Christians STILL burning witches

[Bkeela]

If this were happening in the Bible Belt of America I would be impressed, but Africa? Africa is still in its dark ages. They rape their own infants. Meh.

[Heraclitus]

Are you implying we should civilize them?

[Bkeela]

Well, a recent thread suggested the Chinese may do it for us.

[aneeshm]

Why is it so hard to admit that all books fall short in one way or another? To admit that there are things which are not their domain of expertise?

I don't mind saying that there are shortcomings in all books, my own included. It is but obvious that people writing so long ago did not have the benefit of our perspective and experience, and therefore will have made mistakes.

Why do people find it so hard to say, "Yes, my $HOLY_BOOK has some stupid stuff in it, but I disagree, and no, it's not 'symbolic' or anything, it's just plain wrong."?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You realize that sharia is based on far more than the Quran itself, right? Including the hadith and interpretations and discussions over the years.

This is Poly. Stop trying to inject facts into the discussion.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Jesus was a ****ing hobo, do you see many Christians behaving like he did ?

Hobo? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[Fake Boris]

A hobo is a vagabond, isn't it ?

[Straybow]

Hobo, vagabond, vagrant != itinerant

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DaShi
Memeto virus? Didn't the Hindus get in a hissy fit over Richard Gere kissing a woman?

Yeah, Indian nationalists went ape **** after seeing evil whitey once again having his way with Indian women. That so many Indian woman, including many of the hottest and best educated, would prefer a whitey's company to that of a peasant uber nationalist type who probably beats his wife was not something they enjoyed being reminded of.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Why is it so hard to admit that all books fall short in one way or another? To admit that there are things which are not their domain of expertise?

I don't mind saying that there are shortcomings in all books, my own included. It is but obvious that people writing so long ago did not have the benefit of our perspective and experience, and therefore will have made mistakes.

Why do people find it so hard to say, "Yes, my $HOLY_BOOK has some stupid stuff in it, but I disagree, and no, it's not 'symbolic' or anything, it's just plain wrong."?

Because deep down they know if they start admitting their religion is sometimes wrong/stupid they'll be one the path to realizing religion itself is wrong/stupid. That scares them so they invent claims about symbolism or alagories.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You realize that sharia is based on far more than the Quran itself, right? Including the hadith and interpretations and discussions over the years.

This is of course true. The Hadith is its own entirely seporate line of stupidity though given that it was first written down over 200 years after Mohamed died based on the folk claims illiterate peasants attributed to Mohamed.

The Hadith is like Americans had no written record of Jefferson or Washington but we declare it god's word that Washington never told a lie and chopped down a cherry tree. As a matter of historical accuracy it's a complete joke.

[Addled Platypus]

Repetition is overrated

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Why is it so hard to admit that all books fall short in one way or another? To admit that there are things which are not their domain of expertise?

I don't mind saying that there are shortcomings in all books, my own included. It is but obvious that people writing so long ago did not have the benefit of our perspective and experience, and therefore will have made mistakes.

Why do people find it so hard to say, "Yes, my $HOLY_BOOK has some stupid stuff in it, but I disagree, and no, it's not 'symbolic' or anything, it's just plain wrong."?

Because when children are told things which don't make any sense by people they have to trust for their livelihood, like the Santa Clause myth for example, when they are old enough to know better, it ****s their heads up.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Because deep down they know if they start admitting their religion is sometimes wrong/stupid they'll be one the path to realizing religion itself is wrong/stupid. That scares them so they invent claims about symbolism or alagories.

But why? Why the fear?

Adi Shankaracharya: Sometime in the year 700, he said that the domain of knowledge of Shruti scripture was limited to the means of the attainment of enlightenment - the realm of pure thought - and that all else was either symbolic or false. That is, if empirical observation trumps scriptural statements, then what we perceive empirically trumps what scripture says.

The Dalai Lama stated that if a scientific truth contradicted some part of the Pali Canon, then it is the tradition that must adjust.

Different people, different traditions, same lack of fear.

What's the problem? Neither Hinduism nor Buddhism are going anywhere. Do the Jud/Chr/Isl think that if they admit that something in their books can be plain wrong, the tradition will dissipate or something? Didn't happen to us, and we've been like this since the beginning, don't see why it should happen to them either.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

the trick with all of them is that they want to control the masses... "they" being either local or coentralized leaders, dependable how the religion developed... so all in all bollocks, and it is all similar, with the exception that I think Islam and Christianity are more violent that the average other religion due to them being expansionist in nature, so a lot of potential for abuse...

will we see the same again, i bet, just when the situation is ripe so that some religious lunatic can use it for his/hers ends... such is life... a bit of religion, bit of nationalism, a bit of economics and between the three you have all the reasons in the world to do harm on massive scale...