A Little Perspective On Religion

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion and Philosophy -(FORUM CLOSED)-' started by Barnstable, Oct 1, 2014.

  1. Barnstable

    Barnstable Supreme Fuzzler of Lakersball.com Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    7,096
    Likes Received:
    17,835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Online
    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?
     
  2. trodgers

    trodgers Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    11,976
    Likes Received:
    18,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Professor of Humanities
    Location:
    Orlando
    Offline
    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.
     
    FreeThePeople likes this.
  3. TIME

    TIME Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,689
    Likes Received:
    22,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Lifelong Lakers fan.
    Location:
    LaLa Land
    Offline
    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.
     
    FreeThePeople likes this.
  4. TIME

    TIME Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,689
    Likes Received:
    22,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Lifelong Lakers fan.
    Location:
    LaLa Land
    Offline
    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.
     
  5. FreeThePeople

    FreeThePeople - Rookie -

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Offline
    Very true.

    Intent is perhaps the key here - what purpose did someone (in this case, Muhammad) have?

    What is the intent behind "putting women in their place" or "killing the nonbelievers"?
     
  6. Barnstable

    Barnstable Supreme Fuzzler of Lakersball.com Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    7,096
    Likes Received:
    17,835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Online
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2014
  7. TIME

    TIME Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,689
    Likes Received:
    22,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Lifelong Lakers fan.
    Location:
    LaLa Land
    Offline
    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.
     
  8. lakerswiz

    lakerswiz Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Offline
    Followers and their actions are the only result of religion though. It doesn't exist without the other. They are the religion.
     
    ZenMaster likes this.
  9. ZenMaster

    ZenMaster - Lakers All Star -

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    5,788
    Likes Received:
    12,867
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    I agree with this. Especially from pragmatic point of view - while the teachings in their original form may be important, as Time says, the actions of the
    contemporary followers are much more crucial.

    The reason for that is simple - the perception of religion, or any entity, really, is formed by people who interact with it, from the outside. These people do not
    study, en masse, the teachings, they see the flock ( to borrow a somewhat Christian term).

    Now, obviously, proper marketing/advertising may offset this, to the point of perception change, in both directions. I don't see such efforts from Muslim community, however.

    The reason for that may be either, but not limited to:

    1. they are scared and/or brainwashed
    2. they don't think it's important enough because:
    a. the claim is correct
    b. the claim is incorrect, but who cares, since they are outsiders​
    3. I am not aware of that effort

    My two cents.
     
  10. Kingsama

    Kingsama - Rookie -

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    738
    Likes Received:
    1,080
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Lost in thought...
    Offline
    This is just my two cents,

    When we do not evaluate religions, philosophies, school of thoughts by their authoritative definition we set ourselves up for a slippery slope intellectually where we end up throwing all forms of thought out the window. We can sit here all day listing an enormous amount of bad people, and bad things that have come from each and every one of those categories does that mean we simply dismiss them all? Should we stop being a democracy? democratic governments do bad things, just like ours. In the end a person, like the one that careered out the massacre in Northern Europe in the recent past can label himself a christian all day, but the fact remain that the way he lives his life is at a stark contrast to what the Bible teaches. I can call myself a Japanese Petite Woman all day, but I am still a Huge White American because no matter what I like to think, the truth is I do not fit that definition. We should work from Orthodox excepted definitions, as presented by the originator of a faith/ideal/philosophy. When you evaluate based off of people's behavior it always easy to find those that act poorly.

    For me we have to work from a framework that allows us to actually evaluate these categories and that framework is the definition given by the author or originator. Just like when evaluating literature, we should not evaluate writing, whether it be religious or scholastic, based on our own understandings of things. I should in every way evaluate it based on the original intent of the author. If not its impossible to define anything. For instance What is Islam? Is it the wonderful moderate people that live down the street from me? Or is it the monster that cuts peoples heads off? By your definition its two contradicting ideas and to figure out which one is closest to the truest definition we must look at the Qur'an as it is the authority on the subject...

    To summarize perceptions are pretty unreliable, anecdotal, and largely biased...
     
    FreeThePeople likes this.
  11. Kingsama

    Kingsama - Rookie -

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    738
    Likes Received:
    1,080
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Lost in thought...
    Offline


    Just some food for thought, I do not really agree with either side on this, but i felt like it pertinent to this thread...

    and a retort from a former Muslim...

     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2014
    TIME likes this.
  12. ZenMaster

    ZenMaster - Lakers All Star -

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    5,788
    Likes Received:
    12,867
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    And yet, perceptions are all that matters. We do not live in a sterile lab environment that would allow us to carefully examine the teaching and, after separating it from the alleged observer influence, make a ruling on its virtues, or lack thereof.

    Most people do not have the time, ability or will to separate perception from reality and for them - perception is reality.

    It is even more pronounced when that perception is aggressive and violent.

    But that's fine, the guy in white coat says that the teaching is peaceful, so we should treat as such.
     
  13. Kingsama

    Kingsama - Rookie -

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    738
    Likes Received:
    1,080
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Lost in thought...
    Offline
    So because the masses don't have the desire to educate themselves, we should just base our lives and beliefs off of perception?

    I know its hard to squeeze a book into the real house wives marathon, buy why should that effect how behave?

    I am not demonizing nor championing Islam. Outside of a summary like knowledge from a few months of study in college(on my own) I am unfamiliar(though I will say it sure seems like Islam is violent by design.), but there are too things I wont do. Condemn a people group based on the perception of the masses(which is controlled by the media), nor would allow the perception of the masses to be a place where I draw definitions from, that's preposterous.

    But, I guess if I say I'm a short petite Japanese woman, and the people say its true, then I guess I must be true...
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2014
    TIME likes this.
  14. Barnstable

    Barnstable Supreme Fuzzler of Lakersball.com Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    7,096
    Likes Received:
    17,835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Online
    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.
     
    TIME likes this.
  15. trodgers

    trodgers Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    11,976
    Likes Received:
    18,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Professor of Humanities
    Location:
    Orlando
    Offline
    Plato might've been arrogant, but Aristotle was sexist. I don't see the problem in admitting that.
     
    TIME likes this.
  16. FreeThePeople

    FreeThePeople - Rookie -

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Offline
    The truth about religion isn't what your parents or preachers or elders teach you about it. The truth is in the words. The truth is the book that claims to be the holy truth! If I wanted to convert to Islam, I might have heard about it from a friend, but to truly grasp the religion, I would have to read the holy book. The quotes I posted show blatant promotions of violence and degradation of women. How much further do you really need to read into it? The truth is that a Muslim who believes every word of the Qu'ran thinks he has the right to control his woman and hit her if necessary - it's in the book! If Muhammad didn't want a true Muslim to treat women like that, then he wouldn't have written it in the holy book! Holy book = bottom line.
     
    TIME likes this.
  17. TIME

    TIME Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,689
    Likes Received:
    22,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Lifelong Lakers fan.
    Location:
    LaLa Land
    Offline
    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.
     
  18. TIME

    TIME Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,689
    Likes Received:
    22,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Lifelong Lakers fan.
    Location:
    LaLa Land
    Offline
    Touche. I would tend to agree, but I was just using that possibly poor example to make a point about your Corinthians reference.
     
  19. TIME

    TIME Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,689
    Likes Received:
    22,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Lifelong Lakers fan.
    Location:
    LaLa Land
    Offline
    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.
     
  20. Barnstable

    Barnstable Supreme Fuzzler of Lakersball.com Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    7,096
    Likes Received:
    17,835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Online
    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.
     

Share This Page