Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran?

Ego Tripping · 03-19-2010, 08:29 AM

Great article, I do love NPR.

Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran? : NPR

One of the best parts that clearly demonstrates our total ignorance to this religion:

Quote:

That may be the popular notion of jihad, says Waleed El-Ansary, but it's the wrong one. El-Ansary, who teaches Islamic studies at the University of South Carolina, says the Quran explicitly condemns religious aggression and the killing of civilians. And it makes the distinction between jihad — legal warfare with the proper rules of engagement — and irjaf, or terrorism.

"All of those types of incidences — [Sept. 11], Maj. Nidal Hasan and so forth — those are all examples of irjaf, not jihad," he says. According to the Quran, he says, those who practice irjaf "are going to hell."

and

Quote:

El-Ansary says that in the past 30 years, there's been a perfect storm that has created a violent strain of Islam. The first is political: frustration at Western intervention in the Muslim world. The second is intellectual: the rise of Wahhabi Islam, a more fundamentalist interpretation of Islam subscribed to by Osama bin Laden. El-Ansary says fundamentalists have distorted Islam for political purposes.

I can think of other Fundamentalists that distort their religion for political purposes as well...

Sugar420 · 03-19-2010, 10:04 AM

^says the person who has never read either one

what surprises me is that more people dont realize that not only today's "religious violence" but all through history such action was just political distortions of legitimate religious teaching.
thats the way its always been, but people keep blaming a philosophy for the actions of those who dont follow it

JcP · 03-19-2010, 11:32 AM

Who decides what is/is not legitimate when it comes to ancient archaic texts? Therein lies the problem of religion.

Spirituality is personal and "legitimate." The problem arises when humans join together around a set text in a specific language and develop a religion around it...

It's the difference between seeing a movie and having an opinion about it, or believing that one critic is the voice of legitimacy about it. As soon as you remove yourself from the actual experience, you're not talking about the same thing as (in the case of religion) Christ or Mohammed.

I am not a fan of religious texts. I find value in them to see how certain populations interpret the "original" truth of their messiah-figure(s) who usually say the same things in different ways, but I find zero value for the texts in and of themselves.

Sugar420 · 03-19-2010, 11:59 AM

the issue is using religious language to promote violence over political issues. this is not a theological argument or just difference in interpretation; you cant make the case that killing in the name of Jesus is just as valid as charity and nonviolence in His name.

JcP · 03-19-2010, 12:04 PM

yes I can. I'm not talking about substance, I'm talking about form.

The same argument is used by both sides. And while my morality and beliefs makes the latter far more in line with my interpretation of the true meaning of Jesus' teachings, it does not make it inherently more correct of an interpretation.
Why? Because both sides can use the Bible in snipits and quotes to both support their claim(s) and denounce the other. Therefore, while the ACTIONS of the two groups you've proposed are extremely different, they are both "Bible-based" actions.

That was the point I was trying to make with using absolute words like "legitimate" when discussing an ancient text. All text is INTERPRETED by generation after generation and each time it redefines what is or is not legitimate.
As soon as a message is removed by either word-of-mouth, text, or time, that message is no longer pure or legitimate. It becomes a matter of interpretation and opinion.

Adolf W. Hitler · 03-19-2010, 12:09 PM

Why did you forget to mention the worst of all, da JOOOOZ?

The Rev · 03-19-2010, 12:41 PM

The problem isn't religion, organized or otherwise. The problem is people not thinking for themselves. How many followers of any religion have read, and made up their own minds about, the texts that define their religion? Most of us know what we've been taught, not what we've discovered by our own investigations and contemplation. You could never have a large movement based around a message that is totally contradictory to the members' professed beliefs (a group that kills in the name of a messiah that preached non-violence, for example) without said members throwing their capacity to think right out the window.

God, no matter what form S/He could possibly take, could never have intended for us to seek Him or Her with our eyes closed.

The Rev

JcP · 03-19-2010, 12:54 PM

I agree Rev. But I'd argue that Religion is in direct contradiction to thinking for yourself by definition. So perhaps defining "religion" is the first step to this debate.

Religion, to me, is an organization of people who prescribe to a dogma through faith, and view that dogma as universal truth.

To "make up your own mind" about a religious text is in direct conflict with being part of an organization that is based on people agreeing on an interpretation of a religious text.

Individualism is certainly accepted in more liberal religious traditions (UU, some forms of eastern religions, etc), but these are most often not single text-based religions.
and that's why conservative (and the huge majority) religious traditions view these forms of religion as either heretical or not really a religion.

Sugar420 · 03-19-2010, 01:04 PM

oh snap!
sorry terry my bad. i did make an assumption only because the view you expressed is the same one i hear from less informed people. but it surprises me that you say that and i dont understand why you think that way. would you mind briefly making your case about why they are both detrimental to human evolution?

Jcp i dont know what you are saying.

Quote:

Because both sides can use the Bible in snipits and quotes

this is the distortion at issue. when you use religious texts to validate politically motivated violence thats misuse of scriptures. you seem to be saying that anyone is free to interpret for themselves if practicing nonviolence includes beating the shit out of people or not and that theres no inherent difference between the two interpretations

stoneric · 03-19-2010, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

I went to Catholic school for 11 of my 12 school years, please don't make assumptions like that, I don't hate religion blindly, I have thought about the issue and researched it for years, and believe me when I say I know quite enough about both books to realize that arguing over which one is more wrong is stupid, as they are both detrimental to human evolution.

What happened to the 12th year? And wasn't it great getting the fuck out? I did 10 of 12 and thought I had been released from prison. Thankfully the voters turned down tax money going to private schools way back when.

Sugar420 · 03-19-2010, 01:24 PM

ok i see what youre saying and i largely agree with you, however evil and wickedness exist independent of any philosophical teaching or school of thought. so eliminating any/all religious teaching would not also eliminate the social and ethical problems that you mention in association with religion, because religion is not the cause of these ills

JcP · 03-19-2010, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by v3d4

oh snap!

Jcp i dont know what you are saying. this is the distortion at issue. when you use religious texts to validate politically motivated violence thats misuse of scriptures. you seem to be saying that anyone is free to interpret for themselves if practicing nonviolence includes beating the shit out of people or not and that theres no inherent difference between the two interpretations

hrm, there seems to be a communication gap here. "misuse of scriptures" is a personal opinion based on your interpretation of the scriptures. Your opinion it's a misuse is no more truthful or right than those who are using it in the way you deem a misuse.
And that's my point. When people gather around a non-relevant and present source....when it's an ancient book, or a group-think mentality about historical events, the TRUTH is lost to time. All that's left is what people THINK it means. Which leads to things like Jihad, the God-hates-fags morons, and rapture-obsessed people.
They are just as valid in their reading(s) of these books because we don't know their true meaning because the authors aren't here to correct them. All we have is each other's phobias and inadequacies being projected into the text and creating different readings and interpretations. Follow?

There is a difference between beeting the shit out of someone and being a pacifist. Obviously. There ISN'T a difference, however, if both use a religious dogma to support their position. And that was (and is) my point.

It's like....Imagine there is a book that compares the pros and cons of apples and oranges. there is a difference between oranges and apples. But there is no difference between the mentality of people who say apples are better than oranges and those who say oranges are better than apples because of how they've chosen to read the book.

I'm talking about the reasoning (the WHY) behind the action, and you seem to be focusing on the actions themselves.

JcP · 03-19-2010, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by v3d4

ok i see what youre saying and i largely agree with you, however evil and wickedness exist independent of any philosophical teaching or school of thought. so eliminating any/all religious teaching would not also eliminate the social and ethical problems that you mention in association with religion, because religion is not the cause of these ills

agreed.

but on the same coin you would have to admit that compassion and empathy exist independent of any philosophical teaching or school of thought. So continuing any/all religious teaching would not continue or increase the social and ethical positives that you mention in association with religion, because religion is not the cause of these gifts.

Sugar420 · 03-20-2010, 11:46 AM

no thats nonsense. you think that old texts have no inherent meaning so anybodys guess is as good as anybody elses but thats simply not true.
terry points out that the problem comes when people dont follow the teaching, not when people do follow it. maybe you think there is no particular teaching but whatever people arbitrarily decide for themselves is the teaching -but this is just wrong.

JcP · 03-20-2010, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by v3d4

no thats nonsense. you think that old texts have no inherent meaning so anybodys guess is as good as anybody elses but thats simply not true.
terry points out that the problem comes when people dont follow the teaching, not when people do follow it. maybe you think there is no particular teaching but whatever people arbitrarily decide for themselves is the teaching -but this is just wrong.

The texts do have IMMENSE inherent meaning. I've tried to express that about 3 times now to you. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that deciphering and deciding what that meaning is, however, is where the problem is.

And once again you seem to be unable to understand what I'm saying, so either I'm not being clear or you're not open to changing your opinion. So let me try one more time in a slightly different way, and that will be my last attempt:

Who teaches the teaching? Lets take Christianity. Religious Christianity would imply attending a congregation. That congregation is led by a Priest. That Priest reads the bible and creates a sermon based on a point he wishes to express. That filter is not truth, but that man's impression of what the truth of the Bible is. For instance, say the sermon is based on "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Matthew 10:34)" . One Priest might suggest this is a statement that Christians must fight to protect Christianity from invaders...leading to, say, the Crusades. While another priest might say this isn't incongruous with non-violence because the word "sword" is a metaphor for strong-willed adherence to a specific path. And that priest would suggest that all war is immoral and no christian should ever fight, regardless.
Both use the Bible to support their claims. Both claim to be the truth. So once again, who is right? And why are they right? I would suggest to you that you are misconstruing your beliefs about what these texts are about as some sort of objective truth. And that's, to be honest, fundamentalism. If you can't see that HOW you read the Bible determines what the Bible SAYS, I don't know what to tell you. And since HOW you read the Bible is not right or wrong (as it's just words on a page), neither is how you interpret it.
It's akin to someone reading The Catcher in The Rye and empathizing with Holden, while another thinks he should grow a pair and stop being such a jackoff. You're arguing that one is the "correct" reading, and the other is incorrect. And that's nothing more than your opinion about truth masquerading as objective truth.

Either way, human beings are INTERPRETING the dogmatic source material to fit their personal beliefs about what the truth of the religion is. It's why there is a Pope...to decree what is or is not truth for the millions of people who adhere to Catholicism.

So once again: Whether or not there is inherent truth in the Bible is COMPLETELY irrelevant when discussing the topic of the OP or in talking to me. The point is that when a text is read, it is interpreted by the listener/reader. The "truth" is no longer the truth, but that person's interpretation of what he thinks the truth is. And therein lies the problem with group-think absolutes like organized religion.

stoneric · 03-20-2010, 04:09 PM

I'm curious as to how you can even figure out how much violence is begot from each book. I'm ignorant of both books but can't help pick up on things that pertain to each book because of the politicalization of all that is god. Anyway, if the jews believe the bible entitles them to land , would anything that results from them taking that land, be it bombing the shit out of an outdoor prison or humiliating a people until they break, be considered a violent act attributed to the bible?

hijabihippie · 03-20-2010, 04:09 PM

JcP, have you ever been to a Friends Meeting (Quakers)?

JcP · 03-20-2010, 04:21 PM

one of my best friends from college is actually now a Quaker minister! I've never been to a Quaker meeting, no, but I have gone to a fair share of UU services and UU and Quakers are very cordial to one another. Quakers are obviously more christ-based, while UU tends to be more, well Universal, but of all the classic western religions, Quakerism and Unitarian-Universalism are (to me) the best and least caring about personal expression and interpretation.

**SageTree** · 03-20-2010, 06:22 PM

Can Truths Co-Exist?

FourtySecondRip · 03-20-2010, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by v3d4

ok i see what youre saying and i largely agree with you, however evil and wickedness exist independent of any philosophical teaching or school of thought. so eliminating any/all religious teaching would not also eliminate the social and ethical problems that you mention in association with religion, because religion is not the cause of these ills

but religion is the justification and motivation for alot of that evil and wickedness. if you take that away, what reason would they have for doing it. their motivation might not make sense to you but it still has to make sense to them. i dont believe that these people are inherintly evil, and if there was no quaran or bible to wage war in the name of, that they would just do something else thats evil no matter what. they will end up with something else to fight about for sure, but they wont have a reason to be fighting people on the other side of the planet without a reason.

03-19-2010, 12:09 PM	#6 (permalink)
Adolf W. Hitler Old School Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Police State, Inc. Posts: 35 Thanks: 7 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	Meh, Christians and Muslims... Why did you forget to mention the worst of all, da JOOOOZ? __________________ I do not pledge allegiance to the United Slave States of Amerikka, nor to the police state for which it stands, one godawful nation under surveillance, with liberty and justice only for the rich and powerful.

03-19-2010, 12:41 PM	#7 (permalink)
The Rev Clear Light Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: In my head, somewhere. Posts: 17,867 Thanks: 5,019 Thanked 5,421 Times in 2,865 Posts	The problem isn't religion, organized or otherwise. The problem is people not thinking for themselves. How many followers of any religion have read, and made up their own minds about, the texts that define their religion? Most of us know what we've been taught, not what we've discovered by our own investigations and contemplation. You could never have a large movement based around a message that is totally contradictory to the members' professed beliefs (a group that kills in the name of a messiah that preached non-violence, for example) without said members throwing their capacity to think right out the window. God, no matter what form S/He could possibly take, could never have intended for us to seek Him or Her with our eyes closed. The Rev __________________ Budforce - My Friend August 29, 1973- May 25, 2012

03-20-2010, 06:22 PM	#19 (permalink)
SageTree ~Kalyāṇa-mitrā~ Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: In Love Posts: 23,414 Blog Entries: 26 Thanks: 13,070 Thanked 6,769 Times in 4,664 Posts	Can Truths Co-Exist? __________________ "What's oppressive is letting your life be confined by old definitions of what everything is." -Zen Meister my_scatterheart YaHooka is.... Cannabis lovers from around the world pulling up a comfy chair, picking up a vaporizer, a bong, a brownie, a pipe, or a joint, getting high, stoned, buzzed or healthy. Uniting our minds in conversation...While Portraying a Positive Image of marijuana and marijuana users to the world. Treat your fellow YaHookans with kindness,respect and tolerance.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

03-19-2010, 10:04 AM	#2 (permalink)
Sugar420 Freedom Bird Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 6,138 Thanks: 41 Thanked 183 Times in 733 Posts	^says the person who has never read either one what surprises me is that more people dont realize that not only today's "religious violence" but all through history such action was just political distortions of legitimate religious teaching. thats the way its always been, but people keep blaming a philosophy for the actions of those who dont follow it

03-19-2010, 11:59 AM	#4 (permalink)
Sugar420 Freedom Bird Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 6,138 Thanks: 41 Thanked 183 Times in 733 Posts	the issue is using religious language to promote violence over political issues. this is not a theological argument or just difference in interpretation; you cant make the case that killing in the name of Jesus is just as valid as charity and nonviolence in His name.

03-19-2010, 01:24 PM	#11 (permalink)
Sugar420 Freedom Bird Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 6,138 Thanks: 41 Thanked 183 Times in 733 Posts	ok i see what youre saying and i largely agree with you, however evil and wickedness exist independent of any philosophical teaching or school of thought. so eliminating any/all religious teaching would not also eliminate the social and ethical problems that you mention in association with religion, because religion is not the cause of these ills

03-20-2010, 11:46 AM	#14 (permalink)
Sugar420 Freedom Bird Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 6,138 Thanks: 41 Thanked 183 Times in 733 Posts	no thats nonsense. you think that old texts have no inherent meaning so anybodys guess is as good as anybody elses but thats simply not true. terry points out that the problem comes when people dont follow the teaching, not when people do follow it. maybe you think there is no particular teaching but whatever people arbitrarily decide for themselves is the teaching -but this is just wrong.

03-20-2010, 04:09 PM	#16 (permalink)
stoneric bougeman Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 5,646 Thanks: 704 Thanked 1,512 Times in 1,067 Posts	I'm curious as to how you can even figure out how much violence is begot from each book. I'm ignorant of both books but can't help pick up on things that pertain to each book because of the politicalization of all that is god. Anyway, if the jews believe the bible entitles them to land , would anything that results from them taking that land, be it bombing the shit out of an outdoor prison or humiliating a people until they break, be considered a violent act attributed to the bible?

03-20-2010, 04:09 PM	#17 (permalink)
hijabihippie YaHookan Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,481 Thanks: 1,152 Thanked 655 Times in 515 Posts	JcP, have you ever been to a Friends Meeting (Quakers)?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)