There are no 72 virgins
It says nothing about killing infidels (although permission is given once).
And it emphasizes a reverence for nature unmatched in Christianity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7yaDlZfqrc

This is the most fantastic run through of what is real and what is fiction I've ever seen on the subject.

From its summary:

Quote :

"Lesley Hazleton explores the Koran and finds much that is quite different from what is reported in commonly cited accounts. A psychologist by training and Middle East reporter by experience, British-born Lesley Hazleton has spent the last ten years exploring the vast and often terrifying arena in which politics and religion, past and present, intersect. Her most recent book, After the Prophet: the Epic Story of the Shia-Sunni Split, was a finalist for the 2010 PEN-USA nonfiction award. She lived and worked in Jerusalem for thirteen years -- a city where politics and religion are at their most incendiary -- then moved to New York. She came to Seattle to get her pilot's license in 1992, saw the perfect houseboat, and stayed. By 1994, she'd flown away all of her savings, and has never regretted a single cent of it. Now her raft rides low in the water under the weight of research as she works on her next book, The First Muslim, a new look at the life of Muhammad. TEDxRainier is an independently organized TED event held in Seattle Washington."

Arm yourself for facts for your future conversations with idiots!

12/6/2010 1:03:30 AM

Why do you hate America?

12/6/2010 1:13:40 AM

^ Damn. I came in here to post that.

12/6/2010 1:20:21 AM

I thought the part about it being from Seattle would be my undoing here, all them elitist communist hippie terrorists

12/6/2010 1:23:30 AM

I'd like to see a. j. jacobs do "the year of living qur'anically."

EH?

12/6/2010 1:32:11 AM

I actually tried to buy a Koran earlier today, but for some reason Borders didn't have one. I could have acquired several variants on the Bhagavad Vita if I'd wanted to, though. One would think that with the current relevance of Islam this would not be the case, but no such luck.

I'm given to understand that it can be read online, I suppose I'll have to do that.

12/6/2010 2:03:24 AM

Good to know the qur'an is so awesome

Now if we can just get the radical muslims to actually read it, because there's obviously been a ClassicMixup somewhere.

12/6/2010 2:18:24 AM

Blah blah blah, you could say the same thing about the Bible, the US Constitution, and (if you can make the tiniest stretch to the social darwinists who helped bring about modern racism) The Origin of Species.

12/6/2010 2:23:20 AM

^^ GG

^^^ You can buy one from Amazon. There are several famous English translations. However, perhaps the best thing is to study it online, and for that purpose, this is the best site as it gives translations by 3 of the most famous ones:

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/

For example, Chapter 4 (Women), Verse 34, one of the most controversial ever:

Quote :

"004.034 YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great. SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

If you do still want to get one, study several verses from different chapters, and then choose one whose style you prefer.

12/6/2010 2:32:13 AM

Is there a place to find one without all the parentheticals, or are those just an inevitability of translation?



[Edited on December 6, 2010 at 3:00 AM. Reason : Also it occurs to me now that it's the "Bhagavad Gita," for which I apologize to Hindu friends.]

12/6/2010 2:46:56 AM

Those are implied meanings, according to the translator, but not literally spelled out in the original Arabic.

So, take them with a grain of salt (the words in the parenthesis).

12/6/2010 4:07:51 AM

You want the most literal one, go with Shakir's.

The problem with Arabic is that a lot of Arabic words have multiple meanings, usually the meanings are related, but sometimes they are not. I guess this is found in any language, but from what I have been told, it is a bigger issue with Arabic.

So, a literal translation into English might not convey the nuance or the implied meaning a lot of the times, and sometimes not the same meaning at all. To know what meaning is exactly meant or implied requires expert knowledge of Classical Arabic AND a study of the sayings and actions of the Prophet (called as 'Hadith'). The Prophet explained the meanings of all the verses in simpler language verbally and by his actions. The Qur'an is only a few hundred pages (original or translation), but a full exposition explaining each and every verse by giving examples of the Prophet's speech and actions typically takes up 8-10 volumes, with each one several hundred pages long. You can also buy one of those, if you wish.

12/6/2010 5:25:22 AM

Quote :

"I'd like to see a. j. jacobs do "the year of living qur'anically." EH?"

signed

12/6/2010 6:13:25 AM

Quote :

"It says nothing about killing infidels (although permission is given once)."

12/6/2010 7:22:28 AM

Not counting the hundreds of passages regarding the horrible doom non-believers will suffer in the afterlife....

Quote :

"2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers."

Quote :

"2:216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not."

Quote :

"3:21 Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, and slay the prophets wrongfully, and slay those of mankind who enjoin equity: promise them a painful doom."

Quote :

"3:157 And what though ye be slain in Allah's way or die therein ? Surely pardon from Allah and mercy are better than all that they amass."

Quote :

"3:169 Think not of those, who are slain in the way of Allah, as dead. Nay, they are living. With their Lord they have provision."

Quote :

"So those who fled and were driven forth from their homes and suffered damage for My cause, and fought and were slain, verily I shall remit their evil deeds from them and verily I shall bring them into Gardens underneath which rivers flow - A reward from Allah. And with Allah is the fairest of rewards."

Quote :

" 4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,"

Quote :

" Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant."

And that barely scratches the surface of the violence supported by the Quran. Not to mention the massive subjugation of women.

And no virgins in the afterlife?

Quote :

"56:10 And the foremost in the race, the foremost in the race: 56:11 Those are they who will be brought nigh 56:12 In gardens of delight; 56:13 A multitude of those of old 56:14 And a few of those of later time. 56:15 On lined couches, 56:16 Reclining therein face to face. 56:17 There wait on them immortal youths 56:18 With bowls and ewers and a cup from a pure spring 56:19 Wherefrom they get no aching of the head nor any madness, 56:20 And fruit that they prefer 56:21 And flesh of fowls that they desire. 56:22 And (there are) fair ones with wide, lovely eyes, 56:23 Like unto hidden pearls, 56:24 Reward for what they used to do. 56:25 There hear they no vain speaking nor recrimination 56:26 (Naught) but the saying: Peace, (and again) Peace. 56:27 And those on the right hand; what of those on the right hand ? 56:28 Among thornless lote-trees 56:29 And clustered plantains, 56:30 And spreading shade, 56:31 And water gushing, 56:32 And fruit in plenty 56:33 Neither out of reach nor yet forbidden, 56:34 And raised couches; 56:35 Lo! We have created them a (new) creation 56:36 And made them virgins, Allah made virgins to be lovers and friends to those on his right hand. 56:37 Lovers, friends, 56:38 For those on the right hand; 56:39 A multitude of those of old 56:40 And a multitude of those of later time."

In before the apologetics about nuances of language. There are thousands of passages in the Quran (and the Bible for that matter) that are horribly cruel, violent, and misogynistic.

[Edited on December 6, 2010 at 9:10 AM. Reason : .]

12/6/2010 9:04:32 AM

Grumpy: I can't believe Borders didn't have a Koran. The one I worked at sold at least a dozen translations. I own the M.A.S. Abdel Haleem translation. You can also check out this site: http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/. It lets you compare a whole rack of translation for each verse. This is especially useful when people tell you, "oh, that's just a bad translation." I've yet to see a verse that was significantly different depending on the translation.

The Koran, I have to say, is one of the worst books you'll ever read. And I'm not even talking about the rank superstition and violence that is found on absolutely every page. I mean that it, quite unlike the King James translation of the Old and New Testaments, lacks a single shred of eloquence or literary merit. The Koran was assembled by largely illiterate desert herdsmen, and it shows.

An example (Mohammad is told to say this to unbelievers): "People, worship your Lord, who created you and those before you, so that you may be mindful [of Him] who spread out the earth for you and built the sky; who sent water down from it and with that water produced things for your sustenance. Do not, knowing this, set up rivals to God. If you have doubts about the revelation We have sent down to Our servant, then produce a single sura like it- enlist whatever supporters you have other than God- if you truly [think you can]. If you cannot do this- and you never will- then beware of the Fire prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones." 2:21-24 (Haleem)

Again, this is basically the same no matter which translation you read. But it's not any one word that makes it horrible; it's the unambiguously (I would say laughably) authoritarian argument it presents you with - an argument that basically assumes you're a frightened peasant looking for someone to cower to (as indeed almost all early Muslims were). And it goes on like this from cover to cover. I realize there are plenty of passages like this in the Jewish and Christian texts (indeed, the Koran's mythological basis is almost entirely dependent on them), but unlike those texts, the Koran never once deviates into anything remotely poetic, introspective, or even thought provoking.

[Edited on December 6, 2010 at 9:41 AM. Reason : ]

12/6/2010 9:27:10 AM

Any holy book has a number of levels to break through for anyone who has any intention of validly applying it to their own lives.

First, there's the translation level where any given verse should have many valid wordings
Then, there's the cultural level
Finally, there's going beyond the stories and identifying the actual will of God in a greater context than than the book.

Lesley Hazleton does something that Christian priests do in my experience - that is to interpret a higher intention of the God speaking in the holy book within the cultural environment of the book, and THEN reduce it to the "take-away" that can be applied to the changing world we live in.

The ultimate take-away from the Qur'an in the video is
- The rightful image of heaven comes from the divinity of nature
- Allah is pacifist and forgiveness is supreme

We know there are many ways to interpret a holy book. But how SHOULD we be interpreting them? Using a generous interpretation to support militant aims is spitting on God. Really.

Aside from the fact that militant religious leaders are sad human beings in the first place, they are terrible Christians/Muslims/etc.

12/6/2010 10:59:08 AM

If God didn't want militant followers then he should have written some less militant holy books.

12/6/2010 11:05:24 AM

^^can you address only the verses that I cited in my post above and let me know how I should interpret them to conclude:

Quote :

"- The rightful image of heaven comes from the divinity of nature - Allah is pacifist and forgiveness is supreme"

How do you get from "then take them and kill them wherever ye find them" to pacifism? Was kill a mistranslation for fellate?

12/6/2010 11:12:33 AM

People ITT who think that what is written in holy books actually corresponds with what and why people believe

12/6/2010 11:47:42 AM

In the real world people fly planes into buildings and then use the Quran to justify it. Women are treated like shit based off the writings of primitive herdsmen.

Trivialize that if you wish. I wouldn't care even if there are billions of moderate Muslims that treat women fairly and don't want to kill anyone else, claiming that the Quaran isn't full of hate and instructions to kill non-believers is at best intellectual dishonesty. In reality it's apologetics because rational people know the shit in these books is evil but they must make excuses for their god and religion (by which I'm referring both the Muslims and Christians, btw).

[Edited on December 6, 2010 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2010 12:42:13 PM

Quote :

"There are no 72 virgins It says nothing about killing infidels (although permission is given once)."

False.

Quote :

"In before the apologetics about nuances of language. There are thousands of passages in the Quran (and the Bible for that matter) that are horribly cruel, violent, and misogynistic."

Agreed.

Quote :

"I mean that it, quite unlike the King James translation of the Old and New Testaments, lacks a single shred of eloquence or literary merit."

Have you read it in Arabic? Ask any scholar of the Arabic language (even Western non-Muslim ones) and they will tell you that it is very eloquent and poetic. There is lots of rhyme and other similar constructs. Of course, that's all lost when you translate it.

Quote :

"The Koran was assembled by largely illiterate desert herdsmen, and it shows."

'Assembled' being the key word, because they will tell you that the words actually came from God, and are still the same original words. So if the compilers of the Qur'an were illiterate, what about those of the Bible? What universities did they attend, or under which scholars did they study? Were they also not "illiterate desert herdsmen"? Or do you believe that the words in the Bible are divine? If so, aren't you being biased?

Quote :

"but unlike those texts, the Koran never once deviates into anything remotely poetic, introspective, or even thought provoking."

1) That can only be said if you have read the whole Qur'an in at least some language, and also, read it in Arabic (for the not poetic accusation). Have you?

2) Please post a poetic passage from the Bible. Also something introspective. And also something thought provoking. Not saying there isn't (I have read only a tiny part of the Bible, and that was as a freshman in 1996), just genuinely curious to see what you think is poetic, instrospective, or thought provoking.

12/6/2010 2:49:21 PM

There are whole books of poems and songs in the bible.

12/6/2010 3:05:24 PM

Damn. I feel bad for all of those people who've devoted their lives to studying the Qur'an and not realizing that they could have just watched a 10 minute youtube video and achieved total enlightenment.

12/6/2010 3:20:38 PM

i mean a 10 minute summary of the bible would be: dont kill people, be nice to your neighbors, charity to the poor is the best thing you can do.

obviously that has nothing to do with practiced christianity.


the shit in the op is some hurf durf psuedo intellectual wanking.

12/6/2010 3:27:37 PM

Quote :

"i mean a 10 minute summary of the bible would be: dont kill people, be nice to your neighbors, charity to the poor is the best thing you can do. "

This is patently false and the same wanking the OP does with the Quran. I won't clutter this thread with it. Christianity's only saving grace is that it's violent asshattery isn't as recent as Islam's.

12/6/2010 3:57:56 PM

Quote :

"Grumpy: I can't believe Borders didn't have a Koran. The one I worked at sold at least a dozen translations."

Well then I'm guessing you don't work at the one off Walnut Street in Cary. I didn't claim it was corporate policy, I just said there wasn't a Koran in the paltry selection of "Islam" books they had at that store.

12/7/2010 1:51:17 AM

Quote :

"This is patently false and the same wanking the OP does with the Quran. I won't clutter this thread with it. Christianity's only saving grace is that it's violent asshattery isn't as recent as Islam's."

You mean that the Bible had its misinterpretations occur earlier than the Quran.

Christianity, for what it's worth, implies a philosophy following or somehow based off the teachings of Christ. An individual with even the faintest idea of what Jesus taught would know that violence of pretty much any type is out.

For crying out loud, what's a messiah gotta do to not have people start wars in his name? I would say we would have been better of if every time Jesus, Muhammad, and friends had open their mouth it was something about nonviolence, but forget it, that would be contorted into war anyway at some point.

12/7/2010 12:00:45 PM

I love it.
When it's not interpreted your way, it's a misinterpretation.

The Gospels may be about what Jesus taught but the rest of it (the OT and everything else in the NT) are far, far from it. Even some of Jesus' teachings in the Gospels are vile (love me more than your family, cut your eyes out if you would think lustfully, the concept of redemption, etc).

As usual, "interpretation" of your holy book means cherry picking and declaring a priori certain things to be allegorical and certain things literal. Enjoy.

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 1:02 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2010 1:01:02 PM

That's what "interpretation" means in pretty much any context, innit?

What thing is a figure of speech? What thing is metaphorical? What thing is literal? What is relevant?

And when it's not interpreted my way of course I think it's a misinterpretation. This applies to pretty much everything. If someone handed both of us identical sets of empirical, religion-free scientific data and we arrived at different, mutually-exclusive conclusions from the same, then it stands to reason that we'd each think the other was misinterpreting it.

"But at least then one could be proven right!" I guess in theory. Just the other day I remember sitting and staring, flabbergasted, at two journal articles in which two respected scholars had drawn opposite conclusions from the same (fairly simple) set of data. They both had pretty good cases as far as I could tell.

12/7/2010 2:49:39 PM

Quote :

"Have you read it in Arabic? Ask any scholar of the Arabic language (even Western non-Muslim ones) and they will tell you that it is very eloquent and poetic. There is lots of rhyme and other similar constructs. Of course, that's all lost when you translate it."

Similarly the English translations of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of the bible sap it of some of its eloquence and poetry, but there is still some left...but that was probably added in via artistic license, especially in the KJV and NIV, the two most popular translations.

For example, here's one of the songs from Gen14:18-20, first in a fairly literal and recent translation, the ESV:

Quote :

"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) And he blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor* of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!" And Abram gave him a tenth of everything. *or Creator, cf. verse 22"

Obviously this sounded more lyrical in the original Hebrew.

12/7/2010 4:45:13 PM

Quote :

"The Gospels may be about what Jesus taught but the rest of it (the OT and everything else in the NT) are far, far from it. Even some of Jesus' teachings in the Gospels are vile (love me more than your family, cut your eyes out if you would think lustfully, the concept of redemption, etc)."

I'd love to hear your other examples from the New Testament, "everything else" as you called it, which is just epistles and revelation.

I'll go ahead and address the love me more than your family and cut out your eyes references, as you so eloquently put them.

"And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,"

Mark 9:47

This reference is explicit in meaning. If given two options, be cast into a lake of fire for eternity or have one eye, which would you take? This establishes the gravity of sin in the eyes of God.



"From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.

They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.""

Luke 12-53-53

This is just the way it works. Not everyone in one family believes the same thing. No matter how much you all love to scream RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION at the top of your lungs. My family is not Christian or saved, my father is an atheist and I'm not even sure what my mother believes. So it does split family. I wish I had religious indoctrination because at least then I would know that my parents would be saved.

And I can't even begin to address the perversion of you saying that the concept of redemption is vile. Redemption is a gift, not some curse or burden.

Also if your looking for a poem in the Bible and your having "lots of trouble," try the Song of Solomon.

12/7/2010 5:00:56 PM

Yeah, I was really confused about the redemption bit. "He's telling people that if they're truly sorry we won't punish them forever? What an ASSHOLE!!!"

12/7/2010 6:03:21 PM

It occurs to me that if I ever become famous, history would never remember me for a message that message is in the slightest bit complicated or non-obvious.

The message of every messiah in common consciousness is so thoroughly obfuscated that it seems any celebrity should simply give up standing for anything.

Mohandas Gandhi at least seemed to get a message of "nonviolence" remembered, as did many other figures in well-recorded history. In conversation I still find haughty individuals eager to express that he beat his wife, which is quite possibly correct, but doesn't particularly change the message IMO.

If one intends to make the case that Jesus's message as promoted by modern followers today is often vile, unaccepting, or sometimes inciting of violence, then fine. But those modern followers are wrong - get over it. Personally, I think that "Christians" should have a greater obligation to the fundamental teachings of Christ, versus any kind of interpretation of the bible, which is to some degree inherited from Jesus himself since there was a form of endorsement given, although a reversion of some parts did occur. To me, it would make sense that if a messiah endorsed some parts of the Old Testament and rejected other parts of it, then a practitioner of Christianity would have bought themselves into a form of selective reading from the outset with the key litmus test for the holy book, along with all of life, would be a correspondence with the most important parts of the messiah's word.

But hey, it's all totally subjective and based on interpretation, right? This is a extremely common mantra, but its application should be greatly limited by reason. Reason and faith are not mortal enemies.

Anyway, the thoughts I just expressed go beyond a first-level analysis so I'm confident this post will be irrelevant.
-------

If one really exercises perspective, they should be SURPRISED to find that Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammad were as nonviolent as they were (Abraham not so much so). If I think about the people today who think God is talking directly to them, there is a great propensity to violence in this sample set.

In fact, I would go so far as to claim that there is some form of innate goodness in people. What is my evidence? Look at the messiahs. History had its choice of violent characters, but by some form of democratic action - voting through story telling - the nonviolent actors were preferentially selected out.

I am not apologetic in the slightest of the great propensity TOWARD violence of religion after hitting a critical mass of followers and power. But that is human nature of a different sort. I argue that selection of the messiahs shows the better side of the human spirit.

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 6:34 PM. Reason : ]

12/7/2010 6:31:43 PM

Quote :

"it would make sense that if a messiah endorsed some parts of the Old Testament and rejected other parts of it"

I don't particularly like or agree with this statement, where exactly does Christ reject parts of the Old Testament?

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 5:17-19

Now I'm certainly not going to disagree with your points on the importance of the teachings and sermons of Christ. However, it is true that God did command the tribe of Israel to absolutely lay waste and commit genocide within the Old Testament. And they did just that. Does that mean Christians should go about slaughtering unbelievers? Absolutely not. And they certainly shouldn't be slaughtering fellow saints! You hear that Catholic Church? Yeah, I'm talking to you According to scripture, violence can no longer be justified by calling it the "will of God."

I got slightly off track. I myself feel that if you say it is more important to understand the message of Christ, than to understand the Bible it has too much room for interpretation. Now, if you say that the message of Christ is that he is the salvation come from God, sacrificed so that man could be redeemed from sin, then that is fine. But if you say that Christ's message is just to love your neighbor, well than your missing out on the redemption and repentance. Atheists and agnostics can love their neighbor with or without the message of peace from Christ.

Quote :

"Personally, I think that "Christians" should have a greater obligation to the fundamental teachings of Christ, versus any kind of interpretation of the bible"

I also wonder how this is not contradictory. Christ's teachings and sermons are in the Bible, you have to read them to understand them. And what of the lessons of Solomon and David? Should Christians ignore

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

Listen, my son, to your father's instruction and do not forsake your mother's teaching.

Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart.

Do not withhold good from those who deserve it, when it is in your power to act.

Do not say to your neighbor, "Come back later; I'll give it tomorrow"--when you now have it with you."

Those are just a few excerpts from Proverbs. Now I would say that these are spreading a view socially recognized as good. As would the examples that could be gleaned from Psalms, and Ecclesiastes.

See the problem with just following the "peace and harmony" message of Christ is that it does not always involve trusting in the Lord. It leads many people to merely follow the "well I'll just be a good person and I won't be punished" though process.

"All a man's ways seem right to him, but the LORD weighs the heart.

The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.

The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.
He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight."

Also, note that many people can say they are talking to god and be violent. Throughout Biblical times people worshiped pagan deities which were also called "god." This is the problem with people that say they worship the God of Abraham but in truth they are worshiping Baphomet or some other baddie.

12/8/2010 3:53:30 AM

give it up. Islam is a hateful, violent, and dumb religion. I don't care what you think its teachings are; what matters is how the people of the religion act... and they act like hateful, violent, and stupid Neanderthals. Christianity went through a similar phase a long time ago. Thus I don't care for either, or any, religion.

12/8/2010 4:46:57 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, I was really confused about the redemption bit."

I think he was referring to the doctrine of vicarious redemption, which holds that a person is offered forgiveness of his sins via the torture and killing of an eccentric First Century preacher. There are any number of morally repugnant things about such a belief.

12/8/2010 8:35:39 AM

^bingo.

Quote :

"This reference is explicit in meaning. If given two options, be cast into a lake of fire for eternity or have one eye, which would you take? This establishes the gravity of sin in the eyes of God."

And you can't see the inherent vileness in portraying these as the only two options in existence? You are created sinful and without your choice are ordered to behave upon a set of moral principles which you can never fully understand. It is necessarily immoral to make anyone adhere to a set of morals which they cannot understand.

Everyone is programmed to look lustfully at other people. It's the only reason the sand farmers were around to hallucinate Christianity into existence in the first place. The idea of you (or Jesus or anyone for that matter) holding me accountable for what I think is absolutely morally wrong. You only don't think so because you make an exception for your god. If it were anyone else in the Universe holding you to such an arbitrary and counter-intuitive standard on punishment of infinite and eternal suffering you would hate such a being.

Hopefully you're not wrong and we're all going to Hades or Gehenna, amirite?

12/8/2010 5:10:01 PM

Quote :

"I think he was referring to the doctrine of vicarious redemption, which holds that a person is offered forgiveness of his sins via the torture and killing of an eccentric First Century preacher."

Is this even in the New Testament? I've read it but will confess to having an imperfect memory.

Quote :

"It is necessarily immoral to make anyone adhere to a set of morals which they cannot understand. "

Well, I don't necessarily think anybody is supposed to make people adhere to morals they don't understand, but I disagree that it is necessarily immoral. Assuming there is an absolute set of morals -- especially one with an identifiable source -- then there's no getting around it. If there is no absolute morality, then yeah, you've got a case. Is that what you're saying?

Quote :

"You only don't think so because you make an exception for your god."

Same issue here. You don't necessarily have to believe in a god to believe in an absolute morality. People have used cold, hard, godless rationality to put forward moral codes before. The two are not intrinsically bound.

Quote :

"If it were anyone else in the Universe holding you to such an arbitrary and counter-intuitive standard on punishment of infinite and eternal suffering you would hate such a being. "

Because there are multiple religions, that circumstance is occurring for all of us. There's always someone holding everybody else to a seemingly arbitrary and certainly counter-intuitive standard. I don't hate Muslims for threatening hell for owning pictures and photographs. Hell, I don't even hate Catholics for threatening hell over my possession of icons. Some of us can live and let live. Hardcore atheists like yourself do not tend to fall into this category.

12/9/2010 2:00:15 AM

Quote :

"Is this even in the New Testament? I've read it but will confess to having an imperfect memory."

It's pretty much the cornerstone of Christianity. It's practically the only thing (pretty much) every Christian agrees is legitimate doctrine.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."



[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 9:15 AM. Reason : ]

12/9/2010 9:15:06 AM

Ah. A case of missing the forest for the trees -- I figured it was yet another obscure reference to some minor historical incident now being used to condemn Christianity.

I still don't understand what the hell is so wrong with it. Voluntary self-sacrifice for the good of others is vile and reprehensible?

12/9/2010 1:01:52 PM

Yes, I think human sacrifice is a pretty barbaric - not to mention abjectly superstitious - concept.

What does it say about a god who requires this, of his son no less, in order to forgive those whom he created in the first place? Couldn't an all-knowing, all-powerful god have come up with something more creative than a long established ritual practiced by every bewildered, bloodthirsty tribe on the planet?

And in what sense is it moral for Jesus to act as if he has the right, let alone the ability, to facilitate the forgiveness of all humanity's sins? If I transgress against you, is it not your forgiveness I should be seeking? By what right does Jesus say he can forgive me in your place? And if that right comes from God (who, let's not forget, is also Jesus), what does that say about God's morality, other than that it seems to be lacking any sense of justice?

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 1:26 PM. Reason : ]

12/9/2010 1:16:22 PM

You sort of answer your own questions.

If we operate within the framework of Christianity then Jesus is God. God didn't require someone else to be sacrificed, he sacrificed himself. Voluntary self-sacrifice for the good of others is not repugnant.

12/9/2010 1:26:20 PM

Quote :

"Voluntary self-sacrifice for the good of others is not repugnant."

what

12/9/2010 1:35:08 PM

Quote :

"If we operate within the framework of Christianity then Jesus is God. God didn't require someone else to be sacrificed, he sacrificed himself. Voluntary self-sacrifice for the good of others is not repugnant."

I would still contend that human sacrifice is a barbaric and abjectly superstitious practice, even if the poor sap is volunteering. And it's nonsensical at best to construct a system in which people are saved from your punishment by way of pain you've inflicted on yourself. "I was going to send you to eternal hellfire, but since I went and got myself tacked to a stick, I guess I'll forgive you."

I'll rephrase, but the question remains:

In what sense is it moral for Jesus/God to act as if he has the right, let alone the ability, to facilitate the forgiveness of all humanity's sins? If I transgress against you, is it not your forgiveness I should be seeking? And if that right comes from Jesus/God, what does that say about Jesus/God's morality, other than that it seems to be lacking any sense of justice?

It seems the only way declare Christian doctrine a moral doctrine is to define morality as obedience to Christian doctrine. If you define morality as being relative to something less servile, and certainly less circular, like human well-being, then you would have to admit that Christianity is a significantly flawed system of morality.

12/9/2010 2:27:21 PM

Quote :

"It seems the only way declare Christian doctrine a moral doctrine is to define morality as obedience to Christian doctrine. "

I would think that this is the point of Christianity and most other religions. If you aren't providing a set of moral rules or guidelines then all you've got is, what, a creation story? Any hack can come up with one of those.

The central idea behind the redemption is that he's redeeming you for your sins against him -- which means he's the ONLY one with the right or ability to forgive them.

If I punch you in the dick, I've transgressed against you, certainly. But I've also transgressed against God because he said your not supposed to run around punching people in the dick. God can forgive that one, and that one is (in terms of my long-well being) way more important.

On top of that forgiveness is something everyone is supposed to be practicing anyway, so you'll forgive me my crime against you, too, or else you'll now be committing a crime against God (and arguably me, too).

12/9/2010 2:36:19 PM

most christians would argue that christianity is about providing a pathway to salvation, and while it certainly sets out certain morals to uphold it is not the reason for its existence.

12/9/2010 3:31:22 PM

Quote :

"But I've also transgressed against God because he said your not supposed to run around punching people in the dick."

I would want to ask why God's feelings are even being considered in that case. But you provide an answer:

Quote :

"God can forgive that one, and that one is (in terms of my long-well being) way more important."

So you have a god that blackmails you into servility with threats of eternal hellfire. You may believe this is real, but how you think it morally normal is beyond me. And this is exactly the problem with the Christian doctrine of redemption: You transgress against me, yet due to the capricious manipulations of God, with his horrible threats an outlandish promises, it is him, not me, who you find it "more important" to make amends with. This is the root of everything evil about religion. It is, in essence, the reason some Muslims think the most morally reasonable thing they can do is go explode themselves inside discotheques full of innocent teenagers; or why Christian fundamentalists think it's OK to off abortion doctors; or why fanatical Jews insist on destroying the prospects of peace in Palestine so that they can steal just a few more acres of land they think was promised to them. You allow yourself to be bullied into a position where you place the whimsical emotions of a supernatural being over the welfare of your fellow humans.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 5:33 PM. Reason : preemptive ecumenicism ]

12/9/2010 5:22:07 PM

Quote :

"If I punch you in the dick, I've transgressed against you, certainly. But I've also transgressed against God because he said your not supposed to run around punching people in the dick. God can forgive that one, and that one is (in terms of my long-well being) way more important."

This is the essence of the issue. Your sins against me can be forgiven through absolutely no restitution to me thanks to a barbaric human sacrifice. You are not entitled to be absolved of your responsibilities or the consequences of your actions. At least, not in a moral system.

If I kill someone, and I let my wife get punished for it even if she volunteered, would that be a moral action?

12/10/2010 5:16:17 PM

Quote :

" This is the essence of the issue. Your sins against me can be forgiven through absolutely no restitution to me thanks to a barbaric human sacrifice. You are not entitled to be absolved of your responsibilities or the consequences of your actions. At least, not in a moral system."

except that the sacrifice does not forgive your transgressions against someone else, they should forgive you for that

12/10/2010 5:57:11 PM