Tommy Robinson Goes North and is Milkshaked

[JP_]

koran does not have an old and new testament, so islam can validly be described as an evil religion because it still includes all the evil parts.

I thought the Koran was the Bible Part 2?
Same god, Jesus features in it, but the Bible fans didn't like it so pretended it was never released and got angry when people started talking about it, while the Koran fans felt everybody should know about it as it was the latest version, like the iPhone 10X or Rocky 4. Result, 1300 years of bloodshed.

"Jesus, Mary, and the angel Gabriel are all in the Quran (as are Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and a bunch of other Bible characters)." https://www.vox.com/2017/12/18/10660648/jesus-in-islam-muslims-believe-christmas-quran

The real difference between religions are the men who update the rules and tell people how to interpret the old books. Don't blame religion. Blame people, blame governments, blame institutionalised hate, blame right wing propaganda, blame The Daily Mail, blame Tommy Robinson, blame ISIS, blame the KKK. But don't blame religion.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You seem to have missed the points I made.



I am also interested (that's just the way I am) in why you spell it Quran which is unpronounceable in English.

 

[Mfatic]

surely then, it follows that only the evil ones are truly following their religion.

I thought the Koran was the Bible Part 2?

Isn't that the whole point, people pick and choose which bits of the religious books are appropriate, to follow.

It isn't just the old testament, there are parts in the new testament which are just as bloodthirsty, e.g. "if thy hand offend thee, cut it off" in the Gospels, I believe.
Some interpret this to mean if one of their members offend them, they should be........ whatever they think is appropriate.
That is the new testament preaching mob rule, or capital punishment, (whatever form that takes).
Wasn't Jesus an anarchist?
It isn't that any one particular religion is evil, they all have their evil passages.
Some choose not to follow those parts, (fortunately, the vast majority), others choose to adhere to every word and apply their own interpretation.
That is not the fault of the religion, it cannot enforce itself on people. it is the fault of the people, who pick and choose which bits take precedence (all of the holy books contain contradictions) and apply them rigorously, sometimes enforcing their beliefs on others against their will, other times hoodwinking the gullible into following them. It may be what the holy books (all of them) preach, but it's not acceptable in a democratic world. But not all parts of the world are democratic.

I say again, we need to be careful with over generalised sweeping statements. It can harm our reputation by illustrating our intended or unintended bias.
It can also perpetuate and reproduce prejudice.

Let us also remember that not all the books are included in what we know as the old testament. It was compiled by modern man from selected manuscripts.
I believe that also applies to the new testament.

 

[JP_]

It isn't that any one particular religion is evil, they all have their evil passages.

Maybe none have evil passages, but evil people interpret them as reason to carry out evil acts?

 

[Mfatic]

I am also interested (that's just the way I am) in why you spell it Quran which is unpronounceable in English.

I don't think jonbey does, It was a copied quote.

 

[Mfatic]

Maybe none have evil passages, but evil people interpret them as reason to carry out evil acts?

Possibly. Let us remember that most of these holy books were created when mob rule, or natural justice was the only form of justice. Governments and the rule of law, or democracy, as we know it, didn't exist in those countries where the holy books originated.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I would like to know what is meant (by both of you) in "it's not the fault of the religion itself".

So, what are you saying? That there were originally no books to be interpreted; religion just was.

Also Johnby wrote "The real difference between religions are the men who update the rules and tell people how to interpret the old books".

Where were or what were these 'old books'? If anywhere, why did/do the people not just follow these old books?
Plus, if the rules have been updated by people, then it must follow that all the religions are not what they originally were therefore are not what they are purported to be.

If the Pope says that it is now alright to be homosexual, then that is good but nothing to do with the religion he supposedly believes.

God tells Moses "Though shalt not kill"; religious leaders come along and say "Nah, it's ok for people who disagree with us". Brilliant.

So, all religions have been superceded by the man-written rules and are no longer religions - notwithstanding that that is the way it always has been.
The nonsense invalidates itself.



If updating is good, then my point about mormonism stands.

 

[SirGalahad]

I don't disagree with what you have written - BUT

surely then, it follows that only the evil ones are truly following their religion.

The 'good' ones, who discount the evil parts cannot therefore be true followers of that religion, although obviously decent people.
Perhaps the 'good' muslims would actually like to give it up completely but are afraid of reprisals from the evil ones in their communities.


Christians, by definition, follow Christ, who seems to be a decent fellow, so discounting the Old Testament can be seen as a legitimate thing to do.
The trouble with islam (while not an expert on the koran) is that the koran does not have an old and new testament, so islam can validly be described as an evil religion because it still includes all the evil parts.

This, of course, presupposes that any religion has an origin in something other than man-made stories.

Hmmm

People who adhere to a religion - follow it as best as they can or see fit- I can say most won't be able to quote anything from their scriptures. They can define themselves as being Muslim, Christian etc but that does not mean they know much about their religion. Most people pick up their morals and guidance from their family and society in general.

You can pick up the Bible or the Quran and point out areas which you can determine as Evil - this doesn't mean the people who believe in their religion accept all parts of it. I know a few muslims who happil drink - does that make them bad muslims or not muslims? Or in fact is it a pointless definition?

Muslims believe in Christ as well. You see this separating one religion as being good and another evil when they share alot of common beliefs really says more about someone own bias than any thorough analysis.

As to referring to the Old and New testament -does that mean those who follow the old testament are evil just like muslims who follow the quran?

I think you are falling into this quagmire or point scoring on religions.

Ughh a discussion on religion - I prefer to stick to other subjects.

 

[JohnD]

I can say most won't be able to quote anything from their scriptures.

I find that hard to believe.

 

[JP_]

Johnby

who's that?!?!

Where were or what were these 'old books'?

Well, some say Roman government set up a group of intellectuals to write the New Testament in around 100 AD. Before then, it was just tales of Jesus, but they decided they needed to own it as the religion was starting to grow, so they could write the rules.

Some stuff here about some books here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#New_Testament_canons

It's all a bit of a mish mash really!

 

[EFLImpudence]

who's that?!?!

Sorry.

Well, some say Roman government set up a group of intellectuals to write the New Testament in around 100 AD. Before then, it was just tales of Jesus, but they decided they needed to own it as the religion was starting to grow, so they could write the rules.

I think that says it all. doesn't it?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Ughh a discussion on religion - I prefer to stick to other subjects.

Apparently not.

 

[Notch7]

say again, we need to be careful with over generalised sweeping statements. It can harm our reputation by illustrating our intended or unintended bias.
It can also perpetuate and reproduce prejudice

It can also simply mean we are discussing a fear that is current.

Lots of evils deeds are done in the name of religion. Islam is the one causing the greatest fear in the West.

Criticising one evil deed doesnt mean we condone all the others.

If every time in post we had write a long clause to say notwithstanding xyz blah blah blah..........not much would ever get written.

 

[SirGalahad]

Apparently not.

A preference is not mutually exclusive.

 

[EFLImpudence]

As to referring to the Old and New testament -does that mean those who follow the old testament are evil just like muslims who follow the quran?

Well, that was the original premise: that ISIS are evil because they follow the teachings that most reject.

My argument was that if you reject the parts of a religion that you don't like then you, by definition, are not following all the teachings of that religion therefore you cannot be a true believer.
I am not saying that is a bad thing just that, like the Pope changing the rules, it is not then the religion, is it?

I am using religion in its usual sense.

I know that following a football team might be a religion to some but that in no way suggests that god is the manager and you should go to a special building with your fellows and talk to him when he is not there.