Is Islam a religion of peace , or is it inherently violent ?

[problem_child]

Originally posted by Heresson
While it is an interesting topic I'm hesitant about, You tend to forget that God actually IS a being, a mind, a "guy" if You like.
However, if we get to the point that He's completely forgiving and loving, He will forgive any biasphemy.
But if You think that offending God is in fact offending the one believing in Him, and it is so, well, is offending anyone anything good?

This is a ideological difference between us. My point isn't that offending people is something we should do, my point is that religious people percieve there to be a kind of 'Cosmic Alpha Male' character, which is of course merely an extension of their own humanity, more specifically it's a creation of their own ego. Whereas others see the universe as its own thing, and not the creation of some sort of Super Man.

The religions essentially think "Big King God, He Say Do This, He Say Don't Do That", or a kind of Divine Dictator, those who show loyalty to the regime will be rewarded, those who disobey the regime will be sent to the eternal firey Gulag.

A different way of looking at things is that the universe is not a creation of some kind of Cosmic King, that we don't know what it is, or where it came from. Science can help us establish those facts that are within our reach, those things we can measure, and perhaps provide some usefull applications through technology to make our lives 'better', but basically we don't own the univers via some writ-large proxy of our selves, rather the universe and whatever is beyond it owns us.

We might not like that we're made of lowly messy yucky flesh and bone, and have to eat and deficate and fornicate to exist (hopefully not all at the same time), that we're weak and transient and are related in some way to monkeys and rats and mud-skippers, but that's the way it is- accept it, learn to live with it, and try an do good by your fellow creatures coz there ain't no one else out there that's lookin out for us, that's what we're for.

All I see in religion, is that Man made God in his own image. That's why there's so many gods, that's why they're always quarelling amongst themselves, justifying all kinds of cr*p and claiming responsability for none of it. Typical human behaviour really.

ps- watch me quote the Bible

In the beginning (...) The End.

[Odin]

Originally posted by problem_child


This is a ideological difference between us. My point isn't that offending people is something we should do, my point is that religious people percieve there to be a kind of 'Cosmic Alpha Male' character, which is of course merely an extension of their own humanity, more specifically it's a creation of their own ego. Whereas others see the universe as its own thing, and not the creation of some sort of Super Man.

The religions essentially think "Big King God, He Say Do This, He Say Don't Do That", or a kind of Divine Dictator, those who show loyalty to the regime will be rewarded, those who disobey the regime will be sent to the eternal firey Gulag.

A different way of looking at things is that the universe is not a creation of some kind of Cosmic King, that we don't know what it is, or where it came from. Science can help us establish those facts that are within our reach, those things we can measure, and perhaps provide some usefull applications through technology to make our lives 'better', but basically we don't own the univers via some writ-large proxy of our selves, rather the universe and whatever is beyond it owns us.

We might not like that we're made of lowly messy yucky flesh and bone, and have to eat and deficate and fornicate to exist (hopefully not all at the same time), that we're weak and transient and are related in some way to monkeys and rats and mud-skippers, but that's the way it is- accept it, learn to live with it, and try an do good by your fellow creatures coz there ain't no one else out there that's lookin out for us, that's what we're for.

All I see in religion, is that Man made God in his own image. That's why there's so many gods, that's why they're always quarelling amongst themselves, justifying all kinds of cr*p and claiming responsability for none of it. Typical human behaviour really.

Exactly. Modern religions are just a form of species-wide narcisism.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
First of all, there is a difference between the message and spirit of Quran and the practice of Muslims today.

The problem with the Muslim world today is there's not enough distinction between the teaching of Quran and the practice of Muslims. In that practice, tradition (often parochial) often passes as Islam itself. Many values which are in fact based on tradition are thus protected by the guise of religion.

From where I stand its the exact opposite. The people who want to smear Islam take the most hateful Koranic quotes, without commentary, and match them to the most hateful practices of fanatics, most typically those who aspire to a literalist reading of the text and who despise tradition, and use that as proof of the "violent" nature of Islam. If they looked at both the later legal corpus, and even more, at the practice of most muslims, theyd have a more accurate and less hateful view. Especially if one focused on muslims in the most progressive countries (including Turkey, I might add) in the last 100 to 150 years.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Which 'state' did it oppose ?

The Roman Empire for a long period tolerated Christianity- to them it was simply just another religion, along with Mithraism, the Cult of Isis, Celtic cults, et cetera.

Not at all. For Roman gentiles, Christianity was a "superstitio", with some adjectives added usually.
It was considered dangerous for several reasons. For it differences from the gentile faith, but mostly for that it was something not backed with ancient tradition, as other "superstitions" as Judaism or some eastern cults.
Acting against the tradition, and enangering gods by refusing to commit a sacrifice for them (the action itself was not directed against Christianity on purpouse) was considered dangerous for the state and it's not the only religion that was persecuted.
184 BC I believe the cult of Dionisos was practically exterminated ammongst Romans. Manicheism, a religion connected to Christianity, was to be destroyed too at one point.
Christians were also accused by gentiles of many other crimes and strange stuff - that they worship a donkey, that they are canibals (because of the communion), that they support incest (because they were calling themselves brothers and sisters) etc.
Yes, there were times of peace - early (except for Nero), when Christianity was not yet recognised as a new faith,
and in so-called "Small peace of the church".
Still, it was persecuted for longer and shorter periods of history and that You can not deny.

Once Christinianity established itself as a state religion, it didn't turn the other cheek:
" As late as the year 391 AD, when Christianity was established by law and all other religions bloodily suppressed, the bishop of Hippo had only one church, with a few hundred worshippers, in a town of thirty thousand inhabitants, and that Augustine, who succeeded him, had not a single priest under him. Yet two hundred bishops in Africa about the year 310, yields one hundred thousand Christians. There is no known ratio of bishops and the faithful. "
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity...nstantine.html

That site is at least in some parts laughable and You should be ashamed to post a link like that.
For example. They quote John the Gold-mouthed who says that (probably the Christians in Antioch) number 100000, and then say that the city was 0,5mln...
As a matter of fact, I wrote a work about Antioch in late antiquity not some long time ago and while I'm no great specialist in that matter, I have something to say.
First of all, do You think John counted its citizens?
Especially that the number is so even...
Secondly, there are various estimates of the population of the city, but the number of 0,5 mln is largely exagerrated... It is assumed today that the city was about 150 - 200 thousand people large.
Antioch was particurarily reknown for its Christian devotion, and Julian the Apostate admits that;
even in that time, it seems that a definite majority of its population was Christian.

At one other point, the site is building its theories on the opinion of Zosimos' "New History"
I've read that book and I assure You it is not credible AT ALL. As one's put it, it'a generally a compilation of Eunapius of Sardes and Olimpiador(us?) of Thebes and the only thing that Zosimos has added to that - are his errors. And it's extremly biased.
Even comparison of his work with the work of (pagan) Ammianus Marcellinus can be a proof of that.

Oh c-mon... these headlines...
"Christianity revealed"
"Christian barbarism"...
This painting of synod of Nicaea...
The language they're using...
If such sites are sources of your knowledge, I can only pity You.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by problem_child
This is a ideological difference between us. My point isn't that offending people is something we should do, my point is that religious people percieve there to be a kind of 'Cosmic Alpha Male' character, which is of course merely an extension of their own humanity, more specifically it's a creation of their own ego. Whereas others see the universe as its own thing, and not the creation of some sort of Super Man.

The religions essentially think "Big King God, He Say Do This, He Say Don't Do That", or a kind of Divine Dictator, those who show loyalty to the regime will be rewarded, those who disobey the regime will be sent to the eternal firey Gulag.

A different way of looking at things is that the universe is not a creation of some kind of Cosmic King, that we don't know what it is, or where it came from. Science can help us establish those facts that are within our reach, those things we can measure, and perhaps provide some usefull applications through technology to make our lives 'better', but basically we don't own the univers via some writ-large proxy of our selves, rather the universe and whatever is beyond it owns us.

All I see in religion, is that Man made God in his own image. That's why there's so many gods, that's why they're always quarelling amongst themselves, justifying all kinds of cr*p and claiming responsability for none of it. Typical human behaviour really.

Dear child, You're just explaining why You don't believe in God. No-one forces You to believe in Him. You believe it's our ego that makes us believe in Him - your choice. However, even someone not believing in God will surely find your remarks like "take your God and stick it..."
as rude, childish, and not provoked by anything.
It's You who's intolerant one here.
I've referred to your post about the impossibility of insulting God. You're making contradictions here.
First, You don't believe in God. Secondly, You claim that God is Infinity, and thirdly You claim God is for religious people an Alpha male.
To sum it up, it seems You think You know better than religious people who God is, and You know better what they think God is, and You attack your own conception with an (not very wise, as God is an "alive" and intelligent infinity, and as such it can be offended) arguement referred to the other conception.
I think I'm not being clear, so I'll say it different:
If God is an "Alpha male" as You claim religious people think, He can be offended, can't he.

What You're saying is nothing new. Some ancient thinker said that if animals had the ability to draw or make sculptures, they would depict god(s) as animals; donkeys would make donkey statues, lions - lions etc.
Indeed, some of the faithful fall in the same cathegory of thinking, especially pagans and - sad to admit - many modern Christians, who depict God - Father as an old guy (depicting God-son as human is obvious, and Holy Spirit as a dove to a smaller degree has some basis). Oh, I recall a beautiful passage of Socrates Scholasticus I think in which there was a controversy ammongst Egyptian monks if God has a body, and when the patriarch of Alexandria stated He is transcendental, the enraged monks invaded the city, started making riots and attempted to kill the bishop.
Anyway, You mean rather treating God as a human person (it's not about the image).
Well, offending someone on purpouse is a way of showing your hatred towards someone. It's about what You feel in heart, not about what You say exactly.
For God, ass is a place like any other. However, for You, it is not, and it's what counts.
However, God is merciful and forgives You that, for He loves You. He sends sundhine to all of us, the sinners and the good alike.
When it comes to Christian approach towards it, Jesus informed us that we should try to imitate God. He's said that as God loves everyone, so we should, to make ourselves ideal as He is. So, in my opinion, according to New Testament, Christians should forgive You and if Christian values were applied as inspiration for law system, You could be safe.
However, indeed there's a feeling in all of us, a willingness to treat God as a human in some way, and "defend his honour". But I believe it's Old Testament's way of perceiving God, not New one's.
And one clarification: of course God can be offended, but, as I've written, He forgives it, as He forgives us all our sins, as a loving father.
That's why He's sent Jesus and so, even the sinners were bought out of the Hell through His sacrifice

[Heresson]

Originally posted by problem_child

...

I thought my reply got lost, so I summed it up again.

God is infinitive, but He/She (I'll use "it") is an alive and intelligent infinitive being. Of course it can be offended.
And by saying "stick your God in your ass" You've offended Him. Not because for God asses of Christians are worse place than any else. God is there too, God's everywhere. But because for You, it is a filthy place, and it's your intention that counts. Offending someone on purpouse is showing your hatred towards someone, and hatred is bad.
But God Jesus tells us about forgives us our sins. He sends sunshine, He gives rain to everyone, the sinners and the good alike. Yes, the sinners go to hell. But not without a reason. God knows what's good and what's bad. A judgement isn't wrong itself, if it is right. We can't be completely sure what is good according to Him,
and what is not. We must try the best to distinguish it, and Jesus gives us the key to it (*). But even the sinners won't suffer for ever, for God, through sacrifice of Jesus, freed us sinners from eternal suffering.
Jesus told us to imitate God, to become as ideal as He is. We are to achieve that through imitating his love to entire existance. As He gives his love to his spoilt and good children alike, so are we supposed to answer with love and submission perhaps for every harm done.
(*that's the key). And as He forgives You your biasphemy, who are we not to forgive it.
Unfortunatelly, almost all are stucked with the Old Testament vision of God, of someone wrathful, and feel obliged to "defend his honour" or whatever.
Of course, it is wrong, and that's why I think that if Christianity was treaten serious, You could not fear being punished for biasphemy until the Day of the Judgement.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Heresson
God is infinitive, but He/She (I'll use "it") is an alive and intelligent infinitive being. Of course it can be offended.

How is it possible for something infinite to be offended by something finite? It's like you getting annoyed by an organelle (say a mitochondria) because it calls you names or something, but to a much smaller scale. In fact, infinitely smaller.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Heresson


I thought my reply got lost, so I summed it up again.

God is infinitive, but He/She (I'll use "it") is an alive and intelligent infinitive being. Of course it can be offended.
And by saying "stick your God in your ass" You've offended Him. Not because for God asses of Christians are worse place than any else. God is there too, God's everywhere. But because for You, it is a filthy place, and it's your intention that counts. Offending someone on purpouse is showing your hatred towards someone, and hatred is bad.
But God Jesus tells us about forgives us our sins. He sends sunshine, He gives rain to everyone, the sinners and the good alike. Yes, the sinners go to hell. But not without a reason. God knows what's good and what's bad. A judgement isn't wrong itself, if it is right. We can't be completely sure what is good according to Him,
and what is not. We must try the best to distinguish it, and Jesus gives us the key to it (*). But even the sinners won't suffer for ever, for God, through sacrifice of Jesus, freed us sinners from eternal suffering.
Jesus told us to imitate God, to become as ideal as He is. We are to achieve that through imitating his love to entire existance. As He gives his love to his spoilt and good children alike, so are we supposed to answer with love and submission perhaps for every harm done.
(*that's the key). And as He forgives You your biasphemy, who are we not to forgive it.
Unfortunatelly, almost all are stucked with the Old Testament vision of God, of someone wrathful, and feel obliged to "defend his honour" or whatever.
Of course, it is wrong, and that's why I think that if Christianity was treaten serious, You could not fear being punished for biasphemy until the Day of the Judgement.

Way to offend the atheists and the Jews in one post!

[Odin]

Originally posted by Heresson

You think You know better than religious people who God is

Athiests and Agnostics can see religion in a objective light since they are not bounded by religious indoctrination or a fear of eternal damnation.

[aneeshm]

One little problem with any religion - how do you know which of the multitude is the right one ? How do you know that Islam or Christainity are mroe valid than the Chinese thing , or Hinduism , or Buddhism , or anyrandomthingism ? Every one relies on faith , thus , each is equally valid ( or , more accurately , invalid ) .

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear
Way to offend the atheists and the Jews in one post!

Why so? He merely stated what he believes. That his religion is a religion of fear and intolerance (you don't believe in my God? Than you'll go to hell and for a reason!) is nothing offensive IMHO. Let him believe what he wants, as long as he doesn't intend to force us to believe the same.

(I'm an atheist btw)

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson



If such sites are sources of your knowledge, I can only pity You.

Oh thank you for your Christian kindness and humility.

My 'sources' are hardly limited to one internet link, and that you choose to believe centuries of Church propaganda is patently obvious.

In terms of quoting numbers of believers- what's more important for a struggling sect that has already seen divisions between the Pauline and Jacobite versions of Christianity, one stressing the link to Judaism, one stressing a more gentile view? Factual accuracy has hardly been a heavy cross to bear either for Church historians or the editors of holy scripture.

The Catholic Church has had centuries to edit, delete, adulterate and fake scriptures and events. That it should choose to portray itself as somehow achieving against all odds is hardly a surprise.

[Solly]

The question didn't even need posing.

When was the last time you heard of a peaceful Islamist?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
The question didn't even need posing.

When was the last time you heard of a peaceful Islamist?

Heard?

I know several.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
How is it possible for something infinite to be offended by something finite? It's like you getting annoyed by an organelle (say a mitochondria) because it calls you names or something, but to a much smaller scale. In fact, infinitely smaller.

I see no point in what You're saying. I would mind an organelle offending me, especially if I loved it.

Way to offend the atheists and the Jews in one post!

I find the view of God presented by the Old Testament not right. There's nothing bad in that.
And how did I offend the atheists?

Athiests and Agnostics can see religion in a objective light since they are not bounded by religious indoctrination or a fear of eternal damnation

How can You know how does a thing that does not exist look like?
Perhaps You can read the Bible with more opened eyes though

One little problem with any religion - how do you know which of the multitude is the right one ? How do you know that Islam or Christainity are mroe valid than the Chinese thing , or Hinduism , or Buddhism , or anyrandomthingism ? Every one relies on faith , thus , each is equally valid ( or , more accurately , invalid ) .

It's not about faith only. I don't find Christianity better than Islam because I believe in it, but because I think what Jesus presented and said was better than what Muhammad claimed. As simple as that.

That his religion is a religion of fear and intolerance (you don't believe in my God? Than you'll go to hell and for a reason!)

I've never said that lack of belief in God is something You go to hell for. I believe that it's the good deeds that count. Faith is not that important in my opinion, and lack of faith is not a sin as long as I'm concerned.
I don't know where do You see the fear and intolerance in what I've written.
Also, remember that I've said that the Christ's sacrifice is for all the people.
Eventually all the people will unite in Heaven.

Oh thank you for your Christian kindness and humility.

My 'sources' are hardly limited to one internet link, and that you choose to believe centuries of Church propaganda is patently obvious.

In terms of quoting numbers of believers- what's more important for a struggling sect that has already seen divisions between the Pauline and Jacobite versions of Christianity, one stressing the link to Judaism, one stressing a more gentile view? Factual accuracy has hardly been a heavy cross to bear either for Church historians or the editors of holy scripture.

The Catholic Church has had centuries to edit, delete, adulterate and fake scriptures and events. That it should choose to portray itself as somehow achieving against all odds is hardly a surprise.

Dear molly,
I am personally doubtful about some parts of Church history. I tend to defend the church lately because people are going too far in its criticisement. Are using false proofs and tend to consider the church as somehow eternally evil and manipulative organisation.
Remember that these people actually believed in their own opinions. People tend to forget that, thinking that people of all ages were what most are today - lacking any spirituality. I'm not sure about if the Trinity, at least the way we know it, was what people really believed in I century. I'm pretty sure they would consider the cult of reliques and of statues and icons something pagan etc...
The church and the Christians commited a lot of mistakes, that's obvious. But not all of them were made on purpouse, and not everything that's said about the church is true. The site You've shown us is a very biased one, and I hope You realise it the way I realise not everything the church claims or claimed is true either.