[QUOTE="zenogandia"]Agreed on it having to be purely personal, but then Christianity will be more of a friend to you. Islam is more than a religion, it is also a totalitarian political ideology that controls every aspect of its followers lives. A majority of it's present incarnations are, true, but that doesn't mean that such a thing is unique to any particular religion. Christianity and Judaisim have both done this in the past, and certainly in the former there are some pretty strong indicators that the desire to do so is still there in the U.S. and other places. (Such as the recent "controversy" over birth control in the U.S.)I'm not anti-religious, but neither works better than the other. Christianity is a bit more civilized as a whole, but it's still pretty primitive and intollerant.
I believe religion should just be kept for personal reasons and discussed with others, but not declare it as a universal "truth", because it isn't. It's faith.
MrPraline
Which religion works better in modern times. Christianity or Islam?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
christ alive all i see is the first few posts again inb4 gamespot app to block me from posting in islam threads one more time and then im doneMrPralinePerhaps increase the amount of post you can see per page? Might help. I got mine set to 50...
Whoops nevermind nevermind. disregard this post...
[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]According to archeologists a flood did occur roughly in the area of the Biblical story at that particle time. So there is some truth to it. As for animals...I'd imagine he took the animals that were important to the family. IE livestock and pets. All forms of life? The story deals with one area. To them it was the world and the animals were what they knew. You are expecting them to have advanced scientific knowledge are you? So what your are admitting is that portion of the story was written by people that did not know any better and thought a simple flood was the result of an angry god? How is that any better then the greeks that believed that lighting was the result of Zeus' anger? What makes christianity any better then any other religious myth that time has gone on to prove to be simply to work of people not understanding their environment?Surely you then accept the notion that the story of Noah for example is impossible? There is zero chance that he was able to house all forms of life in pairs with enough food and resources for him and six other humans plus and animal for 40 days in a boat that wasn't even half the size of the Titanic. The Titanic itself only stored enough food to feed 3000 people for two weeks and it was over twice the size. There is zero logic when it comes to the acceptance of a religious belief and this is why I remain agonistic.
LJS9502_basic
Christianity was pretty barbaric back in the day, but it seems to have gone through a series of reforms. Still has some issues with tolerance, but I'd pick it over the alternative for modern times. But it's best not to abandon reason and common sense in either one.
According to archeologists a flood did occur roughly in the area of the Biblical story at that particle time. So there is some truth to it. As for animals...I'd imagine he took the animals that were important to the family. IE livestock and pets. All forms of life? The story deals with one area. To them it was the world and the animals were what they knew. You are expecting them to have advanced scientific knowledge are you? So what your are admitting is that portion of the story was written by people that did not know any better and thought a simple flood was the result of an angry god? How is that any better then the greeks that believed that lighting was the result of Zeus' anger? What makes christianity any better then any other religious myth that time has gone on to prove to be simply to work of people not understanding their environment?Straw man now? I'm not sure when we discussed the Greek religion.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Yusuke420"]
Surely you then accept the notion that the story of Noah for example is impossible? There is zero chance that he was able to house all forms of life in pairs with enough food and resources for him and six other humans plus and animal for 40 days in a boat that wasn't even half the size of the Titanic. The Titanic itself only stored enough food to feed 3000 people for two weeks and it was over twice the size. There is zero logic when it comes to the acceptance of a religious belief and this is why I remain agonistic.
Yusuke420
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="jim_shorts"]Biblical literalism came out of the Protestant reformation. Luther was a huge advocate of it. One of the few bad things to come out of the reformation.jim_shortsand what did they do before?I'm sure some took it literally, but I don't think it mattered as much. Now there are people who don't think of me as a true Christian because I don't take some things literally. Can you offer something that I can read, other that stating that it was Luther's main points of advocacy? (what's the context anyway? if it was to tackle the mechanisms set up by the catholic church- it becomes much less relevant to your point) Biblical interpretation, as far as i'm aware, began with literalism and never much strayed from it.
The one that doesn't discriminate.
oh wait
[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]So opinions other than yours are socially destructive? That makes you a bigot by the way....Society should be secular because if you believe in freedom of religion (or lack there of) then you can't have laws that favor one over the other. I don't really have a belief in anything other then what I have understoof through science.Let me also say that I don't have a problem with people practicing anything in private or among like minded people. It's only when these people try to create socital policy that it becomes destructive.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="zenogandia"]Agreed on it having to be purely personal, but then Christianity will be more of a friend to you. Islam is more than a religion, it is also a totalitarian political ideology that controls every aspect of its followers lives. A majority of it's present incarnations are, true, but that doesn't mean that such a thing is unique to any particular religion. Christianity and Judaisim have both done this in the past, and certainly in the former there are some pretty strong indicators that the desire to do so is still there in the U.S. and other places. (Such as the recent "controversy" over birth control in the U.S.)Oh agreed on history, of course. Talking about modern times I definitely see Islam's desire to take over (particularly in Europe). But you're right that there are some crazies in US politics these days as well. Another difference between the Bible and the Qu'ran is that while the Bible mostly consists of stories, some of them allegorical, the Qu'ran is considered the direct words of Allah. It is explicitly telling people how to live their lives and which laws should be in place.I'm not anti-religious, but neither works better than the other. Christianity is a bit more civilized as a whole, but it's still pretty primitive and intollerant.
I believe religion should just be kept for personal reasons and discussed with others, but not declare it as a universal "truth", because it isn't. It's faith.
nocoolnamejim
So opinions other than yours are socially destructive? That makes you a bigot by the way....Society should be secular because if you believe in freedom of religion (or lack there of) then you can't have laws that favor one over the other. I don't really have a belief in anything other then what I have understoof through science. Most societies are secular....but that still doesn't stop people from pushing agendas they like.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Yusuke420"]
Let me also say that I don't have a problem with people practicing anything in private or among like minded people. It's only when these people try to create socital policy that it becomes destructive.
Yusuke420
[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]Society should be secular because if you believe in freedom of religion (or lack there of) then you can't have laws that favor one over the other. I don't really have a belief in anything other then what I have understoof through science. Most society's are secular....but that still doesn't stop people from pushing agenda's they like. Lightning doesn't strike twice... >: ([QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] So opinions other than yours are socially destructive? That makes you a bigot by the way....LJS9502_basic
Talos worship. They take everyone.The one that doesn't discriminate.
oh wait
Aljosa23
And....LJS9502_basicJust pointing out my different theological belief.
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Talos worship. They take everyone. Implying the Eight didn't just take Talos in an attempt to make them look more favourable to worshipers of Shor so they could better serve their own means. Lorkhan is where it's at.The one that doesn't discriminate.
oh wait
sonicare
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="jim_shorts"]I'm sure some took it literally, but I don't think it mattered as much. Now there are people who don't think of me as a true Christian because I don't take some things literally.jim_shortsCan you offer something that I can read, other that stating that it was Luther's main points of advocacy? (what's the context anyway? if it was to tackle the mechanisms set up by the catholic church- it becomes much less relevant to your point) Biblical interpretation, as far as i'm aware, began with literalism and never much strayed from it.I don't have anything on hand, but I do remember reading something from Aquinas regarding the subject. Let me see if I can find it, but my main point is the specific interpretation was never really important until the last couple centuries. Maybe, concerning your last point, that has more to do with the advent of challenges to literal interpretation? *I haven't found anything either, and i've invested as much time googling it as I'm willing (which wasn't very much I admit).
[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Talos worship. They take everyone. Implying the Eight didn't just take Talos in an attempt to make them look more favourable to worshipers of Shor so they could better serve their own means. Lorkhan is where it's at. I suspect you're a covert agent of the Aldmeri trying to spread Talos hate.The one that doesn't discriminate.
oh wait
Ace6301
Then, getting beyond that, the U.S. backing them up. And while there is a rising tide of support for Palestine in much of the countries of Western and Northern Europe (widely due to Israel doing a number of things that make their moral high ground a bit more shaky of late) if ANY Islamic country ever invaded a member of NATO, that tide would reverse itself in a HURRY. Long story short: Islamic influenced countries may have the modern day DESIRE to convert the heathens to the truth faith by the sword, but nowhere close to the ABILITY to do so. Which brings us to the two exceptions I mentioned earlier. Much of Western and Northern Europe (which contains most of the world's 1st World Nations) are pretty darn secular in nature, despite their Judeo-Christian roots.
But the United States and Israel are NOT that secular. If an extremist religion is in any real danger of taking over ANYWHERE it's the rightwing parties in the U.S. and in Israel that are influenced by Christianity and Judaism respectively. There are some crazies in both countries and, more importantly, THOSE two countries are far more capable of causing harm than any petty, third world, Islamic dictator.
[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] A majority of it's present incarnations are, true, but that doesn't mean that such a thing is unique to any particular religion. Christianity and Judaisim have both done this in the past, and certainly in the former there are some pretty strong indicators that the desire to do so is still there in the U.S. and other places. (Such as the recent "controversy" over birth control in the U.S.)nocoolnamejimOh agreed on history, of course. Talking about modern times I definitely see Islam's desire to take over (particularly in Europe). But you're right that there are some crazies in US politics these days as well. Another difference between the Bible and the Qu'ran is that while the Bible mostly consists of stories, some of them allegorical, the Qu'ran is considered the direct words of Allah. It is explicitly telling people how to live their lives and which laws should be in place. There are plenty of Christian groups that still take a strict literal interpretation of the Bible and believe that, for example, many parts of the Old Testament should be followed directly. Definitely concede that it isn't as widespread as those who do so in the Islamic faiths, but I'd argue that they're far more dangerous because of which countries they are in a position to influence. Viewed side by side, I do think that the Islamic influenced countries are more extreme than the Judeo-Christian oriented ones as a whole (with a couple of exceptions, more on this in a minute). But realistically speaking they aren't a threat to TAKE OVER anywhere other than, say, a repeat of Desert Storm. They just do not have the military might to do so, and, frankly, are so far behind the rest of the world that I don't see a path to which they'd catch up without modernization and moderation. Israel by it's lonesome could probably, if it ever REALLY chose to, reduce the rest of the Middle East back to the stone age. They have hundreds of nuclear weapons in their arsenal.
Then, getting beyond that, the U.S. backing them up. And while there is a rising tide of support for Palestine in much of the countries of Western and Northern Europe (widely due to Israel doing a number of things that make their moral high ground a bit more shaky of late) if ANY Islamic country ever invaded a member of NATO, that tide would reverse itself in a HURRY. Long story short: Islamic influenced countries may have the modern day DESIRE to convert the heathens to the truth faith by the sword, but nowhere close to the ABILITY to do so. Which brings us to the two exceptions I mentioned earlier. Much of Western and Northern Europe (which contains most of the world's 1st World Nations) are pretty darn secular in nature, despite their Judeo-Christian roots.
But the United States and Israel are NOT that secular. If an extremist religion is in any real danger of taking over ANYWHERE it's the rightwing parties in the U.S. and in Israel that are influenced by Christianity and Judaism respectively. There are some crazies in both countries and, more importantly, THOSE two countries are far more capable of causing harm than any petty, third world, Islamic dictator. Fundies take it literally......as for your last paragraph....er you seem to be channelling hartsickdiscple.
[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] A majority of it's present incarnations are, true, but that doesn't mean that such a thing is unique to any particular religion. Christianity and Judaisim have both done this in the past, and certainly in the former there are some pretty strong indicators that the desire to do so is still there in the U.S. and other places. (Such as the recent "controversy" over birth control in the U.S.)nocoolnamejimOh agreed on history, of course. Talking about modern times I definitely see Islam's desire to take over (particularly in Europe). But you're right that there are some crazies in US politics these days as well. Another difference between the Bible and the Qu'ran is that while the Bible mostly consists of stories, some of them allegorical, the Qu'ran is considered the direct words of Allah. It is explicitly telling people how to live their lives and which laws should be in place. There are plenty of Christian groups that still take a strict literal interpretation of the Bible and believe that, for example, many parts of the Old Testament should be followed directly. Definitely concede that it isn't as widespread as those who do so in the Islamic faiths, but I'd argue that they're far more dangerous because of which countries they are in a position to influence. Viewed side by side, I do think that the Islamic influenced countries are more extreme than the Judeo-Christian oriented ones as a whole (with a couple of exceptions, more on this in a minute). But realistically speaking they aren't a threat to TAKE OVER anywhere other than, say, a repeat of Desert Storm. They just do not have the military might to do so, and, frankly, are so far behind the rest of the world that I don't see a path to which they'd catch up without modernization and moderation. Israel by it's lonesome could probably, if it ever REALLY chose to, reduce the rest of the Middle East back to the stone age. They have hundreds of nuclear weapons in their arsenal.
Then, getting beyond that, the U.S. backing them up. And while there is a rising tide of support for Palestine in much of the countries of Western and Northern Europe (widely due to Israel doing a number of things that make their moral high ground a bit more shaky of late) if ANY Islamic country ever invaded a member of NATO, that tide would reverse itself in a HURRY. Long story short: Islamic influenced countries may have the modern day DESIRE to convert the heathens to the truth faith by the sword, but nowhere close to the ABILITY to do so. Which brings us to the two exceptions I mentioned earlier. Much of Western and Northern Europe (which contains most of the world's 1st World Nations) are pretty darn secular in nature, despite their Judeo-Christian roots.
But the United States and Israel are NOT that secular. If an extremist religion is in any real danger of taking over ANYWHERE it's the rightwing parties in the U.S. and in Israel that are influenced by Christianity and Judaism respectively. There are some crazies in both countries and, more importantly, THOSE two countries are far more capable of causing harm than any petty, third world, Islamic dictator.
I've said this before, but Israel IIRC is a world leader in terms of atheists per population.
This wouldn't surprise me actually. The same way that most of the Jews in the U.S. vote for the liberal party but that currently the far-right is pretty ascendent in Israel itself, "the Jews" aren't exactly a monolithic, singular entity anymore than any other religion is. But right now it seems, at least from what I've seen, like the more conservative/fundamentalist segments of the Israeli population uninterested in compromise or diplomacy are running the show.I've said this before, but Israel IIRC is a world leader in terms of atheists per population.
pie-junior
The Cult of Gozer.
[QUOTE="pie-junior"]This wouldn't surprise me actually. The same way that most of the Jews in the U.S. vote for the liberal party but that currently the far-right is pretty ascendent in Israel itself, "the Jews" aren't exactly a monolithic, singular entity anymore than any other religion is. But right now it seems, at least from what I've seen, like the more conservative/fundamentalist segments of the Israeli population uninterested in compromise or diplomacy are running the show.I've said this before, but Israel IIRC is a world leader in terms of atheists per population.
nocoolnamejim
The hawkish tendencies of the Israeli public aren't necessarily correlated with religion (see- Israel beitenu). The Israeli society isn't normally curved in terms of religion. idk, about 60% of the population is an entity sometimes called 'the secular majority'- and is pretty much one of the more socially liberal bodies of population in the world. the rest are 'minorities' that consist of groups that are far more religious -but are also traditionally not matched with zionism or the Israeli right wing (arabs and ultra orthodox jews).
the only exception is a group called 'religious zionism', that despite its impact and publicity- is really very small (~10%).
i don't see why either religion can't work in modern times. there's a lot of horrible stuff in the bible that christians don't follow anymore, so saying the quran is more radical is silly.
the thing holding back islam's modernization is the radicals in the m.e., which is a product of political and cultural factors, not the religion itself.
This wouldn't surprise me actually. The same way that most of the Jews in the U.S. vote for the liberal party but that currently the far-right is pretty ascendent in Israel itself, "the Jews" aren't exactly a monolithic, singular entity anymore than any other religion is. But right now it seems, at least from what I've seen, like the more conservative/fundamentalist segments of the Israeli population uninterested in compromise or diplomacy are running the show.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="pie-junior"]
I've said this before, but Israel IIRC is a world leader in terms of atheists per population.
pie-junior
The hawkish tendencies of the Israeli public aren't necessarily correlated with religion (see- Israel beitenu). The Israeli society isn't normally curved in terms of religion. idk, about 60% of the population is an entity sometimes called 'the secular majority'- and is pretty much one of the more socially liberal bodies of population in the world. the rest are 'minorities' that consist of groups that are far more religious -but are also traditionally not matched with zionism or the Israeli right wing (arabs and ultra orthodox jews).
the only exception is a group called 'religious zionism', that despite its impact and publicity- is really very small (~10%).
Interesting. I learned something new today. You alluded to the impact of the religious zionism adherents (10%). How much of an ability to influence public policy does this group have? There are some pretty small groups of people in the U.S. that have an extremely outsized impact on U.S. public policy afterall.And Africa, and South East asia, but it's not the religion it's politics and culture :roll: like the annoying hood women make themselves wear even when they escape that are and come to EU or U.S., which is the religion.i don't see why either religion can't work in modern times. there's a lot of horrible stuff in the bible that christians don't follow anymore, so saying the quran is more radical is silly.
the thing holding back islam's modernization is the radicals in the m.e., which is a product of political and cultural factors, not the religion itself.
rocinante_
[QUOTE="rocinante_"]And Africa, and South East asia, but it's not the religion it's politics and culture :roll: like the annoying hood women make themselves wear even when they escape that are and come to EU or U.S., which is the religion.i don't see why either religion can't work in modern times. there's a lot of horrible stuff in the bible that christians don't follow anymore, so saying the quran is more radical is silly.
the thing holding back islam's modernization is the radicals in the m.e., which is a product of political and cultural factors, not the religion itself.
FreddyJeffery
ok, i should've said "all islam radicals" and not just limit my statement to the m.e.
and yes, that would be a product of culture...becasue, ya know, they come from a culture that demands that women wear the burqa. there are islam women who don't wear the burqa, so the religion is not solely the reason why women wear it.
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] This wouldn't surprise me actually. The same way that most of the Jews in the U.S. vote for the liberal party but that currently the far-right is pretty ascendent in Israel itself, "the Jews" aren't exactly a monolithic, singular entity anymore than any other religion is. But right now it seems, at least from what I've seen, like the more conservative/fundamentalist segments of the Israeli population uninterested in compromise or diplomacy are running the show.nocoolnamejim
The hawkish tendencies of the Israeli public aren't necessarily correlated with religion (see- Israel beitenu). The Israeli society isn't normally curved in terms of religion. idk, about 60% of the population is an entity sometimes called 'the secular majority'- and is pretty much one of the more socially liberal bodies of population in the world. the rest are 'minorities' that consist of groups that are far more religious -but are also traditionally not matched with zionism or the Israeli right wing (arabs and ultra orthodox jews).
the only exception is a group called 'religious zionism', that despite its impact and publicity- is really very small (~10%).
Interesting. I learned something new today. You alluded to the impact of the religious zionism adherents (10%). How much of an ability to influence public policy does this group have? There are some pretty small groups of people in the U.S. that have an extremely outsized impact on U.S. public policy afterall. its because of the way the party system works, , and yes, they have influence, both in the Likud and Bayit Yehudi , (which if the polls are right, are going to be 1st and 3rd in terms of seats in the coming elections). there is also generally higher level of religous and social conservatism among Sfaradim ( but then , who is what isn't that clear anymore) although when he says Israel has alot of athiests , its not as simple as that, its not as though the term secular and athiest are the same.And Africa, and South East asia, but it's not the religion it's politics and culture :roll: like the annoying hood women make themselves wear even when they escape that are and come to EU or U.S., which is the religion.[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="rocinante_"]
i don't see why either religion can't work in modern times. there's a lot of horrible stuff in the bible that christians don't follow anymore, so saying the quran is more radical is silly.
the thing holding back islam's modernization is the radicals in the m.e., which is a product of political and cultural factors, not the religion itself.
rocinante_
ok, i should've said "all islam radicals" and not just limit my statement to the m.e.
and yes, that would be a product of culture...becasue, ya know, they come from a culture that demands that women wear the burqa. there are islam women who don't wear the burqa, so the religion is not solely the reason why women wear it.
Wearing head scarves was a practice that Islamic expansionists gained from the sufis in south asiaPlease Log In to post.
Log in to comment