loveissucide

__________________
www.last.fm/user/p-mccusker
http://www.mixcloud.com/pmccusker
www.valjester.wordpress.com

sleepy jack

That's actually exactly the video I was thinking of when writing that post. He's totally right about it too.

right-track

Welcome back, sleepy jack.

right-track

^ Agreed.
The only successful end game is compromise.

LOL@Geordies.
BBC News - Men arrested in Gateshead over suspected Koran burning

sleepy jack

Two problems with that. You can find many similar quotes in the Bible, yet there's no Christian equivalent to al-Qaeda at the moment. Odd. Also, how do you explain the majority of Muslims, who are moderate and against terrorism, if their holy text is telling them they need to be at war with the West? The problem with Muslim extremists isn't nearly as metaphysical as it is political. People who say otherwise are trying to simplify a very complex issue, which is lazy.

Zaqarbal

Yes, I know that disturbing mental image appearing after reading the Old Testament...


All that you wrote is true. And everything confirms what we atheists and agnostics already knew: religion is a purely HUMAN PRODUCT and it is conditioned and modified by the ups and downs of human life. But in order to clarify my point I have to explain a few things:

The degree of prescription in Quranic texts is higher than that of Biblical writings. Bible can be interpreted in many different ways. That is, Christian moral rules are stated in a more indirect way than the Muslim ones. On the contrary, Quran is composed by direct commands. It supposedly contains God's words, so it is meant to be taken literally. I think this video explains it better than I can:


Islam is something more than a religion. It regulates all aspects of human life. From the prayer to the proper way to eat palm dates (don't laugh; Allah cares for your health and he knows what is the best for you). That's why, certainly, "the problem with Muslim extremists isn't nearly as metaphysical as it is political". Historically speaking, many Christians have been reluctant to accept the separation of church and state, but at least there is a biblical basis for it: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s".

Thus, both Christianity and Islam have experienced the pass of time and human actions. But due to their distinct original dogmatic structures, they've suffered diverse effects, and the "final products" are different from each other. Since Islam has more rigid fundamentals, the possibilities to modify the values of a Muslim society are more limited. On the contrary, Christianity's flexibility permits a better adaptation to the changing human societies throughout history. From the starting point on, compared to Muslims, Christian leaders have had a wider range of options to choose in order to influence their communities' behaviour. Or, if we see it from a critic point of view (which is the one I share), the "asphyxiation" people suffered decreased little by little.

Imagine a dried branch. Only two things may happen: it remains the same or it gets broken. But a flexible olive branch can be bent in many ways (like those absurd Christian metaphors on pigeons and olive branches). That's the difference.

__________________

Zaqarbal

I forgot to mention another interesting point. Some may think: "Well, maybe some Quranic verses are a sort of complex metaphors...". No way. French scientist and writer Blaise Pascal tells us why:

330 years ago this guy hit the nail on the head. Look, this is the Paradise according to Quran. What's that? A screenplay for a Tinto Brass' movie or a sacred book? Ibn Warraq callls it a "cosmic brothel". Following Pascal's central idea, we conclude: that clumsiness for the soft porn is not compatible with a supposed talent for refined and hermetic metaphysical poetry, considering that all is part of the same book.

Coming back to the main question (to burn or not to burn), I've found this declaration in favour of freedom of expression:

__________________

RVCA

No, I think it is pretty simple. The Bible isn't nearly as explicit about killing the infidel as the Quran is. There are plenty of nuts that find their roots in ridiculous things the Bible says (see: Westboro Baptist), but the Quran is quite a bit more vile than the Bible.

All these terrorist bombings are for religion and that's the bottom line. You don't see anyone bombing for atheism or capitalism, do you?

someonecompletelyrandom

um

sleepy jack

So if the Bible isn't about killing infidels, how do you explain the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah? God wipes out the entire Earth, with the exception of one family, because their sinners. The Bible also endorses slavery, rape, stoning, incest, and other terrible things. It's not a moral book.

I don't know why you would blow up something up because you're an athiest. That strikes me as completely illogical. "I'm motivated to do something by a non-belief." That's just silly statement on your part. However, look at Chairman Mao, who squashed freedom of religion, and set himself up as a demagogue. He wasn't exactly like the nicest guy in the world was he?

Also, your statement about capitalism is pretty stupid. While yes, no one is strapping a bomb to their chest and blowing up communes, the amount of evils (e.g. wars, sweatshops) done in the name of capitalism, just in the past decade, is just as wrong as 9/11, in fact, I would argue it's even worse.