Terror attack in Barcelona

[teknoman2]

 

 

 

 

WOW, seems the Spanish cop who shot 4 terrorists dipped his bullets in pig's blood beforehand.

the only way to fight religious extremism is with religion. there are strict rules about going to heaven in islam so if we want to stop these attacks by people who do them because they were promised a spot to heaven for them, is to deny them that spot and the rest will think twice before trying to do the same

 

 

And how do you do that? The muslim form of excommunication? Which, incidentially means to stone them to death.

 

capture them alive and deny them their religious rights. put them in a prison and feed them pork every day with no permission to go get their sin of eating it absolved by a priest. if they were to die without confessing that sin and getting pardoned for it, it would mean they would go to hell

in places where the death penalty exists, execute them by beheading which means instant condemnation to hell.

take them to a church and forcefully baptize them christians. leaving islam is the ultimate sin

 

anyway the incompatibility is not about the distinction between state and religion. it's about the laws of western society that promote cultural and religious freedom but at the same time protect the rights of children, women, gays and so on - all groups that have no rights at all in islamic culture.

so the question is: where do we draw the line between what law is acceptable to bend in the name of religious freedom and what religious freedom we cull in the name of the law?

our law says "one man can marry one woman only" and their culture says "one man can marry as many women as he wants". do we bend the law or do we forbid the cultural practice?

our law says "no sex with children" and their culture says "if she is 9 years old you can have sex with her". again what is more important, the law of their cultural freedom?

our law says "whoever commits rape goes to jail" and their culture says "if a woman is raped, its her fault for walking around without a man to protect her and should be stoned to death - no punishment for the rapist". same question as above.

so, where do we draw the line? are they willing to abide by that line? will they keep asking for the line to be moved more to the side of their culture? how will the lawmakers respond to such requests? are local people ok with them being allowed to do things that are illegal because of cultural freedom? what if local pedos start asking "in the name of culture" to completely remove the laws about sex with children? what if groups or anti gay fanatics of other religions use that bend on some laws as an excuse to push for outlawing gays?

social progress is like climbing a very slippery slope and the moment we choose to make even the tiniest step back for anyone's sake, we risk sliding down several hundred years.

 

 " feed them pork every day " ....     

 

What a  truly terrible punishment..can you imagine you had to accept one of these tortues, which one praytell would you choose?

 

1. Parts of your body covered with boiling oil
2. To be stretched on a Rack
3. To have hot coals poured on your back
4. To eat a bacon and egg sandwich

 

Such choices.....such choices 

 

well, if you are a mass murderer who kills in the name of your god and the bacon and eggs is your ticket to hell, i'd say it's worse than the rest. at least the rest make you a martyr and reinforce your belief that heaven awaits

[teknoman2]

 

capture them alive and deny them their religious rights. put them in a prison and feed them pork every day with no permission to go get their sin of eating it absolved by a priest. if they were to die without confessing that sin and getting pardoned for it, it would mean they would go to hell

 

 

 

in places where the death penalty exists, execute them by beheading which means instant condemnation to hell.

take them to a church and forcefully baptize them christians. leaving islam is the ultimate sin

 

anyway the incompatibility is not about the distinction between state and religion. it's about the laws of western society that promote cultural and religious freedom but at the same time protect the rights of children, women, gays and so on - all groups that have no rights at all in islamic culture.

so the question is: where do we draw the line between what law is acceptable to bend in the name of religious freedom and what religious freedom we cull in the name of the law?

our law says "one man can marry one woman only" and their culture says "one man can marry as many women as he wants". do we bend the law or do we forbid the cultural practice?

our law says "no sex with children" and their culture says "if she is 9 years old you can have sex with her". again what is more important, the law of their cultural freedom?

our law says "whoever commits rape goes to jail" and their culture says "if a woman is raped, its her fault for walking around without a man to protect her and should be stoned to death - no punishment for the rapist". same question as above.

so, where do we draw the line? are they willing to abide by that line? will they keep asking for the line to be moved more to the side of their culture? how will the lawmakers respond to such requests? are local people ok with them being allowed to do things that are illegal because of cultural freedom? what if local pedos start asking "in the name of culture" to completely remove the laws about sex with children? what if groups or anti gay fanatics of other religions use that bend on some laws as an excuse to push for outlawing gays?

social progress is like climbing a very slippery slope and the moment we choose to make even the tiniest step back for anyone's sake, we risk sliding down several hundred years.

 

 

A lot of your examples seem to imply that there is one set law for both the Islamic world and the Western world. They vary tremendously all over the place. 

 

edit: To elaborate, I'd say society constantly has to push for progress, no matter what the dominant religion is. The idea that western society has protected the rights of gay people is a fairly new one. Heck, you don't have to go back very far to find a time in Western society where women and children had few rights.

 

50 years ago gays were illegal in most western countries that much is true, however now they have the same rights as everyone else. would it be ok to revoke all their rights as a show of tolerance to the creed of a religion?

the problem stems from the western world's arrogance in thinking that they can reform people who grew up in a society where a religion that advocates a social structure and behavior that the western world has left behind since a long time ago, is everything. people from a homeland that does not have the word "reform" in its vocabulary - especially when it comes to faith.

the trademark of mankind and modern western society most of all is "ignorance and arrogance"

[Hurlshort]

50 years ago gays were illegal in most western countries that much is true, however now they have the same rights as everyone else. would it be ok to revoke all their rights as a show of tolerance to the creed of a religion?

 

 

 

No. Who is arguing for that?

[pmp10]

Uh huh. It used to be that Catholics weren't tolerated in England because of their implicit allegiance to the Pope, who was a foreign head of state, and this conflicted with classical liberal notions that prescribed that toleration be predicated on submission to the local magistrate in all matters non-religious. Somehow, Catholics live just fine in England nowadays, and nobody has "betrayed their beliefs".

That's really not a good argument.

Most of Christian religious beliefs are nowhere near as extreme as they used to be.

It took centuries of violence and bigotry for modern tolerance to finally be build.

 

well, if you are a mass murderer who kills in the name of your god and the bacon and eggs is your ticket to hell, i'd say it's worse than the rest. at least the rest make you a martyr and reinforce your belief that heaven awaits

I think you take these things far too literally.

I doubt any would-be-martyr believes he will go to hell for having been force-fed the wrong kind of food.

[teknoman2]

and the biggest victims of these attacks are not those who died but those who have to live in fear. and besides fear of another attack, people will soon live in fear that the police will mistake them for a terrorist with the smallest suspicious move and will shoot them

it may not be morally correct to dump all muslims in the same basket and just kick them out of the western world, but to stop the ever growing fear mongering, someone has to press the reset button. moral superiority at the cost of life, limb and freedom is just self destruction or as the afterlife joke goes "ISIS may have beheaded us all, but at least we weren't racists"

 

pmp10 i don't take things literally, i take them exactly as the islamic religion preaches them

islam says that you go to hell if:

you commit a sin (eating pork or having any contact with pigs is a grave sin as is consuming alcohol) and do not confess the sin to an imam to get forgiveness.

you are beheaded

you kill yourself without being ordered to do so by a priest

you leave islam

any sin committed with the intention to deceive infidels is automatically forgiven but sins committed willingly or even by trickery, force or accident must get formal forgiveness or its hell

in my highschool we had theology classes where we learned about many religions and their quirks. it wasn't an in depth analysis but enough to know the basics of what they teach and how their followers practice these teachings. plus my grandfather has lived some years in the middle east when he was young because of his work and has read the quran in the original version (not translated) and knows exactly what it says.

Edited August 21, 2017 by teknoman2

[BruceVC]

and the biggest victims of these attacks are not those who died but those who have to live in fear. and besides fear of another attack, people will soon live in fear that the police will mistake them for a terrorist with the smallest suspicious move and will shoot them

it may not be morally correct to dump all muslims in the same basket and just kick them out of the western world, but to stop the ever growing fear mongering, someone has to press the reset button. moral superiority at the cost of life, limb and freedom is just self destruction or as the afterlife joke goes "ISIS may have beheaded us all, but at least we weren't racists"

Racism is more  of a societal problem that has a different impact in different countries but Islamic extremism is a global problem that threatens basically all countries and all cultures 

[213374U]

 

Uh huh. It used to be that Catholics weren't tolerated in England because of their implicit allegiance to the Pope, who was a foreign head of state, and this conflicted with classical liberal notions that prescribed that toleration be predicated on submission to the local magistrate in all matters non-religious. Somehow, Catholics live just fine in England nowadays, and nobody has "betrayed their beliefs".

That's really not a good argument.

Most of Christian religious beliefs are nowhere near as extreme as they used to be.

It took centuries of violence and bigotry for modern tolerance to finally be build.

"Modern tolerance" was actually formulated by the likes of John Locke, back in the 17th century. Christian religious persecution and sectarianism was curbed because of it. It actually laid the foundations upon which the modern secular states rest.

 

Toleration is there to protect you, not just Muslims. You think rolling it back is a good idea? Sure, why not. I'm sure the precedent will not be taken advantage of the next time a scapegoat needs to be found for whatever. And because the only way to actually do that necessitates abrogating civil rights, I'm sure a police state won't be a problem down the line either.

[Obsidian sucks]

 

Is there a point in there somewhere?

 

 

 

Western society is based off a separation between church and state, which is based off Jesus' teaching about giving unto Ceasar what is Caesars. Islam for better or worse does not have that distinction. My statement is a simple statement of fact, one side or the other has to betray their beliefs in order to co exist under the same government.

 

Uh huh. It used to be that Catholics weren't tolerated in England because of their implicit allegiance to the Pope, who was a foreign head of state, and this conflicted with classical liberal notions that prescribed that toleration be predicated on submission to the local magistrate in all matters non-religious. Somehow, Catholics live just fine in England nowadays, and nobody has "betrayed their beliefs".

 

The "render unto caesar" bit is no doubt a useful modern interpretation of a possibly apocryphal anecdote about a guy who may or may not have existed more than 2,000 years ago, so Catholics can be convinced that fire and brimstone isn't necessarily what awaits them if they accept that someone other than the Pope can give them a ticket for jaywalking. Of course, it's completely impossible to fashion a similar loophole within all of Islam because... reasons.

 

But please please, tell me more about how XYZ will "never be".

 

 

OK, in twenty years you can tell me how that works out. The West could appease them but this never works. Oh dear, I said 'never' again...

[Hurlshort]

Appease who? And why is the choice appease/drive out? You are simplifying a very complex situation with gross generalities. 

[Obsidian sucks]

If youre a Globalist I imagine it is complicated. How to do you deal with a religion that is antithetical to everything you believe? Its also ironic that Globalism is the primary cause of these terror attacks.

 

Limit the number of immigrants accepted from Muslim countries would be a good long term strategy. I like Chinas subsidy for Muslims who marry non Muslims too, though that should only be used in extreme circumstances. 

[Elerond]

Primary cause behind terrorist attacks is belief in supremacy of ideology/belief/religion in such extent that person starts to think that all that don't accept said ideology/belief/religion deserve to die because they are lesser beings. 

[teknoman2]

Primary cause behind terrorist attacks is belief in supremacy of ideology/belief/religion in such extent that person starts to think that all that don't accept said ideology/belief/religion deserve to die because they are lesser beings. 

the fact that in this particular case the order "convert, enslave or kill all infidels" is a cornerstone of the teachings doesn't help either. 

[smjjames]

 

Primary cause behind terrorist attacks is belief in supremacy of ideology/belief/religion in such extent that person starts to think that all that don't accept said ideology/belief/religion deserve to die because they are lesser beings. 

the fact that in this particular case the order "convert, enslave or kill all infidels" is a cornerstone of the teachings doesn't help either. 

 

 

Wasn't Christianity that up to a point as well? I don't think Christianity ever had enslave in that part and they've dropped the "kill all infidels/heretics" part for the most part.

[teknoman2]

christian priesthood was as eager as anyone to convert everyone to their religion and reap the monetary benefits of an ever larger flock of followers, however the teachings of the religion do not include a divine mandate to "convert or kill". no matter how many religious texts you may read you will not find anything that says it.

in islam on the other hand, the order "convert or kill" is in every holy book and is repeated several times in some.

[pmp10]

pmp10 i don't take things literally, i take them exactly as the islamic religion preaches them

islam says that you go to hell if:

you commit a sin (eating pork or having any contact with pigs is a grave sin as is consuming alcohol) and do not confess the sin to an imam to get forgiveness.

you are beheaded

you kill yourself without being ordered to do so by a priest

you leave islam

any sin committed with the intention to deceive infidels is automatically forgiven but sins committed willingly or even by trickery, force or accident must get formal forgiveness or its hell

in my highschool we had theology classes where we learned about many religions and their quirks. it wasn't an in depth analysis but enough to know the basics of what they teach and how their followers practice these teachings. plus my grandfather has lived some years in the middle east when he was young because of his work and has read the quran in the original version (not translated) and knows exactly what it says.

I'm sure it also teaches that murder is wrong.

If they found a way to rationalize around that I doubt they will lose any sleep over pork.

[redneckdevil]

christian priesthood was as eager as anyone to convert everyone to their religion and reap the monetary benefits of an ever larger flock of followers, however the teachings of the religion do not include a divine mandate to "convert or kill". no matter how many religious texts you may read you will not find anything that says it.

in islam on the other hand, the order "convert or kill" is in every holy book and is repeated several times in some.

Very true for New Testament about Jesus, but Old Testament though is a bit, not in that way. Granted take in mind that OT besides establishing creation and tracking up, is about the chosen brother Isreal and his people taking and conquering the promise Land and escaping captivity to get back to the promise Land. So old testament did say many times that u kill the enemy and his family and his land and his animals because if u don't, it's shows every tribe they let live outta pity, truce, or only killed the men, they always later came back and had to fight them again. Sorry for history, but to explain that earlier Christian's did use OT tactics of them claiming thier Homeland were used by earlier Christian's method of converting other people.

The inquistion, the witch trials, the crusades, hell look at the history here in the Bible belt. That's to name a few. Meaning we had our moments when a good bit of us was a much a problem as Islam was. The thing was is that it took several hundreds of years of Christians and other people standing up against those harmful practices and gaining respect and influence in being a more either peaceful or tolerable manner....for the most part. We still have issues with zealous Christians. Bad times for all, so we don't wanna go through that again. It's becoming almost tolerable with how we act.

Problem is we got the history of Christianity in our heads and we know about second generation immigrants. So until the media (the one who focused on or tried to cover up bc mAh racism) puts the value of Islam at the same with Christianity, we know what's gonna happen in a society that's puts value and prestige in vicimhood and a media that puts Islam on a shelf with a sign "do not touch". Most Muslims are like most Christian's, individually good nuetral people for the most part, but not very bright in a huge group about certain things.

So we need to put Islam on the same level as Christianity and do same coverage and same opposition when some Christian's **** up pretty bad to deter other religions from thinking that in this society since they don't have opposition, then that means they are in the right. So treat ALL religions the same and then let them all in however legally our system allows and give them a chance. We gonna have to bite down on the ones who are getting to big for their britches actions wise and keep all religion from politics and science and we should be good.

[Ben No.3]

If youre a Globalist I imagine it is complicated. How to do you deal with a religion that is antithetical to everything you believe? Its also ironic that Globalism is the primary cause of these terror attacks.

 

Limit the number of immigrants accepted from Muslim countries would be a good long term strategy. I like Chinas subsidy for Muslims who marry non Muslims too, though that should only be used in extreme circumstances.

"Globalism" is not an ideology. If anything, communism, socialism and social democracy may be described as classically international (and in more recent times also maybe liberals, libertarians, neo liberals). But those are (to a lesser or greater extent) opposed to religion. If you're any of the previously mentioned but especially if you are one of the lefties; you likely also believe in the idea that history develops a certain way, to a lesser or greater extent. So you'll naturally assume that religion will die out, as it becomes more and more outdated and incapable to handle the changing world around it

[teknoman2]

 

pmp10 i don't take things literally, i take them exactly as the islamic religion preaches them

islam says that you go to hell if:

you commit a sin (eating pork or having any contact with pigs is a grave sin as is consuming alcohol) and do not confess the sin to an imam to get forgiveness.

you are beheaded

you kill yourself without being ordered to do so by a priest

you leave islam

any sin committed with the intention to deceive infidels is automatically forgiven but sins committed willingly or even by trickery, force or accident must get formal forgiveness or its hell

in my highschool we had theology classes where we learned about many religions and their quirks. it wasn't an in depth analysis but enough to know the basics of what they teach and how their followers practice these teachings. plus my grandfather has lived some years in the middle east when he was young because of his work and has read the quran in the original version (not translated) and knows exactly what it says.

I'm sure it also teaches that murder is wrong.

If they found a way to rationalize around that I doubt they will lose any sleep over pork.

 

of course it is wrong, as long as the victim is another muslim man. if the victim is an infidel or a woman who is in violation of religious rules there is nothing wrong and is even encouraged by the holy texts... which by the way are filled with excuses to kill people.

 

redneckdevil

as i said, christians did their fair share of evil but they did it because of corruption and greed among the priests and against the teachings of their religion (and most of the followers didn't even know what the religion was about except: "pay the priest - do as the priest says - go to heaven" - and most still don't know to this day). the doctrine and purpose of the christian religion was to act as a tranquilizer for a population on the brink of revolt within a multinational empire.

islam has no need for corruption and greed among its priests because the religion was made from the ground up by Muhammad as a tool to raise fanatical-warmongering followers who would do anything for his ambitions. in today's terms, it was a successful attempt at creating a hive mind like human society where every single individual was thinking and acting the same way and would mindlessly follow the orders of their prophet-king. no questions, no doubts, no fear, no mercy, no remorse - all is as the prophet commands and as allah wills.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

pmp10 i don't take things literally, i take them exactly as the islamic religion preaches them

islam says that you go to hell if:

you commit a sin (eating pork or having any contact with pigs is a grave sin as is consuming alcohol) and do not confess the sin to an imam to get forgiveness.

you are beheaded

you kill yourself without being ordered to do so by a priest

you leave islam

any sin committed with the intention to deceive infidels is automatically forgiven but sins committed willingly or even by trickery, force or accident must get formal forgiveness or its hell

in my highschool we had theology classes where we learned about many religions and their quirks. it wasn't an in depth analysis but enough to know the basics of what they teach and how their followers practice these teachings. plus my grandfather has lived some years in the middle east when he was young because of his work and has read the quran in the original version (not translated) and knows exactly what it says.

I'm sure it also teaches that murder is wrong.

If they found a way to rationalize around that I doubt they will lose any sleep over pork.

 

of course it is wrong, as long as the victim is another muslim man. if the victim is an infidel or a woman who is in violation of religious rules there is nothing wrong and is even encouraged by the holy texts... which by the way are filled with excuses to kill people.

 

redneckdevil

as i said, christians did their fair share of evil but they did it because of corruption and greed among the priests and against the teachings of their religion (and most of the followers didn't even know what the religion was about except: "pay the priest - do as the priest says - go to heaven" - and most still don't know to this day). the doctrine and purpose of the christian religion was to act as a tranquilizer for a population on the brink of revolt within a multinational empire.

islam has no need for corruption and greed among its priests because the religion was made from the ground up by Muhammad as a tool to raise fanatical-warmongering followers who would do anything for his ambitions. in today's terms, it was a successful attempt at creating a hive mind like human society where every single individual was thinking and acting the same way and would mindlessly follow the orders of their prophet-king. no questions, no doubts, no fear, no mercy, no remorse - all is as the prophet commands and as allah wills.

 

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Leviticus 20 13

“You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish, any defect whatever, for that is an abomination to the Lord your God. “If there is found among you, within any of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abomination has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones. .." Deuteronomy 17 1-20

"But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me." Luke 19 27

“Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death." Exodus 22:19

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." Leviticus 25 44-46

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." Exodus 21 7-11 (and yes, this is saying its okay to sell your DAUGHTER as SEX SLAVE)

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." Exodus 21 20-21

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." Ephesians 6 5

"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." 1 Timothy 2 11-15

"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." 1 Corinthians 14 34-35

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands" Ephesias 5 22-24

 

 

Christianity! Not evil you say. **** you.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Hurlshort]

Much like the Bible, the Koran is subject to interpretation. If Islam really all about fanaticism and war, as teknoman2 is arguing, we'd have a much bigger issue in this world, given that there are 1.8 billion Muslims out there. In reality it is more like redneckdevil is saying, most just want to be able to practice their religion and be neutral.

 

These are the 5 pillars of Islam: Faith, Prayer, Charity, Fasting, and a Pilgrimage. Doesn't say anything about killing non-Muslims. 

[injurai]

These are the 5 pillars of Islam: Faith, Prayer, Charity, Fasting, and a Pilgrimage. Doesn't say anything about killing non-Muslims. 

 

For Sunni Islam, and those pillars come from a Hadith, not from the Quran. Shia have a very different interpretation of the source passage and follow the Usul and Furu al-Din. Which translates to the 5 foundation beliefs, and the 10 branches of practice. In the practices includes jihadIsma'ilis also have their own set of 7 pillars of which jihad is included. Jihad itself has multiple facets but is vastly predominated by it's references to actual warfare which is both physically and metaphysically a struggle against evil. Further, this aspect of jihad is Quranically enshrined, not just found in some Hadith or apocrypha. Another part of the Furu al-Din is forbidding evil and disassociation with it, infidels repeatedly referenced alongside jihad as part of that evil.

 

Yes text can be open to interpretation. Both the Bible and Quran seem to contradict themselves, but if you look to Jesus and Muhammad. You would find the above interpretation of Jihad to fit with how he lived. If you follow Jesus' example through the Bible, you'd find an emphasis on forgiveness and engaging with the sinner. This is very different from Islam. Further the Quran and Hadith have a much more rigorous system of citation, and the general uniformity of receiving the faith through Arabic hardens that interpretation. Many variant interpretations come from humanist intellectual movements during the regions golden age, have been largely been rejected for centuries by the majority of practitioners.

 

I also think people forget the human element, many Muslims are as nominal as Christians. But if people feel weak, unfulfilled, and make a sincere concerted effort to their faith. The tenets and dogma of both lead one to very different places.

[Gfted1]

" did it in antiquity too!" Durrhurr...

[Hurlshort]

"<X religion> did it in antiquity too!" Durrhurr...

 

Antiquity? Hardly. The recently resurgent KKK loves to spout their Christian beliefs.

 

There is no doubt in my mind Islam is in desperate need for reform. I'm not arguing that Islam (or any other religion) are somehow perfect. Religion is much like human nature. They are tied together and they've evolved over time. I just don't accept the idea that one religion is permanently stuck in some sort of medieval barbarism while the other has outgrown that. There is always room for reform.

 

We also need to be careful to hold historical figures against modern lenses of morality. Mohammad was a product of his time, he was still a man. Jesus has benefited from a lack of a strong historical record, making him more malleable (hence the white European guy in all the churches.)

[Gfted1]

Ive heard a cat bark and a dog meow, that doesn't make it the norm. Splainin away todays barbarism with yesterdays examples is a fun mental playground I suppose but I don't see how it has relevance. A pattern is a pattern for a reason.

[smjjames]

When and how would that reform happen? Obviously we can't and shouldn't force the reform to happen, it needs to happen on their terms.

 

The only example of monotheistic reformation that we have is the Christian Reformation, but the historical cirumstances and everything else (other than dissatisfaction with the status quo) are so different that it's not productive to make direct equivalent comparisons.

 

Also, I don't know when the Reformation started getting called as such.

Edited August 22, 2017 by smjjames