[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sifu wrote:
They may not be the same in action, but they are all reading from the same script.
I think it’s a matter of interpretation, some take it literally, others take it metaphorically. Don’t some Christians do the same thing? Unfortunately, the wording is such that such violent acts can be perpetrated and associated with Islam.[/quote]
What’s not to be taken literally? He is beleived to be the perfect mocel of a man and the model that all good Muslims are supposed to strive to emulate. If he were only to be seen as a man of his time, I could see your point. This is simply not the case.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The religion is irrelevant; it is the fanatic who is the enemy of reason. Islam is not the issue; Islamofascism is the threat.
What does this even mean? The religion is irrelevant? Maybe I’ll understand when I sober up. [/quote]
The detailed content of religion is unimportant to the struggle; what is important is that the fanatic will die and kill for it.
Mr. Harris finds that it is fanatacism that is the enemy of the West, and that the rational West may lose its independence, and its devotion to individual liberty, to the fanatacism of Islam.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The religion is irrelevant; it is the fanatic who is the enemy of reason. Islam is not the issue; Islamofascism is the threat.
What does this even mean? The religion is irrelevant? Maybe I’ll understand when I sober up.
The detailed content of religion is unimportant to the struggle; what is important is that the fanatic will die and kill for it.
Mr. Harris finds that it is fanatacism that is the enemy of the West, and that the rational West may lose its independence, and its devotion to individual liberty, to the fanatacism of Islam.[/quote]
This is completely wrong. The religion is the reason for the struggle. Mohammed told his followers that those who die “fighting in the way of Allah” will go to heaven an experience its pleasures. This is how it has been for 1400 years with Islam. There are no other religions that teach the same thing. Islam itself is the problem, or Harris knows nothing about it and is a dangerous fool.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The religion is irrelevant; it is the fanatic who is the enemy of reason. Islam is not the issue; Islamofascism is the threat.
What does this even mean? The religion is irrelevant? Maybe I’ll understand when I sober up.
The detailed content of religion is unimportant to the struggle; what is important is that the fanatic will die and kill for it.
Mr. Harris finds that it is fanatacism that is the enemy of the West, and that the rational West may lose its independence, and its devotion to individual liberty, to the fanatacism of Islam.
This is completely wrong. The religion is the reason for the struggle. Mohammed told his followers that those who die “fighting in the way of Allah” will go to heaven an experience its pleasures. This is how it has been for 1400 years with Islam. There are no other religions that teach the same thing. Islam itself is the problem, or Harris knows nothing about it and is a dangerous fool. [/quote]
Read the book.
You might find it a novel and refreshing enterprise.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Most Muslims are just trying to live their lives but there certainly is a global Islamic movement doing this shit and using the Koran as justification. Do you deny this?[/quote]
[quote]dhickey wrote:
What’s not to be taken literally? He is beleived to be the perfect mocel of a man and the model that all good Muslims are supposed to strive to emulate. If he were only to be seen as a man of his time, I could see your point. This is simply not the case.[/quote]
But some Muslims DO take Muhammad to be a man of his time, and not a literal model.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
dhickey wrote:
What’s not to be taken literally? He is beleived to be the perfect mocel of a man and the model that all good Muslims are supposed to strive to emulate. If he were only to be seen as a man of his time, I could see your point. This is simply not the case.
But some Muslims DO take Muhammad to be a man of his time, and not a literal model.[/quote]
100% agree. Just not enough or the right ones. The problem is not with the masses persay. The problem lies with the leaders, schools, teachings, laws, and powerfull among the religion.
I personally think it should be illegal to introduce anyone under 18 to religion. I think a lot of religions would clean themselves up if they realized most of their followers couldn’t be brainwashed into blind faith.
But that’s probably not possible. And I’m rambling.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I personally think it should be illegal to introduce anyone under 18 to religion. I think a lot of religions would clean themselves up if they realized most of their followers couldn’t be brainwashed into blind faith.
But that’s probably not possible. And I’m rambling.[/quote]
It would be even better if people would use their brains. Faith is harmless as a compliment to reason but is not a replacement. I was raised Christian and even went to a kind of over the top Baptist school for a year. Despite all the brainwashing, I am not a Christian. I am trying to read and understand all religions because it’s interesting to me, but I don’t believe or follow any. Reason and logic are my religions.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
dhickey wrote:
What’s not to be taken literally? He is beleived to be the perfect mocel of a man and the model that all good Muslims are supposed to strive to emulate. If he were only to be seen as a man of his time, I could see your point. This is simply not the case.
But some Muslims DO take Muhammad to be a man of his time, and not a literal model.[/quote]
That is a terrible rationalisation that misses the point. Jesus and the Buddhas were men of their times too but they didn’t go around killing people. There were holymen in India too who believed that killing was wrong.
Mohammad murdered people, mohammad kept slaves. These are not ambiguous acts. Either you think they are right or you think they are wrong. There is no middle ground. Mohammad had been inroduced to Christianity so it’s not like he didn’t know better.
To be a man of your time is one thing, but to be a holyman founding a new religion that is supposed to be the literal word of god there has to be a higher standard. Other holymen before him met this standard. Mohammad chose not to.
All muslims worship a man who was a murderer and a slaver. Rationalizing it away as something that was okay back then is total bullshit.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Reason and logic are my religions.[/quote]
As they should be. But not everyone is smart enough to reject the concept of organized religions at such a young age like you and me, and therein lies the problem. A lot of the extremists actually believe they are doing Gods work, and get taken advantage of by the unscrupulous bastards who run the terror cells.
If they’d not been exposed to religion until finishing some form of basic education and wrapping their heads around the concept of reason and logic, then maybe they would be just like you or me.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
To be a man of your time is one thing, but to be a holyman founding a new religion that is supposed to be the literal word of god there has to be a higher standard. [/quote]
You missed the whole point. Islam was not supposed to be a new religion. It was simply a revival of the Abrahamic message.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
To be a man of your time is one thing, but to be a holyman founding a new religion that is supposed to be the literal word of god there has to be a higher standard.
You missed the whole point. Islam was not supposed to be a new religion. It was simply a revival of the Abrahamic message.[/quote]
I thought it wasn’t so much a revival as Mohammed claimed to be the last and final prophet in the Abrahamic tradition, though this was Jesus’ claim 500 years earlier.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I thought it wasn’t so much a revival as Mohammed claimed to be the last and final prophet in the Abrahamic tradition, though this was Jesus’ claim 500 years earlier.[/quote]
He did? I thought Jesus was God, not a prophet in Christian belief.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I thought it wasn’t so much a revival as Mohammed claimed to be the last and final prophet in the Abrahamic tradition, though this was Jesus’ claim 500 years earlier.
He did? I thought Jesus was God, not a prophet in Christian belief.[/quote]
He holds three offices: Prophet, Priest, and King. Yes, we believe he’s God in the flesh.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
To be a man of your time is one thing, but to be a holyman founding a new religion that is supposed to be the literal word of god there has to be a higher standard.
You missed the whole point. Islam was not supposed to be a new religion. It was simply a revival of the Abrahamic message.[/quote]
Good point it was a throwback to an earlier set of pre-Christian practices and beliefs.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I thought it wasn’t so much a revival as Mohammed claimed to be the last and final prophet in the Abrahamic tradition, though this was Jesus’ claim 500 years earlier.
He did? I thought Jesus was God, not a prophet in Christian belief.[/quote]
This is where the Roman influence came in. In the Roman tradition the emperor was considered to be a god. This is why the Gospel of Thomas, which doubted the divinity of Jesus was ripped out of the bible by the Romans.
The Ebionites didn’t consider Jesus to be god, they considered him to be the Prophet Moses prophesised in Deuteronomy. The Ebionites were Jesus original Jewish followers. Like all Jews they obeyed the commandment “Do not have any other gods before me”.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I thought it wasn’t so much a revival as Mohammed claimed to be the last and final prophet in the Abrahamic tradition, though this was Jesus’ claim 500 years earlier.
He did? I thought Jesus was God, not a prophet in Christian belief.
This is where the Roman influence came in. In the Roman tradition the emperor was considered to be a god. This is why the Gospel of Thomas, which doubted the divinity of Jesus was ripped out of the bible by the Romans.
The Ebionites didn’t consider Jesus to be god, they considered him to be the Prophet Moses prophesised in Deuteronomy. The Ebionites were Jesus original Jewish followers. Like all Jews they obeyed the commandment “Do not have any other gods before me”.[/quote]
I don’t recall who the prophet before the son of god was supposed to be but moses doesn’t sound right. Jesus said this prophet was his cousin John after he died, if I recall correctly. Convenient. Pretty special family.