A Little Perspective On Religion

The Christian bible says things that are just as extreme in the old testament. That was gods word as well according to Christianity wasn't it? Would you ever claim that the Christian religion wasn't a religion of peace before, but now after the new testament it became a religion of peace?

 

Good point, Barn. I was thinking that Corinthians also includes a good bit of "put woman in her place," too, but I take it that most Christians don't see Christianity as oppressive to women.

 

In an earlier reply in this thread I mentioned that it is an interesting topic of discussion to consider the relationship between the two sections of the Christian Bible: the Old Testament and the New Testament, but it's not really on topic. Not sure why you keep wanting to go there.

The video you posted made a strong point which I challenged. His point was that Islam is not a violent religion. He claimed that everyone misunderstands it. He supported it with statistics of how many Muslims today are not actually violent.

My whole point which you never really responded to is that you can only really gauge the violence aspect of Islam by it's founder; by his teachings, leadership decisions and actions. History clearly demonstrates that Muhammad taught violence, practiced violence, and made leadership decisions of violence. History just as clearly demonstrates that Jesus taught peace and love, practiced peace and love, and all his leadership decisions represented those same qualities.

 

That's like saying Plato taught some arrogant philosophy stuff. I could say that, but I would have to ignore things like cultural setting, intent, original purpose, and contextual meaning.

 

But I did answer your claim that you can judge the violent aspect by Islam by it's founder. I asked what is more telling of what the religion is all about, the judgments of someone that doesn't follow the religion and doesn't believe in it, or the actions of the people that follow it religiously. It was a rhetorical question because I believe the answer is apparent. If the people that believe in a religion whole heartedly aren't interpreting the religion's leader's directives the way you say the founder was telling them to, then either they're all wrong, or those judging it from the outside are wrong, and you're basically saying you know the heart of the religion's teaching better than the people that follow the religion.

I find that very odd because I would think Christians would see the similarity in the two religions. I keep bringing up the Old Testament because it is very relevant to any conversation where Christians are criticizing Islam fundamentally:

Christianity says god's word is absolute and infallible
Islam says god's word is absolute and infallible

Christianity says god's infallible word was written in the Bible
Islam says god's infallible word was written in the Quran

The Christian Bible has some text that is very hard to defend as right if taken literally, by modern standards
The Islamic Quran has some text that is very hard to defend as right if taken literally, by modern standards

The biggest difference is that Christians say the New Testament is the new rules for the religion while Islam has no new rules. Christianity essentially was given a path to peace through Jesus. But why do Christians insist that the path Islam takes looks exactly the same as Christianity? Arriving there as a mostly peaceful religion is the point/goal, and they have somehow, mostly done exactly that. Christianity and Islam are two different religions, as every Christian and Muslim will remind us, but they still insist the path towards a right way of living by the other religion be done the way their own religion dictates.

What I'm positing is that the actions of said religion's followers are the only thing that is tellingly unbiased when someone of a religion analyzes whether another religion is one of peace. A religion's peacefulness can not be judged by the analysis of text of those outside, but by the actions of those that follow the text wholeheartedly. You can not hold Islam to the same requirements of how Christianity arrived at peace, ie. Jesus. How could you? If they were the same, they wouldn't be a different religions. Yet as I showed above, most Islamic countries aren't that bad. This fact shows what the people that follow the religion think is the true way of following Islam. That way is mostly peaceful.

 

Good, well thought out response Barns. I will just disagree on what I believe to be the key point. The founder is more important than the followers in evaluating any religion. I will not discount the importance of considering followers, but in both religions there are so many varieties of those who claim to be true representatives. How do you choose which denomination or branch to consider as the gauge? You can't. But as long as there are historical records to evaluate we can trace the religion back to its origin point or founder.

Do you acknowledge that Muhammad taught, practiced and commanded his followers to kill those they identified as enemies?

Do you acknowledge that Jesus taught, practiced and commanded his followers to love those they identified as their enemies?

For me, that's the bottom line.

 

Some fantastic points being raised here. I really applaud all of you for having this kind of mature discussion on a topic guided by emotion and anger for a lot of people. this is what I missed on CL over the past few years.

I don't know one way or the other. I haven't studied Islam. I'm not claiming to know it. I don't claim to know about Christianity either more than living in a predominately Christian country and having read the Bible some, and gone to church some when I was younger. Of course all that does give me some knowledge, but it's mostly remembering the things Christians have imparted over the years.

I recognize that part of my own position on this is because my own religion is less concerned with the leaders and more concerned with the individuals that follow it. In the Buddhism I believe, the historical Buddha and all leaders after him are given thanks for guidance, but it's what the people that follow Buddhism do that counts as giving the value to the religion. That belief most definitely informs my position on this topic to some extent. It also means I don't value knowing the individual teachings of Islam/Muhammad as much as some of you might in order to judge the value of the religion.

Either way, yes, I agree we do see things differently, but it's great to recognize that respectfully.

Love this. This is pretty accurate to how I see the topic myself. He broke down the topic and Affleck and Maher's errors pretty flawlessly IMO.

To be clear, I don't think Islam is perfect or the best way to live personally. Same thing for Christianity really, but I'm not trying to disrespect with that statement. I would obviously be Christian if I thought it was the way to live or the truth. I just believe Islam is painted with an inaccurate brush by the media and in general in the US as a terrorist/extremist religion. It is not. The terrorist and extremist positions are generalized to be the majority when they absolutely are not. Most Muslims are normal people with normal lives. That is the most important thing in judging the religion IMO.

 

Plato might've been arrogant, but Aristotle was sexist. I don't see the problem in admitting that.

 

Btw, I like the guy who is a former Muslim in the second video. I didn't agree with everything he said, but I really like the way he presented his case compared to the guy in the first post in this thread who I still feel was disingenuous.

 

Touche. I would tend to agree, but I was just using that possibly poor example to make a point about your Corinthians reference.

 

Zen, I really like your post even though I do not agree with your conclusion, if that makes sense.

I'll use my own religion (Christianity) as an example, but this could apply to any religion. Even in the very beginning, during the life and public teachings of Jesus, there are numerous accounts of him having to correct core misunderstandings among his closest followers (the original 12 disciples / apostles). In these cases which are recorded in the New Testament Gospels, Jesus would teach a principle, and the twelve would misunderstand his point and be misapplying it. He would then have to correct them and say essentially, "No, you missed the real point, here is what I meant." This is, to me, why basing your evaluation on the followers rather than the founder is going to always be subject to not getting a truest reading of the nature and principles of that religion.

Later New Testament letters are filled with sections addressing groups within the earliest Christian communities that claimed to be followers but were identified as not true followers because they had disconnected in either doctrine or practice from some core element of what Jesus taught.

 

I would argue how people interpret a holy book is the bottom line. Literal interpretation would discredit pretty much every holy book from every religion I've ever seen, yet the interpretation of the lessons in the book by it's followers is how people turn a holy book into the truth that leads them to what they see as the correct way of life.