The Hazards of Belief

Bandana boy · 27-11-2015 12:36PM

Absolam wrote: »

Can you give me a list of Christian countries to choose from? I thought we were discussing the ideas of three religions, so your switch to the practices of countries seems a little off point. Let's take a look at those Christian countries, then I assume you'll be wanting to contrast them with Muslim countries? We'll probably need that list too. In the meantime, we can probably run with the actual question I asked; Still, how exactly do you figure that the ideas of Islam are more awful than the ideas of Christianity or Judaism?
How do you know until they try it? After all, if members of one religion of peace can do it, it's seems reasonable that members of another could; I suspect you're not sufficiently familiar with all of the texts of both faiths to claim no one will ever find a justification for any action in either one, are you?
I would have to? If say, 0.6% of the entire Jainist population engaged in genocide why would we rate them any more or less peaceful than Muslims? If we assume there are a million Muslims currently intent on being extremely not peaceful/not overly conservative, that's the kind of percentage we're talking about here.... based on that I certainly don't feel I would have to rate Islam as not being peaceful, so I can't imagine I'd do differently for Jainism. Heck, if there were 10 million that's still only 6%; not enough for me to condemn the other 94% by a long shot...

in your quest for tolerance you are missing a pretty big point.
While we can argue all religions are bonkers or have inconsistency’s with modern opinion , it is simple fact that Islam is certainly more out of tune with modern beliefs than any other major religion.
Certainly when we talk about treatment of non-believers , Women , children and people of different sexual identity.

If you are trying to argue that this is not the case then my friend you are simply wrong.

Here are some actual numbers from supposedly moderate Muslim populations
86% Of Malaysia
77% of Thailand
72% of Indonesia
Want Sharia law to be the law of the land in their country.

This would include stoning for Sex outside marriage ,whether consensual or not !
Death penalty for leaving the religion.
Domestic violence is allowed where a child or wife does not obey their Father/Husband
Child Marriage
The list goes on

It is not being racist to call out Islam as the worst of a bad lot and as such being the worst where we should direct our attention in trying to solve.
That includes publicly condemning any nation that allows these practises ,and hitting them with sanctions etc.
Actively trying to educate their followers and give them ways to leave this sick evil cult.

Absolam · 27-11-2015 01:31PM

Bandana boy wrote: »

in your quest for tolerance you are missing a pretty big point. While we can argue all religions are bonkers or have inconsistency’s with modern opinion , it is simple fact that Islam is certainly more out of tune with modern beliefs than any other major religion. Certainly when we talk about treatment of non-believers , Women , children and people of different sexual identity. If you are trying to argue that this is not the case then my friend you are simply wrong.

In fairness though, I wasn't trying to argue that this is not the case.
I was arguing that the notion "that the ideas of Islam are awful, and on a scale are more awful than christianity or Judiasm" is nonsense.
All the Abrahamic religions contain blood curdling admonitions and penalties. One mans evil sick cult is another mans path to Heaven.

Nodin · 27-11-2015 01:39PM

Bandana boy wrote: »

in your quest for tolerance you are missing a pretty big point.
While we can argue all religions are bonkers or have inconsistency’s with modern opinion , it is simple fact that Islam is certainly more out of tune with modern beliefs than any other major religion.
Certainly when we talk about treatment of non-believers , Women , children and people of different sexual identity.
...........

...while that is true to an extent, theres also the fact that our experience of Christianity comes from those in the developed world. Christian African and Latin American attitudes to women, children and homosexuals is somewhat less than enlightened.

recedite · 27-11-2015 03:38PM

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The old testament is still valid scripture as Jesus said that the old laws had not changed so smash as many babies against rocks as you like.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

As for Jesus commanding the death of unbelievers, well there's always Luke 19:27

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

In Chapter 19, Luke depicts Jesus telling the parable of the Ten Minas ..

Not to mention that Jesus points out that one of his objectives is to sow unrest and violence:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household." Matthew 10:34-36

Yes, but Jesus was a jew.
Once you realise that Christianity, as we know it today, started later on, and is based on the teachings of people such as St. Paul, and various popes and theologians since then.
It is in effect a religion based on what various third parties think a notional hippy jesus would think. This concept supersedes anything in the OT. Even though the man himself might have said he was still a jew, and in favour of keeping all the laws of the OT, that actually doesn't matter anymore.
As a religion, its been "out of his hands" so to speak, since that unfortunate incident with the crucifix..

recedite · 27-11-2015 04:11PM

Nodin wrote: »

...while that is true to an extent, theres also the fact that our experience of Christianity comes from those in the developed world. Christian African and Latin American attitudes to women, children and homosexuals is somewhat less than enlightened.

But that shows that Christianity is at least partly capable of adapting to the times. Their idea of what Hippy Jesus would do in any given situation is slightly different to ours (in the developed world).
Islam on the other hand is based on the literal word of Mohammad. And historical records show that Muslim scribes have been remarkably accurate in copying those words over all that time. When ancient scraps of the Koran are found, they are exactly the same as modern versions. That's why Islam is permanently stuck in the 6th Century.

It also has an extra political dimension that most other religions don't have.
For example, take France with its historic majority Christian population. Those people could convert to Buddhism, but the state would remain unchanged.
But if they converted to Islam, their religion would require them to set up a caliphate, with sharia law being the basis for the laws and the apparatus of the state.

oscarBravo · 27-11-2015 04:24PM

recedite wrote: »

But if they converted to Islam, their religion would require them to set up a caliphate, with sharia law being the basis for the laws and the apparatus of the state.

Like Turkey?

Peregrinus · 27-11-2015 05:34PM

Bandana boy wrote: »

Here are some actual numbers from supposedly moderate Muslim populations
86% Of Malaysia
77% of Thailand
72% of Indonesia
Want Sharia law to be the law of the land in their country.

This would include stoning for Sex outside marriage ,whether consensual or not !
Death penalty for leaving the religion.
Domestic violence is allowed where a child or wife does not obey their Father/Husband
Child Marriage
The list goes on

Do they say it includes these things, or is this a comment added by yourself?

Bandana boy · 27-11-2015 05:45PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Do they say it includes these things, or is this a comment added by yourself?

The rules for Sharia Law are written down in an old book not much room for interpretation ,they are purposely not looking for their own constitution ,plus we can see the countries that already rule with Sharia law ( Taliban lead Afghanistan for example ) follow these brutal laws pretty much to the letter .

It always amazes me to see liberal leaning people who would normally fight bigots like the Muslim religion tooth and nail for how they persecute the weak in society , stand up and protect Islam.
Is it because they are mainly brown people and you feel its racist to look down on them ?

Bandana boy · 27-11-2015 05:48PM

Nodin wrote: »

...while that is true to an extent, theres also the fact that our experience of Christianity comes from those in the developed world. Christian African and Latin American attitudes to women, children and homosexuals is somewhat less than enlightened.

I agree , their attitudes are pretty wrong in the developed world too , but not imo anywhere near the lengths of Islam.

Nodin · 27-11-2015 07:54PM

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but Jesus was a jew.
Once you realise that Christianity, as we know it today, started later on, and is based on the teachings of people such as St. Paul, and various popes and theologians since then.
It is in effect a religion based on what various third parties think a notional hippy jesus would think. This concept supersedes anything in the OT. Even though the man himself might have said he was still a jew, and in favour of keeping all the laws of the OT, that actually doesn't matter anymore.
As a religion, its been "out of his hands" so to speak, since that unfortunate incident with the crucifix..

Hippy Jesus comes some considerable time after Paul, or people were following a different church for most of the last 2,000 years.

Recidite wrote:

For example, take France with its historic majority Christian population. Those
people could convert to Buddhism, but the state would remain unchanged.
But if they converted to Islam, their religion would require them to set up a
caliphate, with sharia law being the basis for the laws and the apparatus of the state

The caliphate has been gone many many years and as far as I know, nobody has resurrected it. You also seem to be thinking that a conversion to Islam also automatically results in a certain type of fundamentalist attitude.

France wrote:

It also has an extra political dimension that most other religions don't have.For example, take France with its historic majority Christian
population............

I was unaware that the French secular state hopped into being in antiquity. It took a great deal of time and social disruption to get there as far as I knew.

bandana boy wrote:

It always amazes me to see liberal leaning people who would normally fight bigots like the Muslim religion tooth and nail for how they persecute the weak in society , stand up and protect Islam.

We stand up for the notion that muslims are people too. Some stand up for a more realistic and nuanced notion of Islam but nobody really cares to "stand up and protect Islam". That's generally because nobody wants to see the persecution and marginalisation of Jews, Catholics or various protestant sects repeated.

silverharp · 28-11-2015 09:52AM

this could almost go in the comedy section

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUYCkUu9D24

recedite · 28-11-2015 11:45AM

Nodin wrote: »

The caliphate has been gone many many years and as far as I know, nobody has resurrected it. You also seem to be thinking that a conversion to Islam also automatically results in a certain type of fundamentalist attitude.

You haven't heard of Al Baghdadi then, and Islamic State?
The only reason he was not recognised by other Muslims as a genuine Caliph is that he was not powerful enough to warrant the title.

Nodin wrote: »

I was unaware that the French secular state hopped into being in antiquity. It took a great deal of time and social disruption to get there as far as I knew. .

It did take a lot of time to create a secular state. But all that would disappear if the people converted to Islam. Would you not agree?

Nodin · 28-11-2015 11:52AM

recedite wrote: »

You haven't heard of Al Baghdadi then, and Islamic State?
?

It's a terrorist organisation. Whats your point?

recedite wrote: »

The only reason he was not recognised by other Muslims as a genuine Caliph is that he was not powerful enough to warrant the title.?

These would be the other muslims in muslim countries that didn't declare a caliphate?

recedite wrote: »

It did take a lot of time to create a secular state. But all that would disappear if the people converted to Islam. Would you not agree?

I do not, no, for reasons mentioned earlier.

Hotblack Desiato · 30-11-2015 12:39AM

Nodin wrote: »

It's a terrorist organisation. Whats your point?

These would be the other muslims in muslim countries that didn't declare a caliphate?

I do not, no, for reasons mentioned earlier.

De Nile isn't just a river in Egypt.

Nodin · 30-11-2015 06:01AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

De Nile isn't just a river in Egypt.

Denial would require there to be large numbers of muslim states that consider themselves caliphates. There aren't, unless they're keeping it to themselves.

robindch · 30-11-2015 11:24AM

David Zaruk calls himself the Risk-Monger and has been working as an EU-level risk and science communications specialist for the last 15 years.

He's working on a 12-part series called "How to Deal with Stupid" - the first two parts are here:

https://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2015/11/20/how-to-deal-with-stupid-part-110-defining-stupid/
http://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2015/11/27/how-to-deal-with-stupid-part-210-social-media-how-stupid-gets-its-wings/

And here's John Cleese on Dunning + Kruger:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU

oldrnwisr · 30-11-2015 12:42PM

silverharp wrote: »

But jews will tell you they dont feel bound by their crazier books and in any event Judaism is not a proselytising so they are not on any mission to convert the world. the "peace" bit in Islam is after the world has been converted to Islam or is under Islamic rule, a different kettle of fish no?

OK, firstly, on a side note, I think it's interesting that you would say that Judaism is not proselytising when the word proselyte comes from the hebrew phrase ger toshav which refers to a convert to Judaism.

On the wider point, while there are jews who will tell you they don't feel bound by their crazier books, there are plenty of Jews out there who do feel bound by them, like this guy:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnbEzE4tkCobV_rkOj6Ra1w5CU2dRPzp59cAKln4-adVUnbd-6zw

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnbEzE4tkCobV_rkOj6Ra1w5CU2dRPzp59cAKln4-adVUnbd-6zw

Similarly, there are quite a few muslims out there who don't feel bound by what's in their book. I've been drinking with Muslims, have had some very nice bacon sandwiches with one or two and even known a couple of guys who were unfaithful despite the severe sanctions in their book.

I've yet to see any convincing argument though why any of this behaviour is inherently linked to the ideas in their holy books rather than the social, economic and cultural environment in which these people live.

silverharp wrote: »

As for the Matthew 15 there is nothing there that is telling his followers to kill anybody for any reason , is seems to be more about throwing the old law back in their faces. there simply isnt a narrative that jesus raised an army and there isnt anything in Paul's writings that people were to be subjugated under Christain rule. The early Christian church look like a bunch of hippy communes.
Compare that to Mohammed who fought battles , had sex slaves , gave people the choice of converting or being killed.

OK, to clarify once again. The story in Matthew 15 concerns Jesus having an argument with the Pharisees. In the story Jesus is rebuked by the Pharisees for the disciples not washing their hands before they eat in line with tradition. Jesus responds by admonishing the Elders for upholding the Rabbinical tradition while not following the commandments laid down by God. The example that Jesus gives is that people are no longer executed for dishonouring their mother and father. In doing so, Jesus is reminding the Pharisees that they are not only bound to follow the commandments but also their prescribed punishments. Included in these commandments is the commandment against apostasy and its punishment by death.

As for the early church being a bunch of hippy communes, that depends on what you define as early. Certainly the church in 1099 couldn't have been described as a hippy commune. Certainly not after the siege of Jerusalem where Fulcher of Chartres writes:

"In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared"

oldrnwisr · 30-11-2015 01:38PM

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but Jesus was a jew.
Once you realise that Christianity, as we know it today, started later on, and is based on the teachings of people such as St. Paul, and various popes and theologians since then.
It is in effect a religion based on what various third parties think a notional hippy jesus would think. This concept supersedes anything in the OT. Even though the man himself might have said he was still a jew, and in favour of keeping all the laws of the OT, that actually doesn't matter anymore.
As a religion, its been "out of his hands" so to speak, since that unfortunate incident with the crucifix..

Yes, but Paul wasn't the only voice of Christianity to make it into the canon. As much early christian writing as was excluded there is still a distinctly pro-Jewish voice in the New Testament in books like Matthew and James which talk up the idea of following the commandments. It's also pretty clear from Pauline writings and Acts that although Paul was a loud and ultimately dominant voice in the emerging church his mostly anti-Jewish sentiment was something that didn't go over well with those people who ostensibly* knew Jesus well.

* - I say ostensibly because as I have posted numerous times before, we have very little actual idea what Jesus would have said or did, condoned or condemned. All of the gospels are anonymous writings containing later interpolations and fictional elements. Even of the 14 epistles we're only confident of authentic authorship in seven of them. The writings by Peter, James, John and Jude are all pseudepigraphal.

cowboyBuilder · 30-11-2015 02:05PM

Turn on Joe Duffy and you'll hear a hazard of belief, some lady that died recently was totally cut off from family and friends because of Palmarian catholicism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmarian_Catholic_Church
Mental stuff..

Nodin · 30-11-2015 02:26PM

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Turn on Joe Duffy and you'll hear a hazard of belief, some lady that died recently was totally cut off from family and friends because of Palmarian catholicism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmarian_Catholic_Church
Mental stuff..

Nay, for as a lapsed catholic I feel no need to flagellate myself. Read the story in the paper though - all a bit mad.

robindch · 30-11-2015 02:54PM

Nodin wrote: »

Read the story in the paper though - all a bit mad.

This story here:

http://www.independent.ie/life/religious-cult-took-our-sister-from-us-says-family-of-bridget-crosbie-34237646.html

Not pleasant.

Penn · 30-11-2015 03:24PM

She had to wear a full-length dark dress and a make-shift habit. There was to be no social contact with any persons not dressed to the Palmarian dress code - even over the telephone.

Just found a new foolproof excuse not to talk to cold-callers.

"Hello, I'd like to ask you if you're happy with your telephone provider?"
"Are you dressed to the Palmarian dress code?"
"No?"
"Well I have to hang up!"

"Hello, I'd like to ask you if you're happy with your telephone provider?"
"Are you dressed to the Palmarian dress code?"
"Errr.... yes?"
"Well I'm not so you have to hang up!"

oscarBravo · 30-11-2015 03:34PM

http://homepage.eircom.net/~palmardetroya/rules.htm

Bloody hell.

robindch · 30-11-2015 03:50PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

http://homepage.eircom.net/~palmardetroya/rules.htm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Rule 23: Disco’s are banned.

Seems grammar might be banned too.

Gordon · 30-11-2015 04:02PM

Wonder if that applies to the dance variety or the crisp variety of discos, or both.

looking_around · 30-11-2015 04:07PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

http://homepage.eircom.net/~palmardetroya/rules.htm

Bloody hell.

Similar enough to strict baptists.
And probably any strict/orthodox religion.

Halfbaker · 30-11-2015 04:15PM

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]26. Children must be told Christmas presents are from parents and not Santa Claus as he doesn’t exist[/FONT]

What the hell is wrong with these people :mad:

Walter Bishop · 30-11-2015 04:19PM

6. Tights are banned as they are classed as mens attire.

Makes sense.

34. Religious films are banned.

So it's not all bad then.

Nodin · 30-11-2015 04:52PM

16. Watching boxing matches is banned

If they just specified the heavyweight division they'd be missing nothing really.

topmanamillion · 01-12-2015 01:23AM

robindch wrote: »

This story here:

http://www.independent.ie/life/religious-cult-took-our-sister-from-us-says-family-of-bridget-crosbie-34237646.html

Not pleasant.

Very sad.

It would make you wonder how she paid bills/made her trips to dublin to attend palmarian services etc. Surely going to the post office/getting on a train/doing grocery shopping makes not interacting with "non believers" impossible.

The Hazards of Belief

Comments