Islam; religion on hate? (Clinton, revolution, ideology, dictators)

[Mattos_12]

Tempers run rather high on these topics, and perhaps its just not possible to agree on a premise, on which we might build a reasonable debate. But might I ask that we try?

Perhaps for a start we might agree that the holy books of a faith, even if they are the word of God, have parts that are considered more or less important? So when the bible says:

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be cut off from their people
~Leviticus 20:18

it is not currently taken literally. But other sections (thou shalt not kill ) are taken to be laws. The hierarchy of information is a matter of interpretation, and one that changes over time. For example early Christians were generally pacifists (thou shalt not kill) but religious law on the matter change with political circumstance to form 'just war' theory, where killing was OK in certain circumstances.

I do not mean to say that God doesn't exist, let us just say that God's word is intended to be interpreted in different ways, by different people and at different times.

The same is true of Islam, the Koran does not say that woman must be veiled, and it does forbid killing. But the Juris prudence of Islamic law changed, in reaction to the colonial struggle. Allowing for increasing killing to become more acceptable.

My suggestion here is simply that Islam's violent interpretation now is a subject of the colonial struggle, and of the dictators in power at the moment, and not the cause of violence. This is why tackling 'Islam' as the problem is such an error, but that tackling politics is the answer. This is why revolutions in Egypt could be such a good thing.

In the Cold war it was considered acceptable to support dictators to maintain our short-term interests, isn't in time to look to the long-term, to democracy?

[djacques]

I don't believe God exists (how could a god ever be 'proven' to exist anyway? To some he would be a god, to others a devil.) But your point otherwise is valid. Of course every religion has major sects and minor sub-sects and many heretical sects, and there are also tons of people in every religion who may *claim* to follow the religion but who really don't any better than Jim Bakker or Bill Clinton followed Protestant Christianity.

[grimace8]

sorry but there is a religion forum on C-D.

your thread should be posted there. here it is for your convenience:

//www.city-data.com/forum/religion-philosophy/

[Mattos_12]

Originally Posted by grimace8

sorry but there is a religion forum on C-D.

your thread should be posted there. here it is for your convenience:

//www.city-data.com/forum/religion-philosophy/

Thank you for your advice.

My question is very specifically about politics, the importance of religion, as ideology, in shaping politics, and politics in shaping religion.

Write me a 2,000 word essay explaining why religion has no impact on politics or politics region, we'll post it and see if there is a consensus.

[Mattos_12]

Originally Posted by djacques

I don't believe God exists (how could a god ever be 'proven' to exist anyway? To some he would be a god, to others a devil.) But your point otherwise is valid. Of course every religion has major sects and minor sub-sects and many heretical sects, and there are also tons of people in every religion who may *claim* to follow the religion but who really don't any better than Jim Bakker or Bill Clinton followed Protestant Christianity.

As you so rightly point out, one can never prove or disprove God's existence. It would make for a highly dull and very pointless debate. My paragraph was not intended to argue that God does exist, but more avoid the issue.

If God exists or not, religious views do alter to fit political and social circumstance. Given this it is in error to judge a religion in isolation from these circumstance, or to make predictions about the politics of people in this faith based on current interpretations.

So, to claim the Islamic people, given the chance, will try and take over the world 'because it says so in the Koran' or that Islamic organizations have stated such an aim, is to forget that religious beliefs are formed by political circumstance.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by Mattos_12

Tempers run rather high on these topics, and perhaps its just not possible to agree on a premise, on which we might build a reasonable debate. But might I ask that we try?

Perhaps for a start we might agree that the holy books of a faith, even if they are the word of God, have parts that are considered more or less important? So when the bible says:

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be cut off from their people
~Leviticus 20:18

it is not currently taken literally. But other sections (thou shalt not kill ) are taken to be laws. The hierarchy of information is a matter of interpretation, and one that changes over time. For example early Christians were generally pacifists (thou shalt not kill) but religious law on the matter change with political circumstance to form 'just war' theory, where killing was OK in certain circumstances.

I do not mean to say that God doesn't exist, let us just say that God's word is intended to be interpreted in different ways, by different people and at different times.

The same is true of Islam, the Koran does not say that woman must be veiled, and it does forbid killing. But the Juris prudence of Islamic law changed, in reaction to the colonial struggle. Allowing for increasing killing to become more acceptable.

My suggestion here is simply that Islam's violent interpretation now is a subject of the colonial struggle, and of the dictators in power at the moment, and not the cause of violence. This is why tackling 'Islam' as the problem is such an error, but that tackling politics is the answer. This is why revolutions in Egypt could be such a good thing.

In the Cold war it was considered acceptable to support dictators to maintain our short-term interests, isn't in time to look to the long-term, to democracy?

You obviously have given this matter considerable thought, but as I see you indiscriminately mixing principles of Jewish law with Christianity it becomes clear that your understanding of Biblical concepts is limited. It isn't that Jewish law isn't "taken literally" but that Christians are not under Jewish law in the first place. Since your argument hinges on what you believe to be erroneous interpretation of religious books and this doesn't seem to be your strong suit, whether or not your argument is valid is a matter of happenstance because you really don't understand what you're writing about.

[Mattos_12]

Originally Posted by momonkey

You obviously have given this matter considerable thought, but as I see you indiscriminately mixing principles of Jewish law with Christianity it becomes clear that your understanding of Biblical concepts is limited. It isn't that Jewish law isn't "taken literally" but that Christians are not under Jewish law in the first place. Since your argument hinges on what you believe to be erroneous interpretation of religious books and this doesn't seem to be your strong suit, whether or not your argument is valid is a matter of happenstance because you really don't understand what you're writing about.

To clarify, you dispute that:

Christian juris prudence changes over time?
Christians hierarchy information in the bible?

I wouldn't claim that I was a biblical expert - but, it is my understanding that the two points above are both correct. As my point is not to argue about the merits/content of the Bible of Koran, but the role of politics in ideology, the points stands.

If you have information on the history/juris prudence of the bible that you think alters my stand point, or undermines it, then the purpose of debate is to question ones beliefs, so I'd be interested in hearing them.

[artsyguy]

Religion is useless. Didn't Greek Mythology prove this centuries ago?

[Mattos_12]

Originally Posted by artsyguy

Religion is useless. Didn't Greek Mythology prove this centuries ago?

It seems highly improbable that religion is useless.

That the majority of people on the planet have had some form of faith for the majority of human history, implies that it must be some use to someone.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by artsyguy

Religion is useless. Didn't Greek Mythology prove this centuries ago?

Did the Edsel make automobiles useless?