Islam - What's your view on it?

[Scaff]

And you keep avoiding the key point and attempting to detract from it.

The source you used does not support the claim you made!

 

[UKMikey]

God of the gaps...

Either Islam is a violent ideology or it isn't. No semantics involved.

We've yet to hear a compelling proof that it is, only wheedly weasel words.

 

[HenrySwanson]

God of the gaps...

Either Islam is a violent ideology or it isn't. No semantics involved.

We've yet to hear a compelling proof that it is, only wheedly weasel words.

I'm saying in comparison to oither religions, I believe it's more violent.

It's like saying one religion is more homophobic than another, or more pro-slavery etc

 

[Danoff]

I'm saying in comparison to oither religions, I believe it's more violent.

Specifically how do you think it's more violent? Violent in terms of what its members do? Violent in terms of scriptural commands?

 

[UKMikey]

Specifically how do you think it's more violent? Violent in terms of what its members do? Violent in terms of scriptural commands?

I'm still waiting on the "why" as other than a bunch of hand waving and conjecture we haven't really received this. One might as well say that Arabs are more violent, aside from the ones who aren't.

 

[Danoff]

I'm still waiting on the "why" as other than a bunch of hand waving and conjecture we haven't really received this. One might as well say that Arabs are more violent, aside from the ones who aren't.

It's true..

I thought that by getting him to narrow down his exact point here, it would be easier for him to see what his sources supported and what they don't. The claims is broad and nebulous, but it seemed like there might be a finer point to it. Just trying to change gears and come at it from a different angle.

 

[UKMikey]

It's true..

I thought that by getting him to narrow down his exact point here, it would be easier for him to see what his sources supported and what they don't. The claims is broad and nebulous, but it seemed like there might be a finer point to it. Just trying to change gears and come at it from a different angle.

Good luck. 👍

 

[HenrySwanson]

Specifically how do you think it's more violent? Violent in terms of what its members do? Violent in terms of scriptural commands?

So violence in the name of religion, or at least because of it.

I don't really see it as controversial if you look at things objectively. Would it be as controversial to say that religion can influence people's opinions and (sometimes violent) behaviour with regards to abortion? Why then is it weird to say that a religion created by a warlord from over a millenium ago is likely to inspire more violence than, e.g. the Baha'i faith?

 

[TenEightyOne]

So violence in the name of religion, or at least because of it.

This morning I stole three pot noodles from my local Waitrose. In order to effect my exit I was forced to punch the elderly assistant in the face. As I sprinted into the bright sun I held one Noodle aloft and yelled "This! This is for At Henry Swanson!".

You dangerous bastard you. That was in your name. I hope you're thoroughly ashamed of yourself. It would only have been £1.99 to just pay for them.

 

[UKMikey]

This morning I stole three pot noodles from my local Waitrose. In order to effect my exit I was forced to punch the elderly assistant in the face. As I sprinted into the bright sun I held one Noodle aloft and yelled "This! This is for At Henry Swanson!".

You dangerous bastard you. That was in your name. I hope you're thoroughly ashamed of yourself. It would only have been £1.99 to just pay for them.

You know what?

It's not so much the overt Swansonism in this post that disgusts me so much as the fact that you would admit online to eating filthy, disgusting Pot Noodles. The absolute horror.

I think you should take a good, hard look at yourself in the mirror and think about what you've done.

 

[Scaff]

You know what?

It's not so much the overt Swansonism in this post that disgusts me so much as the fact that you would admit online to eating filthy, disgusting Pot Noodles. The absolute horror.

But the Pot Noodle is the holy food of Swansonism, to not eat them requires the daily sacrifice of the non-believer.

If it were not for the Pot Noodle, we would all be dead and the great replacement of Europe and America would have been completed.

 

[UKMikey]

But the Pot Noodle is the holy food of Swansonism, to not eat them requires the daily sacrifice of the non-believer.

If it were not for the Pot Noodle, we would all be dead and the great replacement of Europe and America would have been completed.

There was a schism in the fourteenth century with another faction that preferred Super Noodles but they have since been declared henram and unfit to eat.

 

[Dotini]

Back in the early eighties I was hot into hatha yoga - and particularly hot on my Leslie - and I paid little notice to the theological orientations of my yoga instructor and his studio's affiliation. Over time, I began to notice people wearing turbans at the retreats, meditations and lectures I began to attend as well as the daily classes in hatha yoga. After three years initiation, I was meditating with Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan, son of the founder of the Sufi Order in the West.

 

[Danoff]

So violence in the name of religion, or at least because of it.

As @TenEightyOne so deftly pointed out, these are separable. "In the name of the religion" sounds like violent followers. "Because of it" sounds like violent scripture. I'm trying to understand if you're making another demographic argument about people or if you're making a religious argument about scripture.

Can you pick one? This should be an easy choice for you, but I have a feeling it's not.

 

[HenrySwanson]

As @TenEightyOne so deftly pointed out, these are separable. "In the name of the religion" sounds like violent followers. "Because of it" sounds like violent scripture. I'm trying to understand if you're making another demographic argument about people or if you're making a religious argument about scripture.

Can you pick one? This should be an easy choice for you, but I have a feeling it's not.

In the case of Islam - and probably most religions - it would be a mixture of what the founder did and what the scripture says.

If 1081 did commit robbery because of what I said/did, then I think it would be valid to look into what I had said/done that led (maybe just in part) to his action.

 

[Danoff]

In the case of Islam - and probably most religions - it would be a mixture of what the founder did and what the scripture says.

In that case, this is purely a religious discussion. You can base this entire argument on what scripture says, and examples of people carrying out that scripture. No need for demographic arguments, arguments about countries, arguments about ethnic origins... none of that pertains to this line of reasoning. Just point to violent scripture, and examples where that specific scripture passage was acted upon.

 

[ToyGTone]

Funny how we have a 180 pages of discussions about why over 1 billion people or so are bad because they have slightly different beliefs and that they should be fought with fire.

In a forum about racing games of all places, filled with people who's only experience with said topic is through biased news media outlets, political fluff and reading through poorly translated lines that's sometimes taken out of context. In an era where people preach about tolerance and acceptance of all kinds of people everywhere with "minority representation" while pretty much saying F word towards everyone who doesn't agree with their opinions %100.

All of this, started by a former friend of mine who was just a kid at the time. A person that surprisingly was friendly towards me at the time.

----
I honestly don't understand the point of talking about why x religion is bad or not, nothing could be made out of aside from making people feel butt hurt. Let's just say that it's a awful thing and that anyone who follows it are a "bunch of cultist who hates everyone else". So what then? Are we going to forcefully tell everyone to change their entire lives or else suffer harsh consequences? Are we going to discriminate against people from multiple backgrounds all over the world? Are we going to ban or completely change said religion and cultures?

Wouldn't that makes everyone a hypocrite? double standards? Are we even better than others at this point? It's almost as if people are trying to find a reason to hate another and societies go in flames.

The thing is, i don't really care that much if you believe in God or believe in Darwin science. You think people praying in temples, masjids and churches are good? stupid? whatever? Fine, that's your opinion. You think *insert Community* are disgustingly backward? Sure, whatever. Your opinions are yours.

Just. Don't. Harm. Others. Because. You. Don't. Like. It.

This goes to every single creature living in the entire universe. Politics and Religion chats are a one way ticket to a disaster waiting to happen.

Honestly, i wish if i didn't have to reply to a Thread that did nothing but cause me anxieties and self loathing.​

 

[TenEightyOne]

If 1081 did commit robbery because of what I said/did, then I think it would be valid to look into what I had said/done that led (maybe just in part) to his action.

Unfortunately during my last robbery I misjudged my escape and fell into a freezer full of Waitrose partridge. I didn't make it out.

All we know now is that my house was full of uneaten Pot Noodles and that my bookshelf was empty save for dog-eared copies of Things Henry Swanson Says, Henry Swanson for Dummies, The Henry of History Swanson and Henry the 9th, The Birth of a Nation? My internet search history was even more terrifying - I'd asked "does Henry Swanson like my shoes?", "will a head injury stop me being Henry Swanson", and several hundred searches for just "Henry Swanson".

It's obvious what's going on here and, I repeat, you should be absolutely ashamed. At this point it doesn't matter what you said/did, the link is obvious. Appalling.

 

[HenrySwanson]

In that case, this is purely a religious discussion. You can base this entire argument on what scripture says, and examples of people carrying out that scripture. No need for demographic arguments, arguments about countries, arguments about ethnic origins... none of that pertains to this line of reasoning. Just point to violent scripture, and examples where that specific scripture passage was acted upon.

That's what I've been trying to say. The arguments about countries, ethnic origins etc was precisely to do with what is written in scripture and what Muhammad did and said.

I never said people were born to be violent because they were Muslim. I said that the religion itself may be more violent than others, in the same way Christianity (I believe) is more homophobic than others.

Unfortunately during my last robbery I misjudged my escape and fell into a freezer full of Waitrose partridge. I didn't make it out.

All we know now is that my house was full of uneaten Pot Noodles and that my bookshelf was empty save for dog-eared copies of Things Henry Swanson Says, Henry Swanson for Dummies, The Henry of History Swanson and Henry the 9th, The Birth of a Nation? My internet search history was even more terrifying - I'd asked "does Henry Swanson like my shoes?", "will a head injury stop me being Henry Swanson", and several hundred searches for just "Henry Swanson".

It's obvious what's going on here and, I repeat, you should be absolutely ashamed. At this point it doesn't matter what you said/did, the link is obvious. Appalling.

What is it that I have said or done that could have been misinterpreted to cause someone to steal pot noodles?

Is it similar to why Muslims might fight "unbelievers" because the Quran says:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Is it similar to why Christians may be homophobic because the Bible says:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

 

[Scaff]

That's what I've been trying to say. The arguments about countries, ethnic origins etc was precisely to do with what is written in scripture and what Muhammad did and said.

I never said people were born to be violent because they were Muslim. I said that the religion itself may be more violent than others, in the same way Christianity (I believe) is more homophobic than others.


What is it that I have said or done that could have been misinterpreted to cause someone to steal pot noodles?

Is it similar to why Muslims might fight "unbelievers" because the Quran says:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Is it similar to why Christians may be homophobic because the Bible says:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

The issue with that is you can find examples that are just as extreme in the Bible in regard to unbelievers.

Just one example "And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman."

The identification of passages such as these in either text doesn't automatically make it the most violent, for that you would need a systematic analysis of each text (and an agreed scale of violence).

 

[TenEightyOne]

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Chestnut.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

If I may, what is the end goal of your argument @HenrySwanson ?

 

[FoRiZon]

Delete

 

[HenrySwanson]

The issue with that is you can find examples that are just as extreme in the Bible in regard to unbelievers.

Just one example "And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman."

The identification of passages such as these in either text doesn't automatically make it the most violent, for that you would need a systematic analysis of each text (and an agreed scale of violence).

Which is why Judaism could be seen as a more violent religion too.

Christianity might be a bit different (to those two) because of the New Testament, and the words and actions of Jesus.

Chestnut.

I guess it's fair to post a rebuttal

It should also be noted that that was one instance of a homophobic verse in the Bible and that there are others.

If I may, what is the end goal of your argument @HenrySwanson ?

That we look on all religions objectively. And if we find something that needs improving we aren't afraid to point that out.

 

[UKMikey]

I guess it's fair to post a rebuttal

Which seems to read "I'm an evangelical and my interpretation trumps the other guy's, besides he's only doing it for stardom".

It should also be noted that that was one instance of a homophobic verse in the Bible and that there are others.

All of which seem to be written by St. Paul.

That we look on all religions objectively. And if we find something that needs improving we aren't afraid to point that out.

Theocracies could definitely treat gay people better. Not sure how this is squared with other members of the religion who don't treat gay people in the same way and other Muslim majority countries which have supported LGBT rights.

 

[Scaff]

Which is why Judaism could be seen as a more violent religion too.

Christianity might be a bit different (to those two) because of the New Testament, and the words and actions of Jesus.

Not really, Jesus states in Matthew that he came to enforce the old (as in OT) laws, not replace them.

He was also quite the hypocrite, given that he wasn’t opposed to a bit of violence himself.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

That we look on all religions objectively. And if we find something that needs improving we aren't afraid to point that out.

Who needs improving?

 

[Imari]

Who needs improving?

Humans. They're a clearly flawed design from a lazy developer who was just trying to cash in on the hominid craze.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Humans. They're a clearly flawed design from a lazy developer who was just trying to cash in on the hominid craze.

2020 is the worst mass show of those flaws and there's no patch in sight.

 

[UKMikey]

2020 is the worst mass show of those flaws and there's no patch in sight.

The virus protection could do with a major update.