Turns out, upon checking, that Casdave was also on record as opposing the savagery of the Iraq War, just as I was. So he merits a pass on that, and an apology. Which is herein offered.
There are, however, several of you here who have not such a record of consistency. You, and you know who you are, are still firmly invited to go pound burdocks.
Bigot! Troll! Umm…Liar!?
50% of Muslims don’t want to kill apostates either.
Red, if he shows up, I’m blaming you! That carries the special Yurpeen sentence of six hours on non-stop NASCAR.
The point is that if Christians don’t want to hold onto those intolerant passages, the mental gymnastics aren’t particularly laborious. On the subject of homosexuality, the Qur’an states:
“What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, and leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are forward folk.” Qur’an 26:165
And by way of elaboration, the hadith states:
*“When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes.”
“Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to.”*
Since Muslims believe that the Qur’an is literally the word of God, and perfect in every syllable, they have to engage in more doublethink than the average Christian to ignore those edicts. Now, no doubt a great many of them do precisely that, and this is laudable. However, there is absolutely no question that those who don’t ignore them are on firmer ground theologically.
The Pew surveys quoted earlier in this thread show that this is clearly not the case. Muslims have been scientifically polled, with an error margin of 2-4 percent, on the question of whether or not apostates should be killed, and a terrifying number of them think that they should. And after all, why wouldn’t they think that? The Qur’an and the Hadith are very clear on this point, and symbolic interpretations of Islamic scripture are, by definition, virtually impossible.
Besides, even if we were to allow, purely for the sake of argument, that Christians were as given to literalism as Muslims, I can still think of one clear exception to your argument right off the bat: Suicide bombing. Let’s digress for a very brief moment and look at my favourite religion, Jainism.
Beliefs have consequences and the differences between faiths are as relevant as they are unmistakeable. There is a reason, after all, why world government’s aren’t burning lean tissue worrying about Jain suicide bombers. The founding principle of Jainism is utter non-violence. The more deranged you become as a Jain, the less likely you are to become a suicide bomber. Similarly in Christianity, while there is a long tradition of martyrdom, there is nothing in the Bible which could lead one to believe that dying on a battlefield in defence of your religion represented the ultimate sacrament.
The same is not true of Islam. The Qur’an and the hadith both praise martyrdom as the highest form of sacrifice, earning the perpetrator a prized place in paradise. Now, I’m well aware that the Tamils were committing suicide attacks before the Islamists. As far as I’m aware, they’re not even a religious group. I know full well that Muslims don’t have a monopoly on suicide bombings. However, if your sacred texts clearly state that violent martyrdom will get you into Allah’s good books then it’s obviously easier to do just that the more militant a Muslim you are.
The Koran doesn’t say that “violent martyrdom” will get you into heaven. You are misinformned. On the contrary, most Muslims will tell you that suicide bombers go to Hell.
I actually know a couple of Jains, and they are representative of a fine and noble religious tradition. Much like Sufi Islam. And they would be appalled to be used by you in support of hatred and bigotry.
For the record, although I wasn’t a member at the time, I was very strongly opposed to the Iraq invasion.
I’m calling bullshit on the Pew poll, by the way, the high numbers break down along cultural lines, not really religious. Muslims in the western world don’t think that way.
Plus, if you did a worldwide poll of Christians, I have no doubt you would find similar numbers. Not that numbers are the point anyway. Secularists civilized Christianity in the western world. Western Muslims tend to moderate as well. Religious zealotry is not caused by the specific religion, but by external conditions. The Christian Bible has some of the most vile and repulsive passages you will find in any religious literature, but in conditions of freedom and democracy (which were brought into the world by secularists) Christians have no problem ignoring that stuff.
“Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).” Qur’an 4:74.
“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” - Qur’an 9:111.
Sufi’s have been persecuted by orthodox Muslims since time immemorial. Even today, in Iran, Sufi’s get lashed. If Sufism were the predominant strain of Islamic thought, the world would be a much safer place. It isn’t, and it isn’t.
I think it’s safe to say that they would be more appalled by religious violence.
Nothing in there about suicide bombing or killing civilians. The vast majority of Muslims condemn those things. The passages you’re quoting have to do with defending Muslims against physical threats. Those who use this kind of passage to justify suicide bombings of civilians are a minority of zealots who are twisting the text. Why don’t you actually ask a Muslim what happens to suicide bombers.
Well, shit, Cort, if you give a pass to the Sufis (as well you should), then you finally get down to hating violent assholes. Why not just hate violent assholes and forget about their religious persuasions? What difference does it make what lame-ass justifications they use?
The second sentence may or may not be right since it depends on who you ask, but the first sentence is wrong.
According to Islamic tradition one who dies a Shaheed(martyr) is immediately whisked away to paradise while everyone else has to wait around in the ground till Judgement Day where they’re then interviewed by some angels to determine if they can get into heaven or not.
This has got to be a joke. Or perhaps we should start giving out an award to people for not committing murder?
I am not contesting that Islam tradition holds that martyrs go to Heaven, my contention is that the majority of Islamic tradition does not consider those who kill innocents to be martyrs. Most Muslims do not think that suicide bombers are martyrs, they think they’re criminals.
I didn’t mean it that way. I was saying that I don’t believe the number that 50% DO want to kill apostates.
Yeah, yeah, I’m a piece of shit and you’re a piece of shit. But from where does this “dishonest debater” notion come from? I’ve been called lots and lots of things on these boards, all the usual ad hominems—and more. But I don’t recall this accusation. Please, do tell, what have i been dishonest about? Somehow I get the feeling that the dishonest piece of shit is you. And your quote above is my cite.
However, I do agree with you that casdave has done a stellar job here, as has Cort and NCDane.
Good. Whew. Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy or fairness of the poll? Do you not trust Pew? Something else?
I think it’s skewed by high numbers in culturally repressed regions.
There is more nonsense here than I care to address line-by-line.
I will comment on a few of the highlights.
The key word is “fulfill”.
This was not interpreted to mean “obey literally and word-for word”
either by Christ (cf "“go and sin no more”) or by his successors, who
dispensed with OT dietary law (1 Corinthians 10:25–28) and the
necessity of circumcision (Galatians 2), among other things.
The rhetorical gymnastics above are compromised by the literal
and unyielding interpretation of “fulfill”, to which you commited
yourself in the first paragraph of your reply. Furthermore, the
premise that the criminal should be pardoned because of the
moral imperfection of the judge is plainly absurd.
Citation, please, and I believe adultery was seldom if ever
a capital crime in the West outside the immediate family of
Henry VIII of England.
I am not going to research every statute ca. 300-1700CE,
but I did find this ruling on sex crimes issued by Pope Leo III
in the 8th century CE:
(from link):
So: nose slitting, lashes (12), fines and exiles by decree
of the Pope himself.
Addressed.
I believe you are guilty of deliberate falsifaction of the
historical record, or to put it more crudely, you are guilty
of making shit up.
In so doing you emulate the worst of the totalitarian
ideologies of the past 100 years. You are an intellectual
criminal for whom the truth will serve only if it suits you,
and when the truth does not suit you then a lie is just
as good. I will try not bother with you again, although
I cannot promise I will not provoke me into speaking by
some future enormity.