British ID register

Polz, let me ask you something.

Are you basically saying, Muslims commit a relatively large amount of violent acts to other relgious believers because Islamic scripture is relatively more violent than other religious texts?

polz said:

no i'm saying Moslims JUSTIFY a relatively large amount of violent acts WITH RELIGION because Islamic scripture is relatively more violent than other religious texts

Click to expand...

So there are few things:

1. Do Muslims justify a relatively large amount of violent by quoting Islamic scriptures? I think that a cohort do at present, just as violence in the Middle East was once justified in the name of Arab nationalism, and just as violence in the West was justified by quoting Christian scripture and then notions of Aryan or proletarian rule.
   
2. Is Islamic scripture relatively more violent than other religious texts? That's an empirical question and so I would like to see an empirical argument: come back with a quantitative analysis of Islamic scripture and comparative assessments of other religious scriptures, then we can discuss this properly.
   
3. Is there a causal relationaship between the two? Obviously, even if 2 is correct, the fact that Islamic scripture is more violent than, say, Christian scripture hasn't stopped Christian history from being terribly violent, so it's not clear to what extent the violent nature of religious scripture impacts on the actions of believers. You need to prove or explain this as well.

"Is Islamic scripture relatively more violent than other religious texts? That's an empirical question and so I would like to see an empirical argument: come back with a quantitative analysis of Islamic scripture and comparative assessments of other religious scriptures, then we can discuss this properly."

Click to expand...

Probably depends on if you include the Old Testament. Funny, apologists for the bible seem to pick and choose when to include that - as far as I can see if it's still part of the holy book of the religion you can't just say "oh, those bits don't count" when someone points out how horrifically bloodthirsty the first three quarters of it are.

This is good polz (and anyone else) -- Philip Jenkins paper on Islam and Europe.

IdleRich said:

Probably depends on if you include the Old Testament. Funny, apologists for the bible seem to pick and choose when to include that - as far as I can see if it's still part of the holy book of the religion you can't just say "oh, those bits don't count" when someone points out how horrifically bloodthirsty the first three quarters of it are.

Click to expand...

Are there any Cristians here? In the eyes of Christian orthodoxy, do the old bits still count?

Thing about the Bible, though, is that (AFAIK) Jesus specifically said that his teachings were to supercede those of the prophets that had gone before - which is why Muslims, like Jews, still have religious food laws and practise circumcision, whereas Christians (with the exception of a few sects that have specifically tried to revive the older traditions) don't.

However, this fact is ignored by a great many Christians, who use OT scripture to justify, for example, homophobic attitudes and an eye-for-an-eye approach to jurisprudence, which would seem to be at odds with the NT's talk of love and forgiveness. So perhaps a Christian who bases his moral world view on the whole of the Bible is doing so in direct contravention of the teachings of Jesus?

Anyone with a greater knowledge of the NT out there? This is more or less a hunch I'm working on...

Edit: or, in shorter form, what vimothy said.

Boombox said this on the matter

"Most Christians, especially Catholics, regard ceremonial, dietary and other laws laid down in the Old Testament as defunct. The prevailing view is that,
"Upon the advent of Christ, the purpose of all the ceremonial and judicial commands, which was to pre-figure Christ, was fulfilled, causing them to be 'annulled' and 'dead'"
Thomas Aquinas
Only The Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus are fundamental - as the Catechism puts it: "the permanent validity of the Decalogue". i.e. Christianity"

Click to expand...

http://www.dissensus.com/showthread.php?t=6865&page=17

Seems like a cop out to me. Anyway, even if you accept that the new testament replaces the old (except for the ten commandments - why that distinction?) I don't see what is supposed to persuade us to forgive God for the way he acted in the first book. Sacrificing one son is nothing compared to all the trouble he caused.
I actually get the impression that Christians are keen to dissociate themselves from all the weird stuff about not eating bats or touching women when they're on the blob rather than the countless massacres, gang rapes and slave taking.

IdleRich said:

I actually get the impression that Christians are keen to dissociate themselves from all the weird stuff about not eating bats or touching women when they're on the blob rather than the countless massacres, gang rapes and slave taking.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and this is the point, isn't it: to what extent do self-identified Christians *actually* dissociate themselves from the OT stuff - both the weird laws *and* the massacres etc.?

And the obvious question is why, given that (or if) Jesus' teaching supercedes the Old Testament, is the Old Testament is included in the Bible at all?

vimothy said:

And the obvious question is why, given that (or if) Jesus' teaching supercedes the Old Testament, is the Old Testament is included in the Bible at all?

Click to expand...

Jesus didn't write it, did he? A bunch of first-century Jewish holy men did.

"And the obvious question is why, given that (or if) Jesus' teaching supercedes the Old Testament, is the Old Testament is included in the Bible at all?"

Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying. Seems that the old testament is part of it until someone needs to say Christianity is a religion of peace, then suddenly all that stuff about slaughtering every man, woman and child doesn't count. As far as I can see though, even if the NT replaces the old, that stuff is still supposed to have happened. God might be reformed but in his reckless youth he did order the murder of thousands upon thousands of innocents and demand that that guy cook his daughter 'cause she was the first person to greet him when he returned home.

IdleRich said:

God might be reformed but in his reckless youth he did order the murder of thousands upon thousands of innocents and demand that that guy cook his daughter 'cause she was the first person to greet him when he returned home.

Click to expand...

This stuff is all new to me. The OT must make for a much better movie than the NT. Be like Russell Crowe or Javier Bardem vs Keira Knightley

vimothy said:

Originally Posted by polz
no i'm saying Moslims JUSTIFY a relatively large amount of violent acts WITH RELIGION because Islamic scripture is relatively more violent than other religious texts

Click to expand...

So there are few things:

1. Do Muslims justify a relatively large amount of violent by quoting Islamic scriptures? I think that a cohort do at present, just as violence in the Middle East was once justified in the name of Arab nationalism, and just as violence in the West was justified by quoting Christian scripture and then notions of Aryan or proletarian rule.
   
2. Is Islamic scripture relatively more violent than other religious texts? That's an empirical question and so I would like to see an empirical argument: come back with a quantitative analysis of Islamic scripture and comparative assessments of other religious scriptures, then we can discuss this properly.
   
3. Is there a causal relationaship between the two? Obviously, even if 2 is correct, the fact that Islamic scripture is more violent than, say, Christian scripture hasn't stopped Christian history from being terribly violent, so it's not clear to what extent the violent nature of religious scripture impacts on the actions of believers. You need to prove or explain this as well.

Click to expand...

*bump*

polz, you still there?

polz said:

yes, are you?

Click to expand...

Yeah, just trying to find the time to comment on all these threads! I'll try to get onto it later today.