Death to Pagans?

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

Who said that you are? Sorry I don't get your point.

Thou shalt not kill?

In the middle two I would have to say that neither have any of the teachings of Buddha to back up the statements.

Yet would believe themselves to be Buddists.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Thou shalt not kill?

Ok, but what has Catholicism, or indeed how Christians behave got to do with it?

Yet would believe themselves to be Buddists.

Mussolini considered himself a Christian, Franco the same and as you've pointed out Christians are told thou shalt not kill. So what? You're saying that religious people do questionable things that are against their chosen religion? Of course they do.

My contention is that Islam gives more freedom for violent action than other faiths. Did Buddha, Jesus or Krishna or their original followers take up arms against non believers for defense or otherwise? No. Did the Prophet Muhammad and his followers? Yes. The two are different issues.

Regardless of viewpoint Islam is/was a far more martial faith from it's inception than the other mainstream faiths. While most Muslims downplay this and indeed fight against this image, it is present. While the page Osman has linked to seeks to do this, there are so many passages in The Quran and the Hadith that involve aggression, it's difficult to see the peaceful nature within.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

Did Buddha, Jesus or Krishna or their original followers take up arms against non believers for defense or otherwise?

Not sure about the first two but I'm pretty sure the bible is littered with wars and killings in it and even Jesus was prone to loosing the head (at least once I recall).

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Not sure about the first two but I'm pretty sure the bible is littered with wars and killings in it and even Jesus was prone to loosing the head (at least once I recall).

"Loosing the head" is a little different to commanding an army of thousands in battle. Is there not a difference between the two?

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

"Loosing the head" is a little different to commanding an army of thousands in battle. Is there not a difference between the two?

Pretty sure there were a few army of thousands in the Bible who said God allowed them to kill others.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Pretty sure there were a few army of thousands in the Bible who said God allowed them to kill others.

You can state this as a rebuf to my point, but did any of them found and spread a mainstream faith of today in this way? So Jesus "lost the head" once. Did he take up arms against non believers or use the sword in any way? Did Buddha? Did any of the other religious founders?

What people subsequently did(and do) in their name re your examples does not take away from the fact that they themselves esposed peace, turn the other cheek, humility and non resistance in the face of your enemies and non believers. In that the birth and subsequent history of Islam was different. There are many martial passages(particularly with regard to non believers) in the Quran and Hadith and while they may be open to debate, the sheer number far outweighs the amount to be found in other creeds.

bonkey

Wibbs wrote:

My contention is that Islam gives more freedom for violent action than other faiths.

Don't you mean that there are interpretations of the writings of Islam that give more freedom for violent actions?

Look at how many Christian religions are in the world today. How is that possible when almost all of them base their religious beliefs on the same writings? Look at how our interpretations of those writings over time has changed.

I'm willing to bet that the majority of Muslims around the world don't agree with the more violent interpretations of their holy writings as well. Unfortunately, the silent majority who live by a peaceful interpretation of their religious writings don't make good media, so we concentrate on the (tiny) extremist minority and extrapolate their beliefs to the entire religion.

I seem to recall, for example, someone pointing out at some stage that "Thou shalt not kill" in the Bible is a mistranslation - could even have been Hobbes. The allegedly correct translation is somewhat more in line with some of the translations you are putting forward as evidence that there is more freedom for violent actions in Islam.

Does this put Christianity on the same footing? Or is the issue more a question of how many followers choose those more violent interpretations? That, I would hazard, is not entirely a religious issue, but as much a socio-economic one as anything.

jc

Wibbs

bonkey wrote:

Don't you mean that there are interpretations of the writings of Islam that give more freedom for violent actions?

Nope, I mean there are far more references to violence and violent action in the Quran.

Look at how many Christian religions are in the world today. How is that possible when almost all of them base their religious beliefs on the same writings? Look at how our interpretations of those writings over time has changed.

True, but the Quran is supposed to be the last revealed word of Allah and is unchanging in it's wording since it was first collected. While interpretation changes the original text doesn't and the original text has so many martial passages that are hard to ignore for the faithful.

I'm willing to bet that the majority of Muslims around the world don't agree with the more violent interpretations of their holy writings as well.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, the silent majority who live by a peaceful interpretation of their religious writings don't make good media, so we concentrate on the (tiny) extremist minority and extrapolate their beliefs to the entire religion.

The extremist minority may be tiny, but the community at large seems unwilling or unable in many cases to stop them which suggests some agreement with their beliefs.

I seem to recall, for example, someone pointing out at some stage that "Thou shalt not kill" in the Bible is a mistranslation - could even have been Hobbes. The allegedly correct translation is somewhat more in line with some of the translations you are putting forward as evidence that there is more freedom for violent actions in Islam.

Fine if correct, but when weighed against the large amount of similar passages in the Quran and Hadith, the point is lost.

Does this put Christianity on the same footing? Or is the issue more a question of how many followers choose those more violent interpretations? That, I would hazard, is not entirely a religious issue, but as much a socio-economic one as anything.

Not entirely religious, but more likely in Islam than in Buddhism for example.

jc

Hobbes

bonkey wrote:

I seem to recall, for example, someone pointing out at some stage that "Thou shalt not kill" in the Bible is a mistranslation - could even have been Hobbes.

Might of been because I'm aware of it. The original Hebrew could also be translated as "Thou shalt not murder" allowing people to kill as long as it wasn't a murder. Its believed that murder was changed to Kill to fit in with Jesus teachings.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html

But even in modern day there are people who interpret the Bible to justify killing other people, anti-abortionists are probably the best example of this.

btw, you can hardly argue on who has the most violence in thier religous book. As mentioned already the Bible has loads of killings and what-not and the Christian history is rife with wars and killings of innocents in the name of God. TBH a lot of Christian/Jewish/Islam religon overlaps.

the_syco

You want to kill the pagans? Well, don't you mean infidels? Infidel is to Islam, as Pagan is to Christainity, me thinks. So if you want to kill us Christains, we'll do do a "death on Islam" as well:p:D:cool:

Excelsior

Hobbes wrote:

The bible also says (in the new testement) that you should kill people who don't follow the religon.

That is not true. The Christian faith does not advocate killing anyone.

Also, the Pope is not the voice of God.

Hobbes

Excelsior wrote:

That is not true. The Christian faith does not advocate killing anyone.

Also, the Pope is not the voice of God.

As mentioned I meant Old testament which does advocate killing people. As for the pope, dogmatic law.

Btw, the_syco post is meant in jest but has been taken out of context (I have spoken to the_syco about this), I would prefer if people be careful when joking in the forum.

Dilly1

”There’s something about faith in God, they reason, that naturally produces intolerance and violence."

"Perhaps only pagans and atheists are actually the salt of the earth"

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

btw, you can hardly argue on who has the most violence in thier religous book. As mentioned already the Bible has loads of killings and what-not and the Christian history is rife with wars and killings of innocents in the name of God. TBH a lot of Christian/Jewish/Islam religon overlaps.

True, but most of the worlds faiths have non violence at the root of their founders message. What transpired in their names was unfortunate and not in keeping with the original message. Using that in an argument takes us away from the point IMHO.

As I have pointed out, none of the other founders of faiths took up arms against others. That's an important distinction. How would people react if it was discovered that Buddha or Jesus or anyone other founder of a creed for that matter, fought at the head of an army that killed and enslaved people? It would rightly shock many of their faithful.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

True, but most of the worlds faiths have non violence at the root of their founders message. What transpired in their names was unfortunate and not in keeping with the original message. Using that in an argument takes us away from the point IMHO.

Which is the same as the Islamic faith as far as I can tell.

As I have pointed out, none of the other founders of faiths took up arms against others.

Go read the bible again. I have already pointed out this is not the case and in another thread that you went on about the same subject I pointed out that the bible did at one stage condone slavery and the subjugation of women.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Which is the same as the Islamic faith as far as I can tell.

How can this be the case when the Prophet personally commanded an army of war, with all the "fighting verses" to back it up? Something Jesus, Buddha, Krishna etc didn't. So it's not the same at all. The hadith is full of references to various battles fought by the Prophet and his followers culminating in the capture of Mecca. Battles where men were killed and their women were bound into slavery(whom their right hand possess). A term for war captives and slaves that crops up time and again. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/023.qmt.html#023.006

Go read the bible again. I have already pointed out this is not the case

You just stated that there were wars and battles fought in the name of God in the old testament(King David and Solomon spring to mind), but you failed to connect the personal prosecution of those or any later wars with any of the religious founders I've mentioned(Christian or otherwise).

and in another thread that you went on about the same subject I pointed out that the bible did at one stage condone slavery and the subjugation of women.

I can't find the link for that exchange now, but I seem to remember that I disagreed with at least 2 of your points made. Slavery is a grey area when one regards the Bible(especially in the New Testament). While Jesus made no direct statement about the morality of slavery, there is no such grey area in Islam. Slavery and the practical workings of same are well represented in both the Quran and Hadith. While the west has a shameful history with regard to slavery, much of the supply of the slave trade to Europe and the new world was run by Muslims. Slavery in Islam was considered a normal part of life. Europe may have shamefully profited for far too long from slavery, but at least it was one of the first places to ban it. In fact most of the uproar came from Christian leaders who felt it didn't sit well with the teachings of their founder.

As for the subjugation of women, early Christianity and Jesus in particular had very close female followers. In fact the first people it is claimed he appeared to after the resurrection were women. This was at a time when women would have been considered unreliable witnesses by many. In any case I only make these points in reply to your own.

From what I can see, your point seems to be to state that all religions(and in particular their followers) have blood on their hands in one way or another. Fine point taken and I agree with you, but you don't respond at all to the point that their founders singularly didn't. I would contend that if you do, you would have to say that Islam and it's founder Muhammad, are different in this respect at least.