Porn, the middle east, and the age of Christianity vs Islam's age

[leo]

Well, I haven't claimed to be, but I would guess that I probably know significantly more about it than you.  I could certainly being wrong about that, but I doubt it.  In any case, it doesn't require that I be an authority on Islam.  These things are not hard to search out by doing even just a cursory study of the religion.  I would suggest doing more than simply doing a cursory study, but the point is to check it out and get some real knowledge and understanding.  Check out the Qur'an, the Sunna, the Hadith, etc...

You should  check your bible. The old testament is as violent as the koran.

[Odoital778412]

We can't look at two or three religions that have had violent pasts and conclude all religions follow the path of Christianity.  It's tempting but it's a non sequitur.

You are correct, and since I didn't claim such a thing, we are in full agreement.

Christianity didn't stop being violent until western culture no longer allowed it ultimate power.

Well, there is a distinction to be made here.  Did violence take place at the hand of and often in the name of the Christian God?  Yes, I think that is clear.  The next question is this.  Was that violence in harmony with the Christian scriptures and follow the example of Christ, or were they in contrast to the same?  And lastly, I would urge you to ask yourself what part of that violence is rightly attributed to the founder and teachings within the Christian scripture, and what part likely stems from the men being men of their day and time with the moral development and understanding of their day and time.  When put in perspective, while there is still a need to grapple with the genuine wrong that was done, Christianity emerges looking far different than the purveyor of religious evil it is often taken to be.

In contrast, you can trace Muslim violence, not merely to the day & time of its followers, but you can trace it back to its core philosophical underpinnings, the life of its foundering (i.e. the prophet Muhammed), and the core understood prescriptive doctrines, theology, law, and accepted traditions drawn directly from their most authoritative religious texts (i.e. Qur'an, Sunna, Hadith).

It has nothing to do with the religion of Christianity naturally evolving into a more peaceful religion on it's own.

I agree, and that wasn't the case that I made either.  It may be true that Christianity became more peaceful when the teachings and traditions of men were self-consciously removed, but that wasn't what I was addressing with regard to Christianity or Islam.  I was simply pointing out the fact that both Christianity and Islam have both had reformations that were similar, in that they sought to get back to the core or pure teachings of the revelation of God itself.  Within Christianity, this turned out to be a very helpful change, as it through off a lot of the corruptions of men.  However, in the case of Islam, it simply returned them to the pure brutality and subjugatory nature of the original Islam, as founded by the prophet Muhammed.

Without restraints from society, there is no reason to think Christianity wouldn't be imposing itself on the world as it did during the inquisition.

The lessening of abuse on the part of Christians has more to do with an increase in our understanding of how to apply the moral law over time than it does anything else.  You could call that restraints from society, but that is essentially the same thing since the culture of 300 to 500 years ago was infused and suffused with Christian influence and teaching.  In addition, there is no prescriptive teaching in the New Testament that can rightly be applied to a forced conversion process. 

Nor can we say that societies naturally evolve into more peaceful societies.  Western culture evolved over 700 years toward a slightly more peaceful society and then came Hitler and Stalin, and American style freedom is fragile and tentative at best.  Just look at forces trying to destroy it right now from within.

While I don't know if this can be taken as incontrovertibly true, I think I can agree with you.  I doubt that western society would have evolved in the way that it did with regard to peace and freedom without the existence of Christianity.  So I would tend to agree, that it was probably unlikely to happen naturally.  Having said that, this is a probabilistic view rather than a necessary or purely logical conclusion.  Oh, and as an aside, Western culture was developing for longer than 700 years before Hitler and Stalin.

So we can't say evolutions of societies or evolutions of religions all follow natural paths toward openness, peace, and freedom.  The Arab world went from the center of intellectual achievement to the backwards system it is today.  There was no linear progression at all.  I think we would all like to believe such a linear progression for the entire world exists, myself included, but I don't see enough data to convince me that this is true.

Well, here you're responding to a case that I didn't and wasn't making.  Having said that, a helpful book that does touch on the differing paths that Islam could've taken but didn't is The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis by Robert R. Reilly.  I would highly encourage you and others to check it out.

[Odoital778412]

It might be worth noting that Islam is at about the same age that Catholicism was when the Inquisition really took off.  It might be a trait of proselytizing religions, a 15th century itch, something like that.

It might also be worth noting that during the 15th century AD you had the introduction of movable type printing in Europe, and during the 15th century AH you had the introduction of wide public usage of the Internet and the World Wide Web.  I cannot help but wonder if the sudden ability to get ideas from far afield of one's church or mosque triggered the violent and repressive reactions from the respective religious authorities.

I think you're keying in on an important reason why Islamic ideology has spread so rapidly across so much of the world that it couldn't before due to linguistic and communication difficulties that were eased and/or erased by the invention and spread of the internet from 1994 onward.

[Odoital778412]

Call me a heretic, but I feel that atheists tend to have this very biased view that scientists were (and are) all that influential, or at least just-as influential, then the slew of huge name reformists who weren't (and aren't) scientists.

It wasn't the science of John Locke or Descartes that lead to change, but the philosophy. Spinoza and Rousseau were huge influences on the secularization of the society, and yet they were not scientists at all. Nor were Voltaire, Hume, Petrarca scientists. And men like Martin Luther and Henry VIII caused huge rifts in the church and changed the idea of the infallibility of the church.

The Renaissance's greatest influence on secularization had almost nothing to do with science, and I'm not sure why people consider that a huge part of it. The hugest thing was a rediscovering of the Greek classics that emphasized the beauty of man. And during this time you see art boom with murals and paintings and sculptures that exalt man as this divine being, which was a huge shift from the previous hundreds of years in Christdom where man was worthless and pathetic to god.

I'm not saying science doesn't play a part, it certainly does, but it is education in general and, more importantly, art and philosophy that have had extreme influences on the changing mindset of society since the medieval times.

I think we want to look at society and said, "Factor A + B caused the change", whereas the simple truth is that society is never as simple as that. It is more like, "Factor A, B, C, D, E, F, G... AA, BBB, CCCCCC, GGGGGGGGGG, all combined, changed society.".

Science has largely dismissed the contributions of philosophy, though I'm sure that would be denied.  But if one just reads a little ways into Hawking's The Grand Design to get a sense of that.  It leaves us with an entirely deterministic universe, in which everything, including the contents of the book itself, become meaningless.

[Odoital778412]

If it makes you feel any better... the part of the United States I live in, the family I live in, would agree that wearing mini-skirts means you had getting raped coming.

Fortunately, I don't know anyone like that, but I do know people that would agree that it's not a good idea to unduly entice or otherwise tempt whatever rapists might be out there.

[drunkenshoe]

Well, there is a distinction to be made here.  Did violence take place at the hand of and often in the name of the Christian God?  Yes, I think that is clear.  The next question is this.  Was that violence in harmony with the Christian scriptures and follow the example of Christ, or were they in contrast to the same?  And lastly, I would urge you to ask yourself what part of that violence is rightly attributed to the founder and teachings within the Christian scripture, and what part likely stems from the men being men of their day and time with the moral development and understanding of their day and time.  When put in perspective, while there is still a need to grapple with the genuine wrong that was done, Christianity emerges looking far different than the purveyor of religious evil it is often taken to be.

In contrast, you can trace Muslim violence, not merely to the day & time of its followers, but you can trace it back to its core philosophical underpinnings, the life of its foundering (i.e. the prophet Muhammed), and the core understood prescriptive doctrines, theology, law, and accepted traditions drawn directly from their most authoritative religious texts (i.e. Qur'an, Sunna, Hadith).
I agree, and that wasn't the case that I made either.  It may be true that Christianity became more peaceful when the teachings and traditions of men were self-consciously removed, but that wasn't what I was addressing with regard to Christianity or Islam.  I was simply pointing out the fact that both Christianity and Islam have both had reformations that were similar, in that they sought to get back to the core or pure teachings of the revelation of God itself.  Within Christianity, this turned out to be a very helpful change, as it through off a lot of the corruptions of men.  However, in the case of Islam, it simply returned them to the pure brutality and subjugatory nature of the original Islam, as founded by the prophet Muhammed.

The lessening of abuse on the part of Christians has more to do with an increase in our understanding of how to apply the moral law over time than it does anything else.  You could call that restraints from society, but that is essentially the same thing since the culture of 300 to 500 years ago was infused and suffused with Christian influence and teaching.

[drunkenshoe]

Fortunately, I don't know anyone like that, but I do know people that would agree that it's not a good idea to unduly entice or otherwise tempt whatever rapists might be out there.

You just presented someone who thinks like that. Yourself.

E: Don't dare to come back with 'I said I do know people..."

[Odoital778412]

                                                                                                                                                     You should  check your bible. The old testament is as violent as the koran.

Again, distinctions are important, otherwise we are believing false things and purveying untruths.  I'm sure you'd rather not do that.

1) The Old Testament was prescriptive for the Jews, and not prescriptive for Christians in the same way.

2) The violence in the Old Testament occurred as a specific period in history and was never considered to be prescriptive for the Jews into the future.  They were specific commands for that day.

3) Many of the violent commands and teachings in the Qur'an, Sunna, and Hadith are considered prescriptive from the time of Muhammed and on into the future.  In addition, the later and more violent teachings of the Prophet are considered to possess a greater prescriptive authority than the more peaceful passages from earlier in His life.

4) You cannot find the examples of violence you cite in the life of Christ, which is at least partially responsible for the tendency amongst Christians to favor peace and even to the point of falling into error on the side of pacifism.

Keep these kinds of things in mind when you decide to make easy comparisons devoid of appropriate context.

[leo]

I think you are into something here. Maybe he is a Poe.

[Odoital778412]

You just presented someone who thinks like that. Yourself.

E: Don't dare to come back with 'I said I do know people..."

Um, no I didn't.  The idea that a woman deserves to be raped because of the clothes she is wearing is reprehensible and immoral.  The idea that it is not a good idea to entice or tempt someone who might be given to harming you by wearing something excessively revealing is at least something to think about in terms of prudence.  If you think those two things are the same or identical, then I'm not sure what can be done.  All I can do is clearly state that they are not the same, and that I do not hold to the view you suggest.  I would appreciate it if you would attempt to avoid misrepresenting me in the future.

[drunkenshoe]

The way he writes, the way he uses sentences and the way he is deflecting, taking turns, squeezing preachings between... actually saying nothing, but just preaching; spewing bullshit around. They all sound the same. They all speak exactly the same. Muslim, Christian... And they all think they are different. 

"Tempting rapists". And this man is a cop.

[drunkenshoe]

Um, no I didn't.  The idea that a woman deserves to be raped because of the clothes she is wearing is reprehensible and immoral.  The idea that it is not a good idea to entice or tempt someone who might be given to harming you by wearing something excessively revealing is at least something to think about in terms of prudence. If you think those two things are the same or identical, then I'm not sure what can be done.  All I can do is clearly state that they are not the same, and that I do not hold to the view you suggest.  I would appreciate it if you would attempt to avoid misrepresenting me in the future.

You represent yourself very good. You just have no idea what is wrong with it. Which fits your position perfectly.

You are full of toxic shit and you are spewing that around with a way of speaking that turns my stomach upside down that I can hear with exactly the same delivery, same shit salad, if I turn on some TV channel, here, in a muslim country. Don't expect any respect from me.

[drunkenshoe]

                                                                                                                                         I think you are into something here. Maybe he is a Poe.

I don't think so. Esp. not after that 'tempting rapists' statements. He is a believer of an Abrahamic religion alright.

[leo]

Again, distinctions are important, otherwise we are believing false things and purveying untruths.  I'm sure you'd rather not do that.

1) The Old Testament was prescriptive for the Jews, and not prescriptive for Christians in the same way.

2) The violence in the Old Testament occurred as a specific period in history and was never considered to be prescriptive for the Jews into the future.  They were specific commands for that day.

3) Many of the violent commands and teachings in the Qur'an, Sunna, and Hadith are considered prescriptive from the time of Muhammed and on into the future.  In addition, the later and more violent teachings of the Prophet are considered to possess a greater prescriptive authority than the more peaceful passages from earlier in His life.

4) You cannot find the examples of violence you cite in the life of Christ, which is at least partially responsible for the tendency amongst Christians to favor peace and even to the point of falling into error on the side of pacifism.

Keep these kinds of things in mind when you decide to make easy comparisons devoid of appropriate context.

1)  The Old Testament is considered the  infallible word of god by all christians. In the Old Testament you find Yahweh ( war god ) commanded to kill everyone that break his stupid rules. Your god is okay with slavery , killing rival tribes and raping the other tribes women .  The truth is that christards cherry pick from the Old Testament passages that suit their agenda. Paul the creator of christianity is the one that made up the concept that christians can ignore the Old Testament rules.                                                                                       2. WRONG. The Old Testament rules are meant to be follow by all jews generations. The Jews don't think Yahweh would change his mind
3. Muhammed created islam mixing the old pagan arab elements with Judaism and some elements of
Christianity. Again there isn't difference between Koran  and the Old Testament.                                                         4. Jesus claimed he never came to abolished the old law.  He came to fulfill the old law. He also claimed to bring the sword instead of peace. The history of christianity contradict your bullshit assertions about Christians. Your  claim of how peaceful christians are is a huge joke. Maybe some christians are peaceful but many of them aren't.                                                                                 

[Odoital778412]

1)  The Old Testament is considered the  infallible word of god by all christians. In the Old Testament you find Yahweh ( war god ) commanded to kill everyone that break his stupid rules. Your god is okay with slavery , killing rival tribes and raping the other tribes women .  The truth is that christards cherry pick from the Old Testament passages that suit their agenda. Paul the creator of christianity is the one that made up the concept that christians can ignore the Old Testament rules.

This is false.  It is not true that all Christians hold to the concept of infallibility.  There are two general concepts regarding the Bible's accuracy (i.e. 1. Infallibility & 2. Inerrancy).  To the extent that all Christians hold to one of these two concepts, most hold to inerrancy, not infallibility.  IN addition, these are significantly differing concepts that would require actual study of the topic for you to understand.  Entire book length treatments have been written.  Additionally, it should be pointed out that there are Christians who hold to neither of these concepts.  Please keep that in mind before making pronouncements.  The rest of what you said is simply not true.  All people who broke God's law were not killed or commanded to be killed.  Failure to condemn an act or an institution does not equate to approval.  That is a non-sequitar.  Paul was not the only writer of the New Testament, and Jesus was probably the primary person responsible for the distinction between the Old & New Testaments.  In addition, if you want to object to someone's point of view or religion, you're going to have to do so on the basis of wha they actually believe.  You cannot simply arrive with a caricature of your own creation and pretend that it is a Christian view.  God made a covenant with the Jews that did not include gentiles.  He also made a New Convenant with humanity more broadly through Jesus Christ.  He also communicated with humanity through revelation at particular times.  Both in terms of time gaps and in terms of the changing or New Convenant, as well as for various other logical, philosophical, and theological reasons; the division between the Old & New Testament is entirely justified.  Your ignorance on the topic does not constitute a legitimate objection.

2. WRONG. The Old Testament rules are meant to be follow by all jews generations. The Jews don't think Yahweh would change his mind.

This is false.  The commands to kill particular people or groups of people were prescriptive for a specific period of time.  This is not a controversial statement.  As for some of the more violent aspects of the law, I think you are probably correct.  Having said that, many of the Jews rejected their Messiah and have seen fit to infuse and suffuse it with the teachings of men.  In so doing, they do follow different standards today than they did then.  Having said that, it has nothing to do with Christianity, as Christians aren't bound by the Jewish civil and ceremonial laws.

3. Muhammed created islam mixing the old pagan arab elements with Judaism and some elements of Christianity. Again there isn't difference between Koran and the Old Testament.

You description of what Muhammed did is relatively accurate.  Your understanding beyond that is almost nonexistent.  There are significant differences between the Qur'an and the Old Testament.  In the first place, Jews do not have a prescriptive theology of violence.  Islam does.  In the second place, the Old Testament is not considered to be the final revelation of God to mankind by either the Jews, Christians, or the Muslims, but the Qur'an is considered to be the final and perfect word of God to man by Muslims.  Those two major differences alone set them apart substantially.  They are also set part by the languages in which they were recorded, as well as historical and manuscript attestation.  That they are both Holy books descended or related to the Abrahamic faith is about as far as it goes.

4. Jesus claimed he never came to abolished the old law.  He came to fulfill the old law. He also claimed to bring the sword instead of peace. The history of christianity contradict your bullshit assertions about Christians. Your  claim of how peaceful christians are is a huge joke. Maybe some christians are peaceful but many of them aren't.

Yes, he fulfilled or brought what the Old Testament law looked forward to into fruition in the provision of His life for our sin. This fact does not mean that we must still follow laws that look forward to something that has already happened.  This is an uncontroversial piece of Christian theology.  Your desire and willingness to re-define it for your own purposes doesn't do anything to make it true.  And yes, Christ did say that He came to bring the sword, and He was clear in the sense that He meant it to.  He did not mean and it has never been understood that He was advocating that Christians do violence, but He was indicating and warning that following Him had the potential to set you against your wife, children, mother, father, brother, sister, and friends.  In other words, If you follow Him, it may cost you everything that you hold dear.  Again, your misconstrual of a long held and widely understood concept within Christianity won't do anything to change its actual meaning or how Christians understand it.  I suggest you attempt to represent those with whom you disagree, fairly.  The dishonesty with which you are currently operating simply undermines your case.