i find this debate a little strange. if we accept that both muslims and christians have justified violence based on their faith (and of course we might say that more muslims do so today, but we can still see examples of christians doing the same), then we can say both faiths can be used to justify violence. a debate about whether there is textual justification for such violence seems beside the point.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Bill Maher: Islam is inherently worse than other religions.
Collapse
X
-
I don't see Islam any more evil or violent than Christianity was at the same age.Founder of The Glory of War, CHAMPIONS OF APOLYTON!!!
'92 & '96 Perot, '00 & '04 Bush, '08 & '12 Obama, '16 Clinton, '20 Biden, '24 Harris
Comment
-
the argument being put forward here is that islam is worse than other religions (and considering the context, we can take christianity as the most relevant other religion), because of what is written in the koran, and how it compares unfavourably to the new testament. my point is that considering the violence that has been committed in the name of both religions, the textual debate seems meaningless, or at least irrelevant.Originally posted by The Mad Monk View PostDisagree. The written texts, in this case, represent the highest authority for each religion; the constitution, if you will.
or to put it another way, if violence is committed in the name of god/allah, does it matter what textual support there is for said violence?"The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.
"The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton
Comment
-
Yep. When someone uses violence despite their religion teaching it is wrong then you can truthfully say they're not following their religion. If their religion teaches violence, saying it is not only ok but that god demands you do violence, then that is an entirely different (and incurable) problem.Originally posted by The Mad Monk View PostDisagree. The written texts, in this case, represent the highest authority for each religion; the constitution, if you will.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
-
A better example might be the Baha'i Faith.Originally posted by AAAAAAAAH! View PostGiven how young Scientology is I'm surprised they aren't blowing up buildings or anything.No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.
Comment
-
Well, they have infiltrated the FBI, framed opponents for terrorism, and been implicated in child labor, general labor violations, false imprisonment, forced abortions, abuse and neglect of minors, and sundry financial shadiness and harassment. There's just not much money in blowing **** up, unless your name is Lockheed Martin or something and you have a government contract.Originally posted by AAAAAAAAH! View PostGiven how young Scientology is I'm surprised they aren't blowing up buildings or anything.
EDIT: Forgot lots and lots of practicing medicine without a license. That'n's big, arguably all there is to Scientology.Last edited by Elok; September 14, 2014, 20:38.
Comment
-
but why does that matter? the problem is the violence and if the violence is being committed in the name of religion, then the textual support, or lack thereof, matters not.Originally posted by Dinner View PostYep. When someone uses violence despite their religion teaching it is wrong then you can truthfully say they're not following their religion. If their religion teaches violence, saying it is not only ok but that god demands you do violence, then that is an entirely different (and incurable) problem."The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.
"The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton
Comment
-
Is it conceivable that the textual support would sway people who would otherwise not commit acts of violence?Originally posted by C0ckney View Postbut why does that matter? the problem is the violence and if the violence is being committed in the name of religion, then the textual support, or lack thereof, matters not.John Brown did nothing wrong.
Comment
-
i suppose it's conceivable; i doubt it's true though.Originally posted by Felch View PostIs it conceivable that the textual support would sway people who would otherwise not commit acts of violence?"The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.
"The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton
Comment
Comment