Islam doesn't belong in a civilized country

OddTrader · Mar 31, 2017

Sig said:
As apocryphally attributed to Ghandi, "'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'"

I was raised a fundamentalist Christian, so I can quote the bible to you backward and forward. It contains horrible things and I personally know many people who do horrible things in their christian god's name.

I was never muslim, but I can google as well as you can and produce:
"And those who, when tyranny strikes them, they defend themselves, And the recompense of evil is punishment like it, but whoever forgives and amends, he shall have his reward from Allah; surely He does not love the unjust. And whoever avenges himself after having been wronged - those have not upon them any cause [for blame]. The way (of blame) is only against those who oppress mankind, and wrongfully rebel in the earth. For such there is a painful doom. (42:39-42)"
"'Whoever suffers an injury done to him and forgives (the person responsible), Allah will raise his status to a higher degree and remove one of his sins.'"
"Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong if they do evil.'"

However you're completely and utterly missing the point. Which is the vast majority of Christians and Muslims are thankfully pretty bad at actually following their holy books faithfully, because both contain horrific things. I find fundamentalist of both religions abhorrent. I'm also rational and as such believe a religious test based on the most fundamentalist sect of any religion, as opposed to the actual real live human you're considering, is pretty ridiculous and you don't need any religion to figure that out. By the way, still wondering what possible explanation can explain why any religion that calls for stoning your disobedient sons is anything but barbaric? You can't "allegory" away that one!

I've been curious for the origin of Islam, and below is the top one of my google results.

http://www.allaboutreligion.org/origin-of-islam.htm

Origin Of Islam

Origin of Islam: According to Secular History
The origin of Islam can be traced back to 7th century Saudi Arabia. Islam is thus the youngest of the great world religions. The prophet Muhammad (circa 570-632 A.D.) introduced Islam in 610 A.D. after experiencing what he claimed to be an angelic visitation. Muhammad dictated the Qur'an, the holy book of Islam, which Muslims believe to be the preexistent, perfect words of Allah.

Origin of Islam: According to Islam
The origin of Islam is generally accredited to the prophet Muhammad but to the devout Muslim, Islam began long before Muhammad ever walked the earth. The Qur'an was dictated by Muhammad but, according to the Qur'an, it did not originate with Muhammad. The Qur'an testifies of itself that it was given by God through the angel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad. "This is a revelation from the Lord of the universe. The Honest Spirit (Gabriel) came down with it, to reveal it into your heart that you may be one of the warners, in a perfect Arabic tongue" (Sura 26:192-195). "Say, 'Anyone who opposes Gabriel should know that he has brought down this (the Qur'an) into your heart, in accordance with God's will, confirming previous scriptures, and providing guidance and good news for the believers'" (Sura 2:97).

The Origin of Islam: The "Previous Scriptures"
The origin of Islam is controversial. The "previous scriptures" mentioned above are the Hebrew Torah, the Psalms of David, and the Gospels of Jesus Christ (Sura 4:163; 5:44-48). The Qur'an accepts these books as divinely inspired and even encourages us to test its claims by these "previous scriptures." "If you have any doubt regarding what is revealed to you from your Lord, then ask those who read the previous scripture" (Sura 10:94). But this is where we run into a problem. The problem is that the Qur'an thoroughly contradicts the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospels. For example, the Qur'an explicitly denies Jesus Christ's crucifixion (Sura 4:157-158) while all four Gospel accounts clearly portray Jesus Christ as crucified and resurrected.

Maverick1 · Mar 31, 2017

Sig,

The Koran quote you pasted actually work against your argument... The second and third quotes are also from hadith and not the book itself.

Christ saved the adulterous woman from stoning, asking her enemies to cast the first stone if they had no sin.

Does the Koran teach likewise?

Sig · Mar 31, 2017

Maverick1 said:
Sig,

The quotes you pasted actually work against your argument...

Christ saved the adulterous woman from stoning, asking her enemies to cast the first stone.

Does the Koran teach likewise?

YOU..ARE...MISSING...THE...POINT!!! Like I said, I'm not expert in the Koran, I am one on the Bible, unwilling as it was. We can play whatever silly game you're trying to play all day long, I do know enough about Islam and most other major religions to know that you can find a verse that can be easily interpreted to say something along the lines of "turn the other cheek" and "don't be a hypocrite" in the holy books of all of them, advice that is roundly ignored by the adherents of all those religions including christians. Just to make this crystal clear for you:
1. Do you or do you not agree that the christian bible has horrifically barbaric guidance, as does the koran?
2. Do you or do you not agree that it's only fair to judge a human on that human's actual beliefs and practices, not the barbaric things that are written in their holy book or practiced by the most extreme members of their religion? Note, you could shorthand this to do you believe in stereotyping or treating humans as individuals?
3. Just out of curiosity, since you sound like an apologist for the religion, how do you possibly explain the verse I listed as being anything other than appallingly barbaric? If you agree that it is, then fair enough. I can tell you that it was one of many that convinced me that if these were the values of this god then I'd rather fight against him than for him, he's certainly not on the side of good in my book!

Maverick1 · Mar 31, 2017

"Actually my statement of fact is that the Christian bible is just as appalling as the Koran."

This was your claim and in response to it, I simply pointed to Christ who commands us to love our enemies and who forgives the adulterous woman instead of stoning her, thereby teaching us to do likewise. This is in sharp contrast to the Koran which teaches that it is acceptable for someone to avenge themselves if they have been wronged and to stone adulterers among other sinners, among other commandments.

Sig · Mar 31, 2017

Maverick1 said:
"Actually my statement of fact is that the Christian bible is just as appalling as the Koran."

This was your claim and in response to it, I simply pointed to Christ who commands us to love our enemies and who forgives the adulterous woman instead of stoning her, thereby teaching us to do likewise. This is in sharp contrast to the Koran which teaches that it is acceptable for someone to avenge themselves if they have been wronged and to stone adulterers among other sinners, among other commandments.

Very revealing that you completely ignored my questions, while I've replied to all of yours. Inconvenient for you? So let's be fair, I'll address your attempt to divert attention and you'll address my clearly iterated and for you, even numbered, points. I can certainly cherry pick equivalent bible verses, let's start with Exodus 21 "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." followed by the even more appalling for the fact that it's inadvertently so "If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye." No problem with having slaves apparently, you just have to let one go if you destroy their eye! You can't make this shit up, absolutely barbaric!

The Koran has it's "old testament" and the words of the prophet (Hadith) which is roughly equivalent to the new testament, so like I said, you can play the silly game where you pick out a happy happy glad glad new testament verse and contrast it with a koranic equivalent to the old testament that is the barbaric opposite, and I, or probably much better someone who was indoctrinated in the koran and isn't just googling this can do exactly the same thing. That does absolutely nothing to change my fundamental questions, which I'll repeat just so you'll look even more obtuse when you ignore them again:
1. Do you or do you not agree that the christian bible has horrifically barbaric guidance, as does the koran?
2. Do you or do you not agree that it's only fair to judge a human on that human's actual beliefs and practices, not the barbaric things that are written in their holy book or practiced by the most extreme members of their religion? Note, you could shorthand this to do you believe in stereotyping or treating humans as individuals?
3. Just out of curiosity, since you sound like an apologist for the religion, how do you possibly explain the verse I listed as being anything other than appallingly barbaric?

Maverick1 · Mar 31, 2017

The Bible teaches that the New Covenant is a better/superior covenant than/to the old covenant. Therefore Christ is the final Guide for all His followers, not Moses. There is no such parallel teaching in the Koran, whereby a distinction between teachings/covenants is made in the book itself.

The hadith have as much in common with the New Testament as night and day do:

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/adultery-stoning.aspx

OddTrader · Mar 31, 2017

Maverick1 said:
Sig,

The Koran quote you pasted actually work against your argument... The second and third quotes are also from hadith and not the book itself.

Christ saved the adulterous woman from stoning, asking her enemies to cast the first stone if they had no sin.

Does the Koran teach likewise?

Maverick1 said:
"Actually my statement of fact is that the Christian bible is just as appalling as the Koran."

This was your claim and in response to it, I simply pointed to Christ who commands us to love our enemies and who forgives the adulterous woman instead of stoning her, thereby teaching us to do likewise. This is in sharp contrast to the Koran which teaches that it is acceptable for someone to avenge themselves if they have been wronged and to stone adulterers among other sinners, among other commandments.

Here is my guess. I would venture to say that probably people can see just two sides of the same thing very differently. Especially when the key concept mentioned below is interpreted very differently by two different approaches from two religions/cultures.

(The key concept Jesus drew in the sand before asking others the next question about one needs to self-examined/ reviewed one's own wrongdoings in daily life.)

The main issue is: What is that key concept?

The next issue is what are the two approaches, and why they are so much different (that would cause so many long-lasting problems even until the present time)? https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/major-sources-of-world-problems-then-and-now.307636/

LOL

https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/...-the-rise-of-the-new-atheism-movement.306530/

OddTrader said:
Jesus was wise!

No written words directly from him, at all!

Only natural law!

The only word(s) that he wrote was just written on sands!

Do people care what word(s) he wrote on sands?

Why would he write that seriously on sands, rather than merely spoken words as usual?

Did he ask his followers to record/write down what he said to them, knowing that he will go away forever very soon?

Now he starts writing, probably his firs time that can be seen, this time hence must be very serious/ important, however with words only written on sands, should his followers (be reminded to) record down these words to pass it on?

The words written on sands may be actually not too any words. Maybe just one simple word! Therefore, no need to record down. But, What is that?

Truly spiritual indeed!

Are we ready for the answers? After 2,000 years passing!

LOL

Sig · Mar 31, 2017

Maverick1 said:
The Bible teaches that the New Covenant is a better/superior covenant than/to the old covenant. Therefore Christ is the final Guide for all His followers, not Moses. There is no such parallel teaching in the Koran, whereby a distinction between teachings/covenants is made in the book itself.

The hadith have just about enough in common with the New Testament as night and day do:

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/adultery-stoning.aspx

This willful ignoring of my questions reveals far more than your words my friend. I find that common among people like you, somehow you just never get that concept.
When you're willing to address my well formed, clearly articulated questions we can have an adult conversation. At this point you're behaving equivalent to a child holding his hands over his years yelling "I'm not listening" when someone says something they'd rather not hear, so I'll have to treat you like one would treat such a child. I was once almost just like you, so there's hope that eventually you'll turn on the rational side of your brain and overcome the brainwashing. Good luck seeing the light!

Maverick1 · Mar 31, 2017

Good luck to you, my friend :-)

OddTrader · Mar 31, 2017

OddTrader said:
Here is my guess. I would venture to say that probably people can see just two sides of the same thing very differently. Especially when the key concept mentioned below is interpreted very differently by two different approaches from two religions/cultures.

(The key concept Jesus drew in the sand before asking others the next question about one needs to self-examined/ reviewed one's own wrongdoings in daily life.)

The main issue is: What is that key concept?

The next issue is what are the two approaches, and why they are so much different (that would cause so many long-lasting problems even until the present time)? https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/major-sources-of-world-problems-then-and-now.307636/

LOL

https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/...-the-rise-of-the-new-atheism-movement.306530/

My hypothesis for the only word that Jesus wrote on dirt was probably this one below.

I would say it is equivalent to " Appropriation of caring-oneself and caring-others . A balancing act between self-serving and self-giving, depending on situations. "

Just 20 cents! LOL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikeiôsis

Oikeiôsis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Stoic ethics, oikeiôsis (Ancient Greek: οἰκείωσις, Latin: conciliatio) is a technical term variously translated as "appropriation," "orientation," "familiarization," "affinity," "affiliation,"[1] and "endearment."[2] Oikeiôsis signifies the perception of something as one’s own, as belonging to oneself. The theory of oikeiôsis can be traced back to the work of the first Stoic philosopher, Zeno of Citium.[3] The Stoic philosopher Hierocles saw it as the basis for all animal impulses as well as human ethical action. According to Porphyry, "those who followed Zeno stated that oikeiôsis is the beginning of justice".[2]
Etymology

Oikeiôsis is rooted in the word oikos (οἶκος).[2] Oikos is the word for household, house, or family, and can be seen in modern English words like economics and ecology. Similarly, the term Oikeiotes denotes the sense of belonging, the opposite of alienation.[4] The term invokes the sense of being "at home", of belonging to and by extension becoming "familiarized" with something.
Hierocles' theory

In his Elements of Ethics (Ἠθικὴ στοιχείωσις), the philosopher Hierocles began his account of oikeiôsis by looking at the beginning of the life of animals. In the initial stage of perception, an animal is only aware of their bodies and sensations as "belonging to itself", this awareness is the proton oikeion, the "first thing that is one's own and familiar".[5] This self-awareness is continuous as well as dependent on the perception of external objects. This is why according to Hierocles, children are afraid of the dark, because their weak sense of self fears death in the absence of external entities.[6] Hierocles argued that the impulse of self-preservation arises out of oikeiôsis: "an animal, when it has received the first perception of itself, immediately becomes its own and familiar to itself and to its constitution".[6] In perceiving itself and becoming familiar to itself, an animal finds value in itself and its own well-being.[7]

Hierocles divided the many forms of Oikeiôsis as internal and external. Internal forms of oikeiôsis included appropriation of the self as well as of one's constitution, external forms included familiarization with other people and an orientation towards external goods.[7] Oikeiôsis is the basis for Hierocles' theory of "appropriate acts" (καθήκοντα) because it is in "accordance with nature" since animals use appropriation to project themselves externally and thus care for others (such as their offspring). Stoics see these acts as a duty because, according to Cicero, "all duties derive from principles of nature".[8] In Hierocles' other ethical work, On Appropriate acts (of which only fragments survive), he outlined a theory of duty based on concentric circles. Beginning with the self and then our immediate family, Hierocles outlined how humans can extend their oikeiôsis towards other human beings in widening circles, such as our ethnos and eventually the entire human race. The distance from the center acts as a standard by which we may measure the strength of our ties and therefore our duties towards other people.[9] Hierocles argued that there was an ethical need for a "contraction of circles", to reduce the distance between the circles as much as possible and therefore increase our familiarization with all of mankind (while still retaining the strongest affinity within our immediate circle).