Religion Discussion

[Dalish]

i've been a practicing jew since i was a kid, lapsed orthodoxy. i grew up in a split home: my dad's side of the family is full of really weird evangelical and traditional christians who... preach? i guess? they're preachers and own the church. i spent a lot of time growing up inside a baptist church my aunt owned (we used it for holidays and stuff) so i grew up around a couple of faith traditions, but christianity has always been VERY confusing to me. i guess i never understood all of the gloom and doom all the time, the 'you're going to hell unless you repent NAO' evangelical, traditional christians.

i use judaism as a guide. i've lapsed from going to temple every week and having shabbat dinners, but i still adhere to the principle of tikkun olam, or, healing the world. i think that's what i like so much about being jewish. there's a lot of room for interpretation. very few things are set in stone about how you can practice or what you can do or what happens after death, etc. it's very comforting to have a practice that makes me critically look at my actions and that allows me a lot of thought.

 

[Null]

My bits.

I'm definitely an "atheist" but I never call myself that. I'm pretty against applying labels to myself as a whole, but in particular with Atheism I feel people will project a very specific image against you. I've noticed most people in this thread just call themselves "agnostic" which I'm pretty sure is for this reason. If anyone asks, I say I'm "non-religious", which is something most people don't hear. I was raised in the deepest south possible so most people associate atheism with devil worship, which is why I prefer to say non-religious. They'll usually follow that up with a few questions if they care enough, but the point is it dodges the hedonist/devil-worship/fedora stigma. I'm not anti-religious either.

Agnosticism is stupid. I really do not care for that term. It's basically atheism with a built-in humility, and I see it as almost being "atheist apologist". Most people who say they're agnostic mean they are completely non-religious but are willing to admit there could be a god. The problem with this is, aside from the fedora-tier atheists, I've never met anyone who says there couldn't be. Even people who are the big faces of atheism, the ones who participate in public debate, will say there could be a god but it the chance infinitesimally small. "There is no evidence for an intelligent creator, but you cannot disprove an unfalsifiable hypothesis". Saying you know for sure there is no god is as fool-hardy as saying you know for sure there is. Agnosticism is atheism in a more pretentious label for people not willing to, or are incapable of, defending their non-belief.

As for religion itself, I don't mind it for the most part. I think people who use it to enforce a political agenda are stupid, but that's not really religion's fault at this point. You have very religious states all across the world who do not write laws as bizarre as what you see in America. I think most of that is a distraction put out so dumb people vote on stupid issues instead of thinking about shit that actually matters.

I'm a huge fan of religious symbolism, especially catholic symbolism. The Boondock Saints is a good example of that. I enjoy churches in video games and I loved the themes of Heaven versus Hell in Diablo 2. Angels, holy warriors, demons, etc all carry a huge appeal to me. In stories, I enjoy an objective right and wrong and I like the portrayal of that in media.

I tolerate pagans. For the most part that stuff is done as a tradition. It's a sense of unity. It brings comfort. My mom practiced Wicca for a few years and I remember her taping green paper on the windows above where our sick cat slept because green light was supposedly healing. It had cancer and the vets said there was not much they could do. I guess that sort of thing brings a sense of power and control in an otherwise helpless situation. In general, though, I see neo-paganism in America as a religion for people who hate Christians.

The only religion I am intolerant of is Islam. Islam is poison and I pity muslims. I live near a big college and there are many, many muslim women walking around in hijabs. When I noticed this I also noticed that these women were mostly emigrants and there were no men from the middle east. It was all women. I realized that they had probably came here to seek higher education where it was allowed, as they countries oppressed them for being women. More sad, however, is that they continue to support the institutions that oppress them and wear the impediments of their religion despite having ran away from it.

I visit /christian/ and /egy/ (egypt) on 8chan and there were threads on each about how shitty Islam is. /christian/ was posting a few lectures on how Islam was poisoning Europe and I actually posted for the first time to add this.

Maybe it is just simple Islamophobia, but there's something that a deep south redneck baptist and Bill Maher agree on: Islam is evil.

 

[AppleChrisp]

This is way too long and probably kind of annoying, apologies in advance...

I was brought up Christian and went to a conservative Southern Baptist private school. It wasn't the most conservative atmosphere ever, but definitely opposed to evolution, abortion, homosexuality, etc. Various other branches of my family go for much more extreme stuff (home schooling, Bob Jones University, etc.).

I bought into it fully but started having nagging misgivings by the time I was 16-17. First of all there was a lot of emphasis on "God's plan for you", but I was never really clear on what that was supposed to mean. Whatever divine inspiration I was supposed to feel for what God wanted in my life never came. Second, there was an atmosphere of conviction verging on fanaticism that bothered me. The expectation was that you were to confidently "know" that you're right and everyone else is wrong. But surely if I had been born in Pakistan I'd be brought up to believe with equal fervor something very different. Claims of absolute knowledge need to be determined by something more than an accident of birth.

There weren't really any satisfying answers. Southern Baptists favor action over contemplation and conviction over inquiry. I was expected to simply believe it. Looking back, the anti-intellectualism of that approach was kind of bizarre. Most things weren't taught with any more depth than a Sunday school lesson. Fundamental concepts were never really explained; you were just expected to absorb it. Just ask Jesus into your heart.

I decided that once I got to college, away from the pervasive Christian influence, I could examine various belief systems and decide for myself. I started by reading the Bible from the beginning. I didn't get very far. I think I was a few chapters into Genesis, part way through through the flood when someone borrowed the Bible (an annotated version that I preferred) and didn't return it. But it was enough. Upon actually reading through it, the flood story seemed frankly ludicrous. I was taught that the Bible was literal truth, but again it was anti-intellectual and my knowledge was only superficial. The seven day creation story and maybe Garden of Eden were probably metaphorical, but I was pretty sure that the flood was supposed to be taken as literal, historical fact. Yet it's really not believable at all, and I knew this meant I'd have trouble with much of the rest of the Bible. I never read any further than that.

It bothered me for a while, but I sort of lost interest and eventually concluded that I was atheist. I learned that there were ways of understanding the world that didn't require you to take implausible stories at face value without any proof. After a while, once things sank in a little deeper, fundamentalist Christianity began to seem sort of abhorrent. The speech at my brother's high school graduation a couple years later implored the graduating class to avoid the pernicious influence of naturalism. I thought the message was basically that you should close your mind and cling to your ignorance, rejecting all other claims, regardless of evidence. It seemed kind of disgusting, like something that doesn't belong in the 21st century.

More recently I've been digging into other things like stoicism, Buddhism and Taoism. But they're not really religions in the same sense. They don't hold dogmatic claims as central tenets, to be taken on faith alone, and they're not exclusive, at least not in the same way. They're more like philosophies or ways of conducting yourself. And the benefits of meditation are backed by evidence.

I guess I'm more or less on the same page as Sam Harris, although that's embarrassing to admit because he's an enormous twat in a lot of ways.

I agree with you that anti-intellectualism is a problem in Christianity, and that the first part of the Bible is ridiculous and taken literally by many Christian denominations. What I don't really understand, and what I also notice is a common trend with atheists, is that they associate the anti-intellectualism of Christians with the teachings themselves, therefore deciding that there must be no God. Maybe I misunderstood how you transitioned to atheism? This is why some Christian denominations do a disservice to the teachings in the Bible. People tend to look at Christianity as a Bible-thumping religion where snakes can talk, that evolution is a lie, etc., as opposed to to a religion that encourages reason and peace.
You're right, closing your mind and clinging to ignorance IS abhorrent, but the fact that some Christians do this does not follow that God doesn't exist.

 

[Red_Rager]

Christianity is just an idea that people came up with. The same as, say, Cubism in art or Maoism in politics. If I can think believing in Maoism is stupid, it's also fine to think that believing in any other dumb idea some people have thought up is stupid. It doesn't mean the believer is a stupid person necessarily, just that their idea is stupid.

Christianity is but one of many religions humanity has come up with: Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Zoroastrianism, Baha'i, Jainism, and Paganism.

Not to mention the different sects that exist within the same religion and the forgotten religions. I just regard Christianity with the same amount as skepticism that I do with any other religion. There are some nice teachings in Christianity I take to heart, but I don't consider the religion to the Truth.

 

[AppleChrisp]

My bits.

I'm definitely an "atheist" but I never call myself that. I'm pretty against applying labels to myself as a whole, but in particular with Atheism I feel people will project a very specific image against you. I've noticed most people in this thread just call themselves "agnostic" which I'm pretty sure is for this reason. If anyone asks, I say I'm "non-religious", which is something most people don't hear. I was raised in the deepest south possible so most people associate atheism with devil worship, which is why I prefer to say non-religious. They'll usually follow that up with a few questions if they care enough, but the point is it dodges the hedonist/devil-worship/fedora stigma. I'm not anti-religious either.

Agnosticism is stupid. I really do not care for that term. It's basically atheism with a built-in humility, and I see it as almost being "atheist apologist". Most people who say they're agnostic mean they are completely non-religious but are willing to admit there could be a god. The problem with this is, aside from the fedora-tier atheists, I've never met anyone who says there couldn't be. Even people who are the big faces of atheism, the ones who participate in public debate, will say there could be a god but it the chance infinitesimally small. "There is no evidence for an intelligent creator, but you cannot disprove an unfalsifiable hypothesis". Saying you know for sure there is no god is as fool-hardy as saying you know for sure there is. Agnosticism is atheism in a more pretentious label for people not willing to, or are incapable of, defending their non-belief.

As for religion itself, I don't mind it for the most part. I think people who use it to enforce a political agenda are stupid, but that's not really religion's fault at this point. You have very religious states all across the world who do not write laws as bizarre as what you see in America. I think most of that is a distraction put out so dumb people vote on stupid issues instead of thinking about shit that actually matters.

I'm a huge fan of religious symbolism, especially catholic symbolism. The Boondock Saints is a good example of that. I enjoy churches in video games and I loved the themes of Heaven versus Hell in Diablo 2. Angels, holy warriors, demons, etc all carry a huge appeal to me. In stories, I enjoy an objective right and wrong and I like the portrayal of that in media.

I tolerate pagans. For the most part that stuff is done as a tradition. It's a sense of unity. It brings comfort. My mom practiced Wicca for a few years and I remember her taping green paper on the windows above where our sick cat slept because green light was supposedly healing. It had cancer and the vets said there was not much they could do. I guess that sort of thing brings a sense of power and control in an otherwise helpless situation. In general, though, I see neo-paganism in America as a religion for people who hate Christians.

The only religion I am intolerant of is Islam. Islam is poison and I pity muslims. I live near a big college and there are many, many muslim women walking around in hijabs. When I noticed this I also noticed that these women were mostly emigrants and there were no men from the middle east. It was all women. I realized that they had probably came here to seek higher education where it was allowed, as they countries oppressed them for being women. More sad, however, is that they continue to support the institutions that oppress them and wear the impediments of their religion despite having ran away from it.

I visit /christian/ and /egy/ (egypt) on 8chan and there were threads on each about how shitty Islam is. /christian/ was posting a few lectures on how Islam was poisoning Europe and I actually posted for the first time to add this.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=OpdGK3F4pC0
Maybe it is just simple Islamophobia, but there's something that a deep south redneck baptist and Bill Maher agree on: Islam is evil.

I have to disagree with your claim that agnosticism is stupid. There are many, many atheists who say that there is NO God, and they do not concede even the possibility that there might be. So yes, a distinction must be made between people who say that they are absolutely sure that there is no God and people who genuinely don't know. I call myself an agnostic Catholic. Not because I'm "pretentious" but because while I value the teachings of my religion, I also concede that there is a possibility that God does not exist. Just because someone claims they don't know something for sure doesn't make them "pretentious," it makes them reasonable. So if you or anyone else say you are an atheist who concedes that there may be a God, then you are either agnostic or an agnostic atheist.

I do agree with what you said about Islam. It is an evil, insidious religion where Muslims are incapable of reason. Unfortunately, it's going to take a lot more terrorist attacks before it's not seen as taboo to critically look at Islam. If you say that Islam is violent then you are considered a bigot. It's become so engrained in society to be tolerant of their religion and society is brainwashed with the lies Muslims spread in favour of Islam (yes, lies are permitted in Islam if the lies promote the progression of Islam). Hopefully people start to look at the facts before it's too late.

 

[DuskEngine]

It's become so engrained in society to be tolerant of their religion and society is brainwashed with the lies Muslims spread in favour of Islam (yes, lies are permitted in Islam if the lies promote the progression of Islam).

Tell me more about this conspiracy that about a third of the world's population is involved in, please.

 

[Dalish]

This is why some Christian denominations do a disservice to the teachings in the Bible. People tend to look at Christianity as a Bible-thumping religion where snakes can talk, that evolution is a lie, etc., as opposed to to a religion that encourages reason and peace.

here's my biggest issue with christianity: there is a rampant lack of critically reading the old testament and the lack of streamlined commentary. for example, in judaism we use the talmud and mishna to explain how to follow certain commandments and prohibitions, with a lot of reasoning behind why this was important at the time of writing. there's a distinct lack of this in christianity. there isn't a whole lot of commentary outside the apologists that explains why there are prohibitions or ways to live, which leads to a lot of the current infighting and skepticism. i have witnessed christians use biblical quotations completely out of context to prove bigoted points and promote christianity as the only "correct" religion.

uhhh "reason and peace" lol. the "no true christian" fallacy is something that also really bothers me. it was christian scholars (augustine of hippo springing to mind) who used "reason" to justify the practice of slavery. devout christians justified the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade because "unless the africans were converted, they're gonna go to hell, so we're really enslaving them altruistically". it was people who were devoutly christian who waged "just wars" and banned the practice of judaism and killed/forced conversions for centuries (the abolition of judaism wasn't overturned in spain until 196. the ku klux klan is a group of adherents to christianity. orthodox christians in romania were responsible for the bucharest pogrom.

declaring that none of those people were "real christians" and trying to explain away their actions is one of the biggest issues with christianity. there's no need for people who practice christianity to feel guilty because of the past, but denying that these evils were done by self-identified and practicing christians cannot be ignored. you can't divorce the good from the bad. ideologically i'm sure christianity may be about "reason and peace" at its core, but there have been some seriously fucked up things that were born from the popularity and influence of christianity.

 

[AppleChrisp]

Tell me more about this conspiracy that about a third of the world's population is involved in, please.

Muslims are allowed to lie in favour of Islam under a teaching called Taqqiya. The Muslim agenda is very insidious because they promote it as a tolerant religion when it in fact cannot coexist with other religions, and they can call it a "peaceful religion" because they believe that there will be "peace" when the whole world is Muslim and under Sharia law. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, it is simply a ruse to try to gain followers of Islam. So they can present Islam as appealing as they can and it conforms to Taqqiya.

 

[AppleChrisp]

here's my biggest issue with christianity: there is a rampant lack of critically reading the old testament and the lack of streamlined commentary. for example, in judaism we use the talmud and mishna to explain how to follow certain commandments and prohibitions, with a lot of reasoning behind why this was important at the time of writing. there's a distinct lack of this in christianity. there isn't a whole lot of commentary outside the apologists that explains why there are prohibitions or ways to live, which leads to a lot of the current infighting and skepticism. i have witnessed christians use biblical quotations completely out of context to prove bigoted points and promote christianity as the only "correct" religion.

uhhh "reason and peace" lol. the "no true christian" fallacy is something that also really bothers me. it was christian scholars (augustine of hippo springing to mind) who used "reason" to justify the practice of slavery. devout christians justified the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade because "unless the africans were converted, they're gonna go to hell, so we're really enslaving them altruistically". it was people who were devoutly christian who waged "just wars" and banned the practice of judaism and killed/forced conversions for centuries (the abolition of judaism wasn't overturned in spain until 196. the ku klux klan is a group of adherents to christianity. orthodox christians in romania were responsible for the bucharest pogrom.

declaring that none of those people were "real christians" and trying to explain away their actions is one of the biggest issues with christianity. there's no need for people who practice christianity to feel guilty because of the past, but denying that these evils were done by self-identified and practicing christians cannot be ignored. you can't divorce the good from the bad. ideologically i'm sure christianity may be about "reason and peace" at its core, but there have been some seriously fucked up things that were born from the popularity and influence of christianity.

But in Catholicism there IS a lot of reasoning as to why there are prohibitions or ways to live. And my point still stands that I said earlier - ignorant Christians do not discredit the entire teachings of Christianity.
Yes, Catholicism is based on reason and peace, as you yourself grant are at its core. Saying that some Christians in history have used "reason" to justify slavery doesn't make them any different from anyone else who has used "reason" to justify doing something stupid. This is an example of being ignorant of the teachings of the Bible and isn't a reflection of the Bible itself. If I say that 2+2 = 6, does it mean that math doesn't exist? No, because my method of doing math is wrong.
You can say that this is your biggest issue with Christianity if you want, but the issue is with human nature. People who want or want to do certain abhorrent things will always find reasons to justify it. Whether it's religion or not, it makes no difference. Except for people like yourself who are unable to see the difference between a fundamental ideological problem and people who are ignorant of the ideology and yet representing it. I'm not even sure what point you were trying to make about the ku klux klan and the crusades etc., because I have never heard the Vatican do anything but condemn these acts. So of course we acknowledge them.

 

[DuskEngine]

The Muslim agenda is very insidious because they promote it as a tolerant religion when it in fact cannot coexist with other religions, and they can call it a "peaceful religion" because they believe that there will be "peace" when the whole world is Muslim and under Sharia law.

Clearly this explains the fantastic relations that the world's Muslim nations have with each other.

There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, it is simply a ruse to try to gain followers of Islam. So they can present Islam as appealing as they can and it conforms to Taqqiya.

I am impressed with how well you are capable of explaining the political ideology of 1.6 billion people.

 

[Dalish]

But in Catholicism there IS a lot of reasoning as to why there are prohibitions or ways to live. And my point still stands that I said earlier - ignorant Christians do not discredit the entire teachings of Christianity.
Yes, Catholicism is based on reason and peace, as you yourself grant are at its core. Saying that some Christians in history have used "reason" to justify slavery doesn't make them any different from anyone else who has used "reason" to justify doing something stupid. This is an example of being ignorant of the teachings of the Bible and isn't a reflection of the Bible itself. If I say that 2+2 = 6, does it mean that math doesn't exist? No, because my method of doing math is wrong.
You can say that this is your biggest issue with Christianity if you want, but the issue is with human nature. People who want or want to do certain abhorrent things will always find reasons to justify it. Whether it's religion or not, it makes no difference. Except for people like yourself who are unable to see the difference between a fundamental ideological problem and people who are ignorant of the ideology and yet representing it. I'm not even sure what point you were trying to make about the ku klux klan and the crusades etc., because I have never heard the Vatican do anything but condemn these acts. So of course we acknowledge them.

the difference is that the christians i mentioned used theological reason in order to prove their point and enact, rather than "mind" reason. worldwide colonialism was justified explicitly across europe by invoking the theological principle of proselytizing and creating a world united under christianity.

"Except for people like yourself who are unable to see the difference between a fundamental ideological problem and people who are ignorant of the ideology and yet representing it."

no need for personal attacks or insults.

the vatican condemns those organizations and wars, sure. i'll have to take your word for it. the issue i was trying to pose is the tendency to divorce the "bad" christians by claiming that they're not real christians. why is it difficult to believe that christians have done pretty shitty things in the name of their religion? why is there a trend toward "christianity is really about THIS" when negative things christians have done come to light, but the converse of "welp all muslims are bad then and all muslims are accountable" is acceptable?

i'm not trying to be argumentative. i haven't directly insulted any other religious affiliation or sect.

 

[AnOminous]

Muslims are allowed to lie in favour of Islam under a teaching called Taqqiya. The Muslim agenda is very insidious because they promote it as a tolerant religion when it in fact cannot coexist with other religions, and they can call it a "peaceful religion" because they believe that there will be "peace" when the whole world is Muslim and under Sharia law. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, it is simply a ruse to try to gain followers of Islam. So they can present Islam as appealing as they can and it conforms to Taqqiya.

By this reasoning, all Christians are just waiting for one world Christian government so they can bring back slavery, once again kill their disobedient children, have multiple wives like King Solomon, genocidally slaughter all non-believers, like the Canaanites, Jebusites, and all the other dreadful Old Testament things.

There are utterly atrocious things in the Bible, which would be considered crimes if committed in this day and age. They are presented as commandments from God, so presumably, Christians are all commanded to do these things.

The only difference in practice between Christianity and Islam is that more Christians are in developed countries where shit like that isn't allowed, and even Christian fundamentalists couldn't get away with that. Islam, in practice, has more fundamentalists and more practitioners in countries that basically operate under barbarism.

I do think that immigrants coming to civilized countries should be screened, and those with a history of such conduct who show a likelihood to try to import that kind of shit should be excluded. This is what European countries are not doing, with some pretty dreadful results.

I'm fairly happy with our policies, and you don't see Muslims acting like they do in the UK here. There are plenty of Muslim citizens who are basically model citizens, doctors, lawyers, professionals and the like. The crazies are a definite minority, and those who have tried to support terrorism materially have been prosecuted vigorously.

There's nothing inherent in any religion that makes it good or bad. All the scriptures from the old religions have absolutely dreadful parts to them, because they come from primitive times when people were more ignorant than now. This is why fetishizing the literal text is always going to be bad, whether the scriptures are the Bible or the Koran.

Also, in relation to taqiya, it is interesting to mention that, because Catholicism also has a doctrine called "mental reservation," which also says it is okay to deceive nonbelievers, with various justifications for why it is not "really" dishonest.

 

[AppleChrisp]

the difference is that the christians i mentioned used theological reason in order to prove their point and enact, rather than "mind" reason. worldwide colonialism was justified explicitly across europe by invoking the theological principle of proselytizing and creating a world united under christianity.

"Except for people like yourself who are unable to see the difference between a fundamental ideological problem and people who are ignorant of the ideology and yet representing it."

no need for personal attacks or insults.

the vatican condemns those organizations and wars, sure. i'll have to take your word for it. the issue i was trying to pose is the tendency to divorce the "bad" christians by claiming that they're not real christians. why is it difficult to believe that christians have done pretty shitty things in the name of their religion? why is there a trend toward "christianity is really about THIS" when negative things christians have done come to light, but the converse of "welp all muslims are bad then and all muslims are accountable" is acceptable?

i'm not trying to be argumentative. i haven't directly insulted any other religious affiliation or sect.

I wasn't being argumentative either, and pointing out that you are not seeing a difference is neither a personal attack nor an insult. You still don't see the difference between things bad people do and doctrine.
I am curious what "theological reason" those "Christians" used to commit acts - as in, which parts of Jesus' teachings did they follow? True, Jesus said to spread the word, but I don't think that's the issue with colonialism. If people raped, tortured, killed, etc. in the name of Christianity, then this is explicitly against the teachings of Jesus. If they are going against the teachings of Jesus, which they were, then they are not true Christians.

 

[Zeorus]

I rarely discuss my religious views online anymore. Too much of a headache, and I get enough shit for it IRL. This thread seems to be pretty chill, though.

I'm a Latter-day Saint. My family heritage in this religion goes back seven generations (to the 1830s). Unlike most depictions of Mormons, I (and most of my Mormon friends) do not unquestioningly buy into every teaching of the religion. We believe in examining each idea on an individual basis through reason, scriptural study, and prayer. Ours is a religion of study - one is not supposed to accept all spiritual truth at once. Truth comes with time and effort.

Most important among my beliefs is my belief in agency - all members of the human family are free to choose, act, and believe as they please. All other doctrines of my religion rest upon this. The "restrictions" of the Mormon religion are practices that I willingly adopt in order to be closer to God.

Spoiler: IRL personal sperging

I also rarely discuss my views because they're very personal and I (sadly) do not have as thick a skin as I should. I got engaged to a woman of another faith last December, and her choice to marry me (as well as her choice to become a Mormon separate from our engagement) has set off a bit of a firestorm among her family. Her mother refuses to attend the ceremony (but, being a tacky bitch, wants to be at the reception) and her brother has stopped talking to her altogether. In light of all this, forgive me if I am overly sensitive in this discussion.

 

[AppleChrisp]

By this reasoning, all Christians are just waiting for one world Christian government so they can bring back slavery, once again kill their disobedient children, have multiple wives like King Solomon, genocidally slaughter all non-believers, like the Canaanites, Jebusites, and all the other dreadful Old Testament things.

There are utterly atrocious things in the Bible, which would be considered crimes if committed in this day and age. They are presented as commandments from God, so presumably, Christians are all commanded to do these things.

The only difference in practice between Christianity and Islam is that more Christians are in developed countries where shit like that isn't allowed, and even Christian fundamentalists couldn't get away with that. Islam, in practice, has more fundamentalists and more practitioners in countries that basically operate under barbarism.

I do think that immigrants coming to civilized countries should be screened, and those with a history of such conduct who show a likelihood to try to import that kind of shit should be excluded. This is what European countries are not doing, with some pretty dreadful results.

I'm fairly happy with our policies, and you don't see Muslims acting like they do in the UK here. There are plenty of Muslim citizens who are basically model citizens, doctors, lawyers, professionals and the like. The crazies are a definite minority, and those who have tried to support terrorism materially have been prosecuted vigorously.

There's nothing inherent in any religion that makes it good or bad. All the scriptures from the old religions have absolutely dreadful parts to them, because they come from primitive times when people were more ignorant than now. This is why fetishizing the literal text is always going to be bad, whether the scriptures are the Bible or the Koran.

Also, in relation to taqiya, it is interesting to mention that, because Catholicism also has a doctrine called "mental reservation," which also says it is okay to deceive nonbelievers, with various justifications for why it is not "really" dishonest.

Yes, there are atrocious things in the Bible. These parts of the Bible were written by people "inspired" by God. Does this mean they are completely accurate representations of God's word? Absolutely not. This is the part of the Bible that Islam accepts, and they reject the New Testament. In the New Testament Jesus, who Christians believe is God Himself, is the ultimate word. So if anything in the Old Testament conflicts with what Jesus said, we don't abide by that. But Muslims don't believe that Jesus is God, so basically what Muhammad did was offer a completely different "divinely inspired" account of Jesus' life and teachings. So your opinion that Christians are just waiting to go against the teachings of Jesus is absurd and false.
While the Bible has many different authors, and therefore clearly contradictions (cleared up by Jesus), The Quran is believed to be the word of one prophet: Muhammad. So their contradictions are not only unaccounted for, but there is also a verse in the Quran that even addresses these contradictions. It states that if there is a verse in the Quran that contradicts another verse, the latter verse is the correct teaching. Since the Quran moves from peace to violence, you can guess what the tone of the "correct" verses is.
I had never heard of "mental reservation" before so I did a quick Google search … it looks like that isn't derived from the Bible but from a philosopher in the Middle Ages or something. So you can't compare this to something like taqiyya which is rooted in the Quran.
I also disagree that religions aren't inherently good or bad. For example, both the Bible and the Quran have horrible components, and good components. Yes, in some verses in the Quran promote peace. But these verses are overridden by the verses promoting violence. Verses in the Bible promote violence, but these verses are overridden by verses promoting peace and love. You have to look at the overall message of the religion, and yes it can be inherently good or bad. But just because it's inherently good or bad doesn't mean it can't be misinterpreted.

 

[AppleChrisp]

I rarely discuss my religious views online anymore. Too much of a headache, and I get enough shit for it IRL. This thread seems to be pretty chill, though.

I'm a Latter-day Saint. My family heritage in this religion goes back seven generations (to the 1830s). Unlike most depictions of Mormons, I (and most of my Mormon friends) do not unquestioningly buy into every teaching of the religion. We believe in examining each idea on an individual basis through reason, scriptural study, and prayer. Ours is a religion of study - one is not supposed to accept all spiritual truth at once. Truth comes with time and effort.

Most important among my beliefs is my belief in agency - all members of the human family are free to choose, act, and believe as they please. All other doctrines of my religion rest upon this. The "restrictions" of the Mormon religion are practices that I willingly adopt in order to be closer to God.

Spoiler: IRL personal sperging

I also rarely discuss my views because they're very personal and I (sadly) do not have as thick a skin as I should. I got engaged to a woman of another faith last December, and her choice to marry me (as well as her choice to become a Mormon separate from our engagement) has set off a bit of a firestorm among her family. Her mother refuses to attend the ceremony (but, being a tacky bitch, wants to be at the reception) and her brother has stopped talking to her altogether. In light of all this, forgive me if I am overly sensitive in this discussion.

Sorry to hear about your family troubles. No need to be afraid to discuss religious views here! I will admit that I have not had much exposure to Latter-day Saints and most of my exposure has been through negative represenations in the media. You sound pretty cool though and I liked everything you said about your religion. Maybe your fiance's mother is just scared because she doesn't understand Mormonism. I don't know what religion she's coming from or how open-minded she is, but maybe it would benefit to sit down and discuss some of your beliefs with her (if you haven't already). I know if I had a child who converted to a religion I didn't know much about, I would probably be upset too. It's probably nothing personal

 

[AnOminous]

So your opinion that Christians are just waiting to go against the teachings of Jesus is absurd and false.

The entire Bible is the inerrant word of God, from a fundamentalist perspective. And the New Testament includes the Book of Revelation. If taken literally, it is as crazy and wrong-headed as anything in the Old Testament.

I had never heard of "mental reservation" before so I did a quick Google search … it looks like that isn't derived from the Bible but from a philosopher in the Middle Ages or something. So you can't compare this to something like taqiyya which is rooted in the Quran.

Actually, taqiya did not originate until after the Sunni/Shi'a split, and was specifically dealing with a period when being Muslim could get them killed. The deception justified, like that of mental reservation, was to protect from forced conversion or genocide. The reason, like mental reservation, was to reconcile the general principle against lying with the necessity, sometimes, of doing it to avoid greater harm.

It is generally conditional upon the lying being in the face of force or compulsion, much as mental reservation is.

I also disagree that religions aren't inherently good or bad. For example, both the Bible and the Quran have horrible components, and good components. Yes, in some verses in the Quran promote peace. But these verses are overridden by the verses promoting violence. Verses in the Bible promote violence, but these verses are overridden by verses promoting peace and love. You have to look at the overall message of the religion, and yes it can be inherently good or bad. But just because it's inherently good or bad doesn't mean it can't be misinterpreted.

That's just, like, your opinion, man. The Crusaders thought differently.

The difference is that those were a long time ago, while the practices of Muslim extremists are now a menace. But if 1.6 billion people were all on a violent jihad, we wouldn't even be talking about this. There would already be a global war and the entire world would be in flames.

 

[DuskEngine]

declaring that none of those people were "real christians" and trying to explain away their actions is one of the biggest issues with christianity. there's no need for people who practice christianity to feel guilty because of the past, but denying that these evils were done by self-identified and practicing christians cannot be ignored.

That's also an issue I have with people, especially non-Muslims, who try to claim that groups like ISIS aren't 'real Muslims' or whatever. I have no interest in interpreting theological minutiae for anyone else.

I totally get why Muslims feel the need to distance themselves from groups like ISIS though. I don't really see anyone combing the bible to look for passages which justify the practices of the Lord's Resistance Army or anything.

 

[AnOminous]

That's also an issue I have with people, especially non-Muslims, who try to claim that groups like ISIS aren't 'real Muslims' or whatever. I have no interest in interpreting theological minutiae for anyone else.

I understand why they claim that but, sadly, ISIS are Muslims. They just are. I totally understand the desire to distance atrocities from a group someone belongs to or wants to defend, but it's just a fact that they are motivated by religious beliefs and not, as often claimed, solely by political beliefs. Politically motivated violence is usually pragmatic, and ISIS is acting in a way that makes no sense from a pragmatic perspective.

The group is essentially forcing its own destruction, which doesn't make sense unless, like the Branch Davidians on a smaller scale, they actually believe what they're doing.

Since I'm not an expert, the media source I'm basing my opinion on: What ISIS Really Wants, from The Atlantic.

 

[AppleChrisp]

The entire Bible is the inerrant word of God, from a fundamentalist perspective. And the New Testament includes the Book of Revelation. If taken literally, it is as crazy and wrong-headed as anything in the Old Testament.



Actually, taqiya did not originate until after the Sunni/Shi'a split, and was specifically dealing with a period when being Muslim could get them killed. The deception justified, like that of mental reservation, was to protect from forced conversion or genocide. The reason, like mental reservation, was to reconcile the general principle against lying with the necessity, sometimes, of doing it to avoid greater harm.

It is generally conditional upon the lying being in the face of force or compulsion, much as mental reservation is.



That's just, like, your opinion, man. The Crusaders thought differently.

The difference is that those were a long time ago, while the practices of Muslim extremists are now a menace. But if 1.6 billion people were all on a violent jihad, we wouldn't even be talking about this. There would already be a global war and the entire world would be in flames.

If you read a few posts back, I mentioned the difference between the "inspired" word of God and Jesus' teachings. When I refer to the New Testament, I mean to refer to Jesus' teachings, not Revelations. Sorry for being unclear.

And you're right, taqiyya was used to protect against harm. But that is only one use for it. In Islam, it is also considered to be a virtue and used to actively deceive. In Islam Allah forbids being friendly to "infidels," however Muslims are taught to wear a smile on their face with hate in their heart if they don't have a choice. You've probably heard other teachings regarding infidels in the Quran, so I won't delve into that. So yeah, Muslims in North America probably aren't going to go around freely killing infidels because they are outnumbered here and dont have a choice. Whether they seem harmless or not, the Quran is clear about the treatment of infidels.

How is that an "opinion"? Just because the crusaders thought differently doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer. Just because people do things wrong doesn't mean there's not an objective answer. My statements were based on knowledge I have on the Bible and the Quran. I have researched both. Maybe it's not 100% correct, but I have not read anything on the contrary.