All-Purpose Religion Thread

[veloman]

I doubt if many , if any , on here are old enough to remember an early 60's satirical programme called "That Was The Week That Was" - the programme that made David Frost famous. It did a sketch on the value of the various Religions. Would NEVER be shown today, not least 'cos it (gently) lampooned Islam and was fairly scathing about Catholicism. It was almost a 'Cost Benefit Analysis' of each Religion.

[mjmooney]

2 hours ago, veloman said:

I doubt if many , if any , on here are old enough to remember an early 60's satirical programme called "That Was The Week That Was" - the programme that made David Frost famous. It did a sketch on the value of the various Religions. Would NEVER be shown today, not least 'cos it (gently) lampooned Islam and was fairly scathing about Catholicism. It was almost a 'Cost Benefit Analysis' of each Religion.

 

[mjmooney]

I wonder how often this is actually the case? 

[blandy]

I was thinking about life, in the shower. I'd been listening to a podcast about science and the universe and that.

What I worked out is that life started on earth at some point where some mollecules sort of combined with some other mollecules and tiny organisms became the first form of life on earth. No one really knows how inert cells became non-inert, what force or influence beyond chemistry led to life forms being what they are now.

So I'm OK with calling that absence of understanding a word. God if you like. It's the (a) thing we don't have an explanation for and don't understand.

What I'm not OK with is the bit where people subscribe rules of behaviour around that lack of understanding - "this unknown force or influence demands that you do this and don't do that" - all that stuff is essentially complete bullshit. Sure, much of it is "be kind and excellent"  and that's fine. But you don't need an unexplained life force to "be excellent", you can just do that through valuing other humans and flora and fauna and what have you.

Amen.

[bickster]

51 minutes ago, blandy said:

Sure, much of it is "be kind and excellent" 

not sure its that much to be perfectly honest

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, bickster said:

not sure its that much to be perfectly honest

Well there's the stuff about not coveting next-door's Ox, which is a start.

[fruitvilla]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Well there's the stuff about not coveting next-door's Ox, which is a start.

I've always read it as coveting next door's wife's ass. But what do I know?

Regarding your shower ponderings ... "inert" is the wrong word. Perhaps inanimate? 

[A'Villan]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I was thinking about life, in the shower. I'd been listening to a podcast about science and the universe and that.

What I worked out is that life started on earth at some point where some mollecules sort of combined with some other mollecules and tiny organisms became the first form of life on earth. No one really knows how inert cells became non-inert, what force or influence beyond chemistry led to life forms being what they are now.

So I'm OK with calling that absence of understanding a word. God if you like. It's the (a) thing we don't have an explanation for and don't understand.

What I'm not OK with is the bit where people subscribe rules of behaviour around that lack of understanding - "this unknown force or influence demands that you do this and don't do that" - all that stuff is essentially complete bullshit. Sure, much of it is "be kind and excellent"  and that's fine. But you don't need an unexplained life force to "be excellent", you can just do that through valuing other humans and flora and fauna and what have you.

Amen.

You might be interested in the narrative of Iblis, and the creation of man as having dominion over the earth, and the jealousy and hate that ensued, and the deal that was struck between Iblis and God.

It's a terrible occurrence, what's happened to the image and dogma surrounding Islam and the teachings and stories that come with it.

[mjmooney]

1 hour ago, A'Villan said:

You might be interested in the narrative of Iblis, and the creation of man as having dominion over the earth, and the jealousy and hate that ensued, and the deal that was struck between Iblis and God.

Nope. 

[blandy]

3 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

"inert" is the wrong word. Perhaps inanimate? 

Happy with that, yeah. Ta.

[regular_john]

8 hours ago, desensitized43 said:

The Quran isn't one homogeneous document any more than the Bible is. It's wholely contradictory in many regards and these Islamist (notice I say Islamist, not Islamic - ones an ideology and ones a religion) extremists have chosen to follow all the nasty bits and disregard the moderate stuff. That says more about them as people than it does about the religion itself.

Personally I'd regard these people as fascists first, and Muslims second. They've co-opted elements of the Quran as a means of justification and a recruitment tool, nothing more. If they didn't have that they'd still be fascists, they'd just find another reason.

I'm not sure I agree. If you were talking about Christianity, rather than Islam, I would agree wholeheartedly.

 

Islam is very different though for a few reasons. The main one is the example of the prophet Muhammad. As much as Muslims may try to dress him up as a peaceful reformer, the reality is that he was a warrior/warlord. He led armies, besieged cities, ordered assassinations, oversaw massacres, mass beheadings etc,, and bought and sold slaves, including women and children. He also had a multitude of wives, one of whom was a child. The reality is that there isn't much that the Taliban/Al Qaeda/ISIS etc. are doing that Muhammad and his followers did not do. It is perfectly legitimate to aim to imitate Muhammad and have these behaviours be the outcome. For that reason, these Islamists can rightfully consider themselves to be 'Muslims first' and there isn't much that moderate Muslims or non-Muslims can say to criticise them (from a theological perspective).

 

As long as Islam remains as it currently is, and as long as Muslims look upon Muhammad as being a perfect human, the Qur'an as being a perfect book, and Islam as being 'the answer' - the Islamic world will always be one that is full of strife, and disasters like that we are seeing in Afghanistan will remain commonplace. 

[TheAuthority]

5 hours ago, regular_john said:

For that reason, these Islamists can rightfully consider themselves to be 'Muslims first' and there isn't much that moderate Muslims or non-Muslims can say to criticise them (from a theological perspective).

As long as Islam remains as it currently is, and as long as Muslims look upon Muhammad as being a perfect human, the Qur'an as being a perfect book, and Islam as being 'the answer' - the Islamic world will always be one that is full of strife, and disasters like that we are seeing in Afghanistan will remain commonplace. 

I see a large contradiction in your post.  You mention "moderate" muslims but then state "as long as Muslims look upon Muhammad as being a perfect human, the Qur'an as being a perfect book, and Islam as being 'the answer' - the Islamic world will always be one that is full of strife, and disasters like that we are seeing in Afghanistan will remain commonplace. "

Moderate Muslims by definition don't see Islam as, quote "the answer"

OP was stating that essentially extremist Muslims are Fascist first. If it wasn't Islam they would find something else to sure up their fascist beliefs. Surely if moderate Muslims exist then it isn't Islam that is the problem?

[peterw]

1 hour ago, TheAuthority said:

I see a large contradiction in your post.  You mention "moderate" muslims but then state "as long as Muslims look upon Muhammad as being a perfect human, the Qur'an as being a perfect book, and Islam as being 'the answer' - the Islamic world will always be one that is full of strife, and disasters like that we are seeing in Afghanistan will remain commonplace. "

Moderate Muslims by definition don't see Islam as, quote "the answer"

OP was stating that essentially extremist Muslims are Fascist first. If it wasn't Islam they would find something else to sure up their fascist beliefs. Surely if moderate Muslims exist then it isn't Islam that is the problem?

Well, yes, moderate muslims do see islam as the answer. take their juxtaposition and uncertainty over Sharia. Sharia is still held to be the 'correct' form of law and order to all muslims; however, that does not mean that they all ahdere to or want to see the most strict or severe punishments meted out. So, whilst Islam is seen as the answer how it is interpreted and made to function in the real world is the difficulty, and more of a cognitive dissonance or doublethink, than Muslims not believing their answer is Quranic by nature.

[peterw]

16 hours ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Brings them closer to god and all that. Their brains are just programmed a different way, they may as well be a different species . Life is jihad(struggle) and they will be repaid in paradise once they die or become martyrs . 

may be worth pointing out that there is a slight confusion as to the term 'jihad'. Yes there is violent jihad, but the jihad mainly referred to is a personal struggle. that could be as something benign as not kicking the kids of a morning when they're not getting ready for school. The talibin jihad would be packaged as seeing their religion under threat - which as any good religion compels you to do, allows you to bear arms and kill.

But let's not pretend this is and only ever unique to islam. 'Onward Christian Soldiers...' and all that.

[regular_john]

2 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

I see a large contradiction in your post.  You mention "moderate" muslims but then state "as long as Muslims look upon Muhammad as being a perfect human, the Qur'an as being a perfect book, and Islam as being 'the answer' - the Islamic world will always be one that is full of strife, and disasters like that we are seeing in Afghanistan will remain commonplace. "

Moderate Muslims by definition don't see Islam as, quote "the answer"

OP was stating that essentially extremist Muslims are Fascist first. If it wasn't Islam they would find something else to sure up their fascist beliefs. Surely if moderate Muslims exist then it isn't Islam that is the problem?

I disagree. The majority view within the Muslim world is that Islam provides the answer to all of life's problems, that the Qur'an is the literal word of God (not 'inspired' ala The Bible), and that Muhammad was a perfect human whose example should be followed for all time. This is why there is such support for 'extreme' ideology within the Muslim world, despite only a relatively small percentage being significantly motivated enough to take violent action to enforce those beliefs on others. The Pew research data on support for Sharia, death penalties etc. across the Muslim world makes for some incredibly depressing reading. 

 

In terms of being Muslim vs Fascist first, I suppose the question to answer is whether or not groups like The Taliban/ISIS etc. need anything beyond Islam to justify their actions. Given that Islam openly advocates for expansion through violence, oppression and/or execution of non-Muslims and apostates, special rewards in Jannah for martyrs of Jihad etc. etc., I would argue that Islam alone provides these lunatics with justification for their actions.

 

Again, it is difficult to think of something that The Taliban/ISIS etc. are doing that Muhammad and his followers didn't do. The reality is that Islam is a religion that is based on the beliefs, sayings, and deeds of a warlord.

[Wainy316]

Ask even a moderate muslim their views on homosexuality and you'll get an extremely unpalatable response.

On the flip side, Sharia law isn't all chopping off limbs and throwing from buildings.  The financial side of it doesn't sound too bad.  Forbidding financial entities from charging interest etc.  I assume there's aspects of it that all Muslims live by.

[peterw]

Indeed, under Sharia banks are not allowed to charge interest. nor is it permissible to charge interest on a loan.

[Mic09]

26 minutes ago, peterw said:

Indeed, under Sharia banks are not allowed to charge interest. nor is it permissible to charge interest on a loan.

while it sound like a good idea, I don't necessarily like the notion that a 1400 year old book can tell me the rules of how I (or others) should lend people money.

[Sam-AVFC]

5 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

while it sound like a good idea, I don't necessarily like the notion that a 1400 year old book can tell me the rules of how I (or others) should lend people money.

That goes for the 'ethical' frameworks created by any religious text. I'm all for taking moral lessons from fiction, but only when it admits it's fiction.

[Wainy316]

I think it stems from Jesus getting burned by Wonga.