Bill Maher: Islam is inherently worse than other religions.

[Elok]

Eh, the troublesome thing about Islam from my POV is not its scripture (like most scriptures, that can be twisted any which way by people of the right inclination), but the fact that its earliest, formative years--the same point, relatively speaking, when Christians were spreading the Good News by word of mouth in secret, and the followers of the Buddha were wandering about India preaching the Middle Way--were a whirlwind of violent conquest and subjugation. You can make a solid argument that violence or earthly theocracy are not correct for Christianity, or most other religions I've heard of. Not so for Islam.

Islam began as a theocracy, lived out its glory days as a theocracy, and started a long, slow decline around the time it became subordinate to state power. If violence and coercion in the name of Islam is wrong, the religion's own Prophet didn't know what he was doing. Now, none of this changes the fact that the overwhelming majority of the world's Muslims are peaceful. Nor do I think Muhammad was a total monster; Arabian society, at least, was better off after him than before (and many of the charges leveled against him today, esp. concerning Aisha, are ignorant). But the ethnic cleansing of Yathrib, especially, turns one's stomach.

[ZEE]

Elok is a nerd.

[Ben Kenobi]

Islam began as a theocracy, lived out its glory days as a theocracy, and started a long, slow decline around the time it became subordinate to state power. If violence and coercion in the name of Islam is wrong, the religion's own Prophet didn't know what he was doing. Now, none of this changes the fact that the overwhelming majority of the world's Muslims are peaceful. Nor do I think Muhammad was a total monster; Arabian society, at least, was better off after him than before (and many of the charges leveled against him today, esp. concerning Aisha, are ignorant). But the ethnic cleansing of Yathrib, especially, turns one's stomach.

Islam's game is Jihad. Same then as now. If Muhammed saw no issue with conquest, murder, ethnic cleansing, then I don't see how the prophet Imran can argue for Islam as a peaceful religion. The people might be, but the religion is not.

[Ben Kenobi]

Aside from the Ten Commandments, the Catholic Church doesn't give a **** about Deuteronomy. When the Church condemns homosexuality, it is on the basis of New Testament Scriptures, not Mosaic Law. The Old Testament is read during Mass in order to give context to the New Testament readings. The priests either ignore the OT or talk about it historically. I've never heard a priest say that we are expected to obey any part of Mosaic Law, aside from the Ten Commandments (which are regarded as a part of natural law).

Short answer - God has a covenant with Gentiles and a covenant with Jews. Gentiles were never commanded to follow the covenant given to the Jews, because Gentiles are not Jews.

Long answer - are you familiar with the Syllabus of Errors, Felch? The question isn't directed at St. Augustine. The Church has taught that force is justified under just war theory, and that the folks we tend to gloss over as 'not threatening', were a real danger to the rank and file. Back then, collapse of civil order generally meant substantial deaths among the people. Anyways, it's not quite as simple.

In any case, it doesn't change the fact that Imran's sole argument is to point fingers and claim, "you're just as bad, you're just as bad". Which exposes the truth that Jihad is core to Islam.

[Berzerker]

St. Thomas Aquinas rationalized killing heretics using only Galatians.

and he's a saint

[Fake Boris]

Aside from the Ten Commandments, the Catholic Church doesn't give a **** about Deuteronomy. When the Church condemns homosexuality, it is on the basis of New Testament Scriptures, not Mosaic Law. The Old Testament is read during Mass in order to give context to the New Testament readings. The priests either ignore the OT or talk about it historically. I've never heard a priest say that we are expected to obey any part of Mosaic Law, aside from the Ten Commandments (which are regarded as a part of natural law).

And yet a Muslim is 1000x more likely to die as in attack from a "Christian" nation than the reverse.

You blame better technology. So is technology inherently evil?

[Kidlicious]

Because no one in modern times has ever used the Old Testament as a determination of what should be allowable, you know like using Leviticus to deny rights to homosexuals... Or mandating the 10 Commandments be put in public areas... Yep, everyone treats it as simply for historical purposes (which I don't think is the right way to treat it anyways - I mean do you read OT passages and sing the Psalms during service simply for historical reasons?)... This is a silly argument, Felch.

Everything has been explained by the apostles. Should adult male gentiles have to have been circumcised? BK even has it right, but not you.

[ricketyclik]

Should adult male gentiles have to have been circumcised?

NO male genitals should be circumscribed!

BK even has it right, but not you.

Buahahahahaha!

OK, I admit it, I'm drunk.

[Felch]

And yet a Muslim is 1000x more likely to die as in attack from a "Christian" nation than the reverse.

You blame better technology. So is technology inherently evil?

No, ******, technology isn't inherently evil. I don't blame technology, I recognize its impact on world history. Are all philosophers this prone to fallacious reasoning, or just you?

[Felch]

I'm curious what Imran thinks is the "right way" to treat Deuteronomy, if not as a historical text.

[ricketyclik]

No, ******, technology isn't inherently evil. I don't blame technology, I recognize its impact on world history. Are all philosophers this prone to fallacious reasoning, or just you?

Felatious :s******:

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm curious what Imran thinks is the "right way" to treat Deuteronomy, if not as a historical text.

I find what your church says on the matter to be a far better way to think of the Old Testament, including Deuteronomy:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

122 Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men."93 "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,"94 the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."95

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself.105 Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament.106 As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.107

[Kidlicious]

Homosexual behavior is sin. You can quote the OT and NT. Saying that it is is nothing like executing homosexuals. You are dangerously close to MrFunism here.

[Kidlicious]

Christian earthly authority complicates things. We aren't to punish sin. But comparing modern Christianity to Islam is absurd.

[Fake Boris]

No, ******, technology isn't inherently evil. I don't blame technology, I recognize its impact on world history. Are all philosophers this prone to fallacious reasoning, or just you?

It's you buddy. If technology means Christians have committed more atrocities and it still isn't evil, why is Islam inherently evil?