Sure, sure , it's all a question of "interpretation" what essentially leaves little room of interpretation. The evil lies in the eye of the beholder only.

Just compare the state in which Islamic societies are, regarding tolerance and multiculturalism, and Christian ones. compare to what degree Christians base primarily on the old testament, or the four gospels n owadays. Try to see such a reformist difference in the Quran/Hadith/Sharia, in islam's global behavior today. Islamic societies are were christian ones were many generations ago - locked in intellectual darkness and fatalistic religious superstition and fanatism, not even mentioning the enslaving of women.

and explain why every year in Muslim countries and in the name of Islam thousands and thousands of people get killed (claimed Muslims and infidels alike), even more discriminated, tortured, driven away - without all this raising big concerns and protests amonst Muslim populations - while in the West this is not so, but all is so incredibly much better and more humane and free over here. How comes that infidels and foreign priests time and again get murdered in Muslim countries for religious reasons, whereas in the West the assassination of Muslims is a real rarity?

Islam has nothing to do with it?

Islam has all to do with it, becasue it is a time trap. The clash of cultures, is a clash between historic eras. Islam today is in and celebrates that condition as civilisational superiority where our ancestors have been several generations ago, centuries and one millenia ago. Islam is driven by those motives that in past centuries the West has been driven by - but is no more!!! - when there still had not been a loss of power and control of the church, and where the West culture was when it was under influence of the dogma of the OT and the Catholic church. Those were bad and dark times for europe. We have left them beidn sicne lomng. Islam is stuck in the middle of this darkness - since many centuries, and I do not see it even trying to creep put of it. Instead, it tries to enforce this darkness on all others, too.

Changing that dogma, leaving it behind, having a reformation, a focussing on the new testament and the four gospels, having a pushing back of the religious people'S power and refusing the church almost total control: all this are inevtiable preconditions for the freedoms and humanistic ideals we have today, the cultural blossoming, the developement of arts and sciences both in quantity and quality, the forming of a cultural tolerance that is possibly unique in the history of mankind. The big wars we fought in the past generations: were not fought over religious missions anymore, but nationalistic and political ideas.

But islam should not have anything to do with the state the Islamic world is in - stuck with it'S head in the a### of history, 1400 years deep, impotent by itself when it is about agriculture, technology, science, economy, true tolerance for others, legal rights, and declaring half of mankind - the female - as de facto slaves, and all infidels as victims that either must be killed or subjugated, dealt with in mandatory discrimination to let them feel their just penalty for resisting the will of Allah?

It is not about being offensive, SH, but Islam is the biggest pain in the a## of the world, a problem for all of us refusing to embrace it, and the biggest cause of bloodshed, torture and supression in the modern world. Islam must fundamentally change itself, and that means, since it cannot be changed, it must be replaced, and this is not possible as long as well-meaning tolerant guys int he West continue to save it from asking critical questions about itself, not analysing it's own history and identity, and just deceiving itself and all others as well. the confrontation, the conflict this means, is inevitable and is absolutely a necessity if Wetsern freedom and tolerance and ideals and culture and humanism shall survive, at least in the part of the world that is called "the West".

And I think even in the Islamic world there is a bit of discomfort with one's own ideologic basis - else one would not invest so much energy on denying it's barbaric heritage, nicetalking it, glossing over it, and even denying or forging history when it does not confirm with Islam'S official opinion on how things have been.

This constant underlying attitude that the bad being done in the name of Islam has nothign to do with Islam, is getting tiresome. Islam has much less space for interpretation, than most people are aware of. and that is becasue Muhammad had a high interest in making his preachings anythijg but open to ionterpretation - he was after exactly the opposite, to secure his claim for power and his undisputed control by enforcing uniformity and preventing (by supression, accusations of heresy, and assassination) all opinions that were not falling into line with him. Absolute power and free opinion do not mix well together. Interpretation is the last thing that Muhammad wanted/Islam wants.

Thanks, Aramike. That's nice of you to say. I may even forgive you for ripping all of my limbs off and killing one of my favorite gefreiters, you flea-bitten Satanic Hellhound:DL:03:

OK, so book burning pisses many of us off (though if you're gonna burn books, religious fantasy titles are a great place to start ;) ).

That said, what about when here in the west, we see something functionally the same to me. Self-censorship.

Danish cartoons. What newspapers, magazines, or TV networks showed the "offensive" cartoons? Which ones? South Park—censored by its network. This is the same as book burning to me. It's not state action, but it is a SYMBOL of submission. It is a symbolic burning of documents that mean something—the Constitution, for example. Note that they did NOT self-censor the countless episodes that poke at "Jesus and Pals" on South Park. Or the attacks on Mormans, or Scientology. Only one religion gets a pass.

Ceding our freedom of expression for any reason is wrong. If that means not getting POed about the expression that is book (or flag) burning, so be it.

Not to mention what is about stoning women for alleged adultry becasue a male witness counts two times over a female. Hanging homosexuals. Cutting of limbs becasue the thief was hungry and caught a banana. Stabbing the daughter to death because she became guilty by having been raped by group of men (who maybe even belonged to the family). Claiming right of property over females and whipping wives if they are not obedient enough. Beheading infidels if they resist islam. Demading Jews to wear yellow dots on their cloathing.

And so very very very much more up to the scale of genocide against christian populations in africa, terror against buddhists and hindus in asia, terror and war in Lebanon, hate preaching in mosques and islamic culture Centres throughout europe, etc etc etc.

It all has nothing to do with Islam, it's just the misdoing of some freaks who misunderstood islam and give it a bad name - with most of the Muslim world staying silent on these things and even supporting them with their states' money.

In the past 8 years or so, almost 16,000 people have been killed in the name of Islam, in warzones, and in muslim nations, and in mixed nations - genocides like in southeast africa not even counted. Substantial reactions from the Ummah to all this? None, just shrugging shoulder at best. But when a cartoonist in the West does in the West what in the West is perfectly allowed by Western rule, law and habit: drawing a cartoon, then all hell breakes lose, and Islam is once again presented as the perfect victim of global conspiracy. One critical word, one question on Islam - and immediately the religion of peace runs rethorical and sometimes practical amok, breathing fire and brimstone and teminding us to be more "sensible" and to prove once again that we are tolerant while being slapped into the face and pushed back one more step once again.

So? How does this relate to anything being discussed?

(We are discussing the particulars of the literary DEMANDS of modern faiths, not their histories.)You completely misunderstand my point.

What I was saying is that, take the actions of men throughout history (a great example: the crusades) and preserve the texts they interpretted as a justification, as a way of identifying the contexts in which evil is committed.

What YOU are trying to illustrate is the Bible and Quran are somehow similar in their texts. They are not. The Quran (specifically its demands upon modern Muslims) is barbaric at best. The Bible (specifically its demands upon modern Christians) is not.

The solution is to go burn stuff... Riiiight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtD3OJ-_Es

I agree everyone should have a gun. :rock: Let there be anarchy.

So the new testament suddenly makes the old destament moot?

And I'd agree, religion is just a tool used to get people to act like complete arseheads. Sure there are others, but I would rather see a world without organized religion. Personal faith is fine, i think it is nonsensical, but fine.

As for the soviet remark, i was born a citizen of the soviet union, trust me, i know the horrors of that regime better than you probably ever could.

Yes, as far as Christianity is concerned.

It's called the "New Covenant", and if you actually understood the religion you're seeking to condemn, you'd be fully aware that Christianity specifically abandons concepts such as "eye for an eye" in favor of "turning the other cheek".I'm sure there are plenty of people just like yourself who'd rather see a world rid of (insert organization representing that which one doesn't believe in here). Thankfully people of your mindset aren't in charge, else we'd be at the whims and mercy of whatever ideas have the greatest traction at whatever time.

In fact, you should be equally thankful, because imagine a world where your wishes COULD feesibly come true. I suspect you wouldn't like that world at all, as its likely religious leaders would have eradicated organized science by now.

My rule regarding such things is simple: make sure your principles can't come back to bite you in the ass. As such, I choose freedom as a principle - freedom to agree, disagree, and join others in espousing both.You'd be suprised. But the question of who's perception of horrors is greater is another discussion for another time, and is not at all relevant to the topic at hand.

At Jesus' life times, there was no new testament and no "christian church". There was only Judaism and the Thora. and the old testament indeed compares more to the old Judaic entity Jahwe, and presents the same image of a revengening, tyrannic psychotic God who tortures his followers for fun to test them, and who commands and set up demands and threatens most unforgiving penalties and extinction if he is not obeyed. Jesus introduces a very different concept of "God", which transcended the level of literalism and the conept of the old "volcano-god", and put man in responsibility for his fate while also showing that he is already embedded in a greater context. In principle Jesus was a reformer of Judaism, and Christinity if a reformed version of Judaism, expressed in the NT. The OT compares to the old Thora. but there is no new thopra that could be compared to the NT.

A comparable historic developement in Islam never took place, there is no reformed Islam and not reformed version of the Quran. Islam thus remained on the level of orthodox Judaism and fundamentalists who focus more on the OT than the NT. It is my strong conviction that people who try to take the NT as literal as the OT (fanatic Jesus-lovers taking the NT literally), simply have so far missed the most important part of the message of Jesus, and that is: don't do like this anymore, for God is not like this.

In the end, Muhammeddans, orthodox Jews and fundamental Christians all share the same basic mindset - and thus they all compare in their level of intolerance, anti-intellectualism and readiness to bring barbary and backwardedness upon mankind. Do not burn the Quran only but the Thora and the OT as well. It's all the same poison murdering thought and claiming superiority where there is just an intellectual hole, and a void where there should be reason. It's all three just offsprings of one and the same mind, and if given the opportunity, the one will behave as barbabric and hateful as the other.

I know some people who accepted money as a payment to kill the enemy of the state but they were just used and have been convicted. They consider themselves very patriotic. Is this the fault of patriotism too?

It's the people not the teaching.

And replace them with intellectual, material arrogance and narcissism where there is just an intellectual and spiritual hole?

People will find whatever things or people to hate and when there's none they make them and create all kind of excuses to justify themselves. It's the people who are troubled and most likely don't even like themselves very much. I've come to believe that many people hate other people simply because they remind themselves of how bad they truly are and instead of being sorry and repentant they embrace hatred as a form of self defense and as a result of immaturity. From school bullies to despotic head of state . . . . . .and you would just blame religion or God even on all that? A bit unfair and even irrational isn't it?

I am not in favor of baning religion, but would rather prefer a world where people would be sensible ennough to abandon the concept and just accept that there are things in this universe we can not explain yet. There is no need to fill in the blanks with god did it. That does nothing to advance human understanding, and may even hinder it as a fallback for the mentally lazy. Why bother trying to figure something out when the answer s allready there?

Just so there are is no confusion, I detest organized religion of all kinds, don't see as any one being better or worse than the others. Same as my view on politicians.

It's not up to religion to claim something like this. That would mean to make the perpetrator the judge and the jury.

Religion and spirituality are mutually exclusive.
Belief and reason are mutually exclusive.
religion and belief, and knowing and learning are mutually exlcusive.

But reason is a basis for spirituality.
and science and spirituality go together most wonderfully.

I knew muhammeddans who turned, under great perosnal risk and sacrifice, tino apopstates, and I contributed a bit to that decision of theirs. I was not unfair to them, but you are unfair to reasonable people when you ignore that ideas and ideologies influence and educate people. The Quran preaches intolerance, it's own superiority, the inferiority of all others, and its demand to be in total control. and if your read the Quran correctly: in understanding of the historic sequence of the Sura's roots (the Quran just sorts them by length, not by time) and in awareness of the abrogation principle, you are left with little or no space for wide-ranging interpretations.

And that is what the world is getting from it. Since centuries, since over a millenia, and whole cultures got destroyed by it and whole people got subjugated by it, loosing the future that otherwise may have been theirs. And that is especially true for the Arabs themselves. they had so much better starting coinditions comoared to Europe, at the timemuhammad came. tjhen came muhammad, and the great stagnation and apathy began. If I were Arab, I would curse Muhammad's name over this cultural crime he has committed to my people.

Yeah, sure, if a greedy, hate-ridden, intolerant, surpemacist ideology causes people to bully other cultures and tolerate violence in the name of Islam, this ideology has nothing to do with it.

Do you even realise what you have said when you said it is like this, that it is not the ideology, but the people? You by that implied that people get not edcuated to be in rage or apathy, but that they are in rage by probably some defective genes, must supect, that they are like this because they are what they are and already got born like this, for "it is the people, not the religion". And that, different to a critical argument and view of Islam that is intellectually founded, is pure racism indeed. I never, nowhere, ever said something liked that all Arabs or Persians are dumb or untypically aggressive by nature and race. I said that their damn Islamic ideology teaches them how to be dumb and aggressive, and that the long stagnation of their countries has somethign to do with that way of edcuation, or better: indoctrination as well.

And that are two very different ways to view things.

Doesn't shock me in the least. I've seen church people do all sorts of crazy things.


When it comes to religion, our society went somewhere over the coo-coo's nest awhile ago. What do they expect to accomplish? Affirmation of their belief's while concurrently sending a political and "patriotic" message.


We're not all judeo christian evangelical fundamentalists, but there are a larger number who are. The rest of the world might be able to tell the difference, but the muslim world won't. To be fair, i cant tell the difference between muslims either. To me they're ALL whackjobs in my eyes, so im indifferent to our own judeo christian whackjobs burning the koran.

You got the wrong and hateful part right.


Christianity as an organization has always done this in one form or another, thoughout history. To Judeo christian evangelicals, their god is the one true god, their religion the one true religion, and everyone else must be converted, and brought to see "the light and the way."

FYI, my two favorite bumper stickers on this subject are:
- "It's not God i Have a problem with, it's his fan club"
- "Jesus save me from your followers".

One of these days i may have the balls to put them on my truck, but i tend to keep my beleifs to myself, less I become what i despise.

You can put those on your truck too. :03:

Saw a rust bucket of a Mustang with a blue pair yesterday. :roll:

Yeah i seen those. I laugh every time. But i figure the dangly bit trailer hitch is kinda like owning a hummer... compensation for something that's lacking. I don't have to prove my beliefs to the rest of the world, or feel the need to do so. That, and i don't need some whackjob keying my truck. :shifty:

Either that's a failure of perception or a depraved sense of "anything goes" relativism.

For one, I see the religion that sends out missionaries with medicine as far better than the one which sends out zealots with bombs strapped to their backs.

But it is the people who do that, not the religion. Their motivations may be religious, but religions are not sentient beings ordering anyone to do anything. Religion is just a convenient excuse to do either good or bad.

And yes, I do concider morals relative, hell, everything is relative, there are no real absolutes. Morals , for instance, are nothing more than a society deems acceptable at the time, sure it may be dressed up as divine orders, but it came from people. What I wouldnt say, though, is anything goes since humans are sentient and social beings, which means we should take eachother in to account when making our decisions, your freedom ends where my nose begins, or however that saying goes.

Wrong. Relgions may not be being, but ideologies, but they order very well what people have to do and what not. That kind of commanding people is whzat defines religion. you obey, than you are a beoiever, you do not, than you are a heretic or an infidel. Obedience is the essence of religion.

No, that are morals.

but still morals are not all of the same relative value. There are morals being more valuable than others, and since moral standards (and relgions) also define cultural standards, cultures also are not all of the same relative value - some are more humane and "good" than others. For example "do not do to others what you do not want to be done to you" is not really of the same moral standard and value like "obey, don't ask", or "it is acceptable to whip or kill a woman if she was disobedient to you, or got raped."

And then there are those missionaries who go out with medicine - but only give it to those in need if they submit.

In the end, when you think you must make your personal rerlation to your relgion a public affair, you are no onger baout releigon, but politics. Best thing is a missionary who gives help when he is asked for, and never loses a single word on religion and does not waste one day with building temples, just lives his life on the basis what his reason and thought have showed him to be good for the few and good for the many. If it is convincing, others will become aware of his way of life. If it is not, he should not try to talk people into something.

You must not believe in a religion in order to want to help people. ;) when you decide to help, do it for the people, not because your deity told you you should. Don't do it to collect some points on your heavenly banking account. Don't do it to raise attention for your ego. Just do it - that is good enough.