatsoever, you bearded old git ! And what am I supposed to do with this information, anyway ?!
This is a dumb comment. Note the numerous threads in which posters make legitimate attacks on religion or specific religions that I do not challenge–because they are accurate rather than your baseless polemics.
What I really hate is when you post errors of fact or draw dumb conclusions from those errors of fact. (You might want to notice that several participants in this thread who oppose your errors have, themselves, no love for or–even an antipathy against–religion. This being the Straight Dope, they still prefer the straight dope to bogus propaganda from those with an axe to grind.)
Neither of these are Christian teachings and only a limited number of Christians believe them. So, once again, you are spouting (your fundy) ignorance.
This is a dumb comment:
You are spouting (your fundy) ignorance.
The “Fundies” are the ones who run the religion from the book, the way it is SUPPOSED to be run. It’s almost like… the more you insult me and call me stupid… the more right I am!!! Yay for me!!! I win!!!
I have defeated Tom in this great internet battle!
Yay!!!
Actually, they both are. Oh yeah??? Then WHAT IS the requirement to be a christian? What is the requirement to get into heaven?
I’m not interested in what - your - answer is, Tom, I am interested in what - the - answer to that question is.
It’s what Fundamentalists believe.
Evangelicals - 25%
Evangelicals/Born Again - Between 20% and 35%
Percentage of Americans who do not believe in Evolution: 42%
Right, ignornat stupid stupid me.
Well, I bet the Fundies ALL agree with both points from post #1085. I bet most of them know it by heart, chapter and verse. I bet it is the same for my god hating Atheist soul that will be roasting in hell for all Eternity. I bet you they know THOSE passages chapter and verse, by heart, could recite them in their sleep probably. And right now, as we speak, right now, some of them are drilling these awful, evil thoughts into the heads of innocent children - right now - this moment, as we speak.
Maybe, if, like me, you grew up in a town where you heard people talking about this type of thing with glee, with joy, with A SMILE ON THEIR FACE, you too would have a dislike for “religion”.
42% Tom, you can not dismiss this as “a limited number of believers” not even on the low end of the scale, at 25%.
I agree, and, I disagree, it depends on the translation. Lots of them are confusing or rambling or incoherent. I like this version, it is a bit easier to read/comprehend:
Tao Te Ching- Translated by Stephen Mitchell
Evangelicals only represent ~13% of Christians worldwide although they’re rapidly growing in central Africa, where US-based missionaries have been super active over the past few decades. For better or worse…
If only 13% of a group consider X to be true then you can’t say X is central to that group or a teaching of that group, can you ?