Now, I have not read either of these 2,000+ year old guidebooks of how to conduct oneself.
I take it both say killing someone is a generally a bad thing. Are there appendices which list when it is actually acceptable?
Now, I have not read either of these 2,000+ year old guidebooks of how to conduct oneself.
I take it both say killing someone is a generally a bad thing. Are there appendices which list when it is actually acceptable?
That's pretty much the long and the short of it, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by IUFG
Yeah, but that comparative argument with Christianity doesn't really wash, since Christianity is based on the New Testament and the teachings of Christ, which explicitly preclude the killing of anyone and are profoundly non-violent. The theology is pretty clear: Christ's teachings and sacrifice represent a new covenant between God and man that overwrites the Old Testament - which I agree is pretty ****ed up in parts. However, the Old Testament is simply not fundamental to Christian faith - whatever the more extreme protestant fundamentalists may pretend - and therefore can offer no meaningful justification for any violent actions by a Christian.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jorge
Islam, by contrast, takes all of the Qur'an as the explicit word of God as expressed to his prophet - contradictions and all. Ultimately, Christ's teachings are explicitly and consistently non-violent, while those of Muhammed are not. Pointing to the Old Testament and suggesting that Christians are no better than Muslims in respect of the violence of their doctrine is simply not valid, I'm afraid.
No, but whilst it might not be valid for you to draw those conclusions empirical evidence would suggest otherwise. Most religions, no matter how peacefully they're written, tend to have an element of violence which is cultural. Christ, even the Bhagavad Gita takes place on a battlefield.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
The Qu'ran is only about 1,300 years old. The New Testament is between 400 and 600 years older and offers no justifications for killing whatsoever. 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'; 'Judge not lest ye be judged'; 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, sayeth the Lord'; ' - all of these explicitly demand that Christians do not even pass judgment, let alone perpetrate violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by IUFG
There is no such prohibition in Islam - quite the reverse, in fact.
You're confusing human nature and doctrine, I'm afraid. The fact that Christians can and do behave violently does not invalidate the fundamentally pacifist nature of their doctrine. All Christian arguments for Just War - let alone Crusade - are ultimately undercut by the explicit teachings of Christ. By contrast, it is easy for Muslims to find explicit justification for violence, conquering and enslavement in the doctrines of their religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jorge
Thus, while you may blame Christians for their violence, you cannot legitimately blame Christianity. By contrast, it is entirely valid to lay much of the blame for the violence of Muslims at the door of Islam itself.
So any violence carried out in the name of Christianity, not to mention slavery since you brought it up, is automatically OK because the new testament is against that sort of thing? Wheras anything carried out in the name of islam isnt as it's equivocal about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
It's almost as if you're starting from a point of double standards and assembling a backwardly compatible justification from there.
Nonsense, I'm afraid. Nowhere have I said any religious violence is OK - that's simply a slur you've chosen to throw at me for some reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jorge
Christianity has certainly been abused and used as a justification for all sorts of dreadful things - from anti-semitic persecution to the Crusades and God knows what else. However, none of those justifications stands up for a moment when you actually look at the teachings of Christ. Any justification for 'Christian' violence requires monumental levels of sophistry and self-delusion such as those practised by St Thomas Aquinas in his 'Just War' nonsense. Such efforts are notable for their transparently self-serving attempts to ignore or circumvent Christ's rather inconveniently explicit strictures against all and any violence.
Where Islam differs is that it does not require any effort of sophistry on the part of those seeking to justify 'Islamic' violence to do so. Much of it is there in black and white not merely justifying violence, enslavement and subjugation of unbelievers, but actively encouraging and even demanding it.
That is the point I am making - that Christianity's doctrine is explicitly non-violent and Islam's is explicitly not. And therein, I'm afraid, lies both a fundamental problem with Islam and the reason why it is not valid to draw equivalency between the respective holy texts of Christianity and Islam.
The question is not whether people will always find some justification for their violence. That, unfortunately, is a given. The question is whether these two religions explicitly offer such justifications. One doesn't, while the other clearly does.
Did anyone see the Sky News segment where the look at the Newspaper headlines? They had a gay bloke on and he stormed off the set in a huff.
Yeah, that was Owen Jones. Wasn't really sure what his issue was. He wanted them to call it a homophobic attack, which of course it was, but seemed not to realise that the point was that it was more than just a homophobic attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norn Iron
In other words, he wanted to ride his particular hobby horse while conveniently ignoring other issues.