Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

The main problems with the major religions?  They're just too old.

While the sentiments expressed in, say, the bible may have been progressive back then, the zeitgeist has moved a long way.  For instance, it is no longer acceptable to beat your wife or sell your daughter into slavery.  Nor is it acceptable to kill homosexuals, or to keep slaves of other races, or to execute people for minor crimes.

I do not hold these commands against the people who originally wrote the books.  For their time, they were moral.  Considering the atmosphere of war and racial tension they were in, they were progressive.  This does not, however, mean that they necessarily provide a good guide for modern life.  The Koran, for instance, has a lot of warlike verses since much of it was written while the writers' nations were at war.  That is why some of the actions God performs in the old testament seem abhorrant - he is behaving in what would have been regarded as an acceptable way thousands of years ago, and the writers would have based his actions on their own morals.

Even if people claim that their morality comes from their religion, you can usually tell that it doesn't.  You can point out rules they don't follow - outdated rules, rules that seem terrible today.  Why don't they follow them?  Because they are inherently moral and, to their credit, know which parts of their holy book to follow and which not to.

Muslims don't have clergy. At least no OFFICIAL clergy.

Christians don't have official clergy either.  None of them are sanctioned by God or the writers of the bible.  The catholic church are ancient descendants of the Holy Roman Empire while the Anglican Church was set up by Henry VIII in a dispute over a divorce.

[Zironic]

America has a religion - It's called being Amair-Rik-Cun. We are willing to pointlessly die for our Amair Rick Cun beliefs. Except, we don't blow ourselves up - we have missiles and bombs to do that. Our self sacrifice is in the form of obesity. We celebrate our beliefs with massive food parties full of cake and fried foods - hoping we die of a heart attack so that we know we died the Amair Rik Cun way!

No, seriously, Nationalism is a religion that can be worshipped alongside other ones. I personally am ultra nationalistic.

[Leafsnail]

It's pretty difficult to find British patriotism outside of football fans and fascist groups.

[Zironic]

It's pretty hard not to find American patriotism. Especially in the middle states. I mean the west and east coast will throw parties (mostly west coast) but otherwise, we don't really care 75% of the time.

[Rvlion]

What.

Muslims don't have clergy. At least no OFFICIAL clergy.
We are free. Free to interpret, not like the inqui- NOBODY EXPECT THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

Nobody is denying the evil past of medieval Europe, during this time the narrow minded religions ruled the nations and due to loads of inbreeding among the nobility not brain power.
Anyway from what I could read on wiki about the Spanish Inquisition is that even though they had “a forced permission” from the pope it was the power hungry nobility who ordered the Inquisition and not solely the religious leaders.

I like to think that in current days European “democracies” this would not be possible anymore.

Taking the country of Iran as example in which each law which is changed has to be approved by government officials who walk hand in hand with the Ayatollah?
In this case the Ayatollah has the most power in the land, not the government.
For Iran the highest religious leader is known. I cannot believe however that other countries don’t have similar religious leaders or people claiming to be a religious leader just to have a lot of power.

With what I am about to write now I do not wish to be disrespectful and these examples are not only an Islamic problem, but can be a problem for anyplace a religion gets way to much political power in a government. Be it local, provincial or the whole country.

Are you truly free? Can both men and women for example wear the clothing that they want; when they want to wear it and mostly any place they want to wear it? Or are there some limitations.
Also how are the rules about non-married couples who walk together in public or living together?

[Muz]

I would suggest that islamic law is their rotten apple. Take adultery for example, the crime is personal, why should the punishment be public?
[

I must agree with you that some portions of Islamic law looks like it was copy/pasted from any random medieval European country in the 5th century, but is that a reason to hate them for it? I believe in some Islamic countries the crime of stealing is still punished by chopping of the thiefs hand(s). To be honest… I love that law even though it is cruel (provided no health benefits are given to that person for “repairing” his hand). Capital punishment or also Legal killing is the same, a true ancient pre-medieval concept which is still used in large portions of the (civilized) world. Even a country like the USA still uses it. While I agree with using it mostly for saving feeding money for pedofiles/sex offenders/murderers/drugs dealers it is and shall always remain an ancient concept.
Just like the public stoning the Islamic people do or the witchburnings/chopping of heads/hangings in the medieval times.

Heh, I did a bit of Islamic philosophy and a gen. ed course in Islamic Law in uni, so I suppose I have a bit of a say on this. First, the main problem is the interpretation of Islamic law. The Koran specifically mentions that the punishment for adultery is 100 whippings. And by "adultery", it's not simply making out.. it's about two people having sex in front of three witnesses who are disgusted enough to testify against them. And porn clips don't count, it has to be right in front of people - so, the only way they could actually punish someone for adultery is if those two people had sex in public somewhere.

But somehow, the "100 whippings" punishment was changed to "stoned to death". And some bloodthirsty people made it more and more lenient that it's easy to accuse people of adultery.

The big problem is that there's a reference with very little reliability.. pretty much quoting someone who claimed that Muhammad said something. Ironically, this flaw in religion is a flaw in the scientific method itself.. just as long as you have some "reference", you could get away with making up almost anything. It's impossible to check what Muhammad really said, but some people with degrees in it can just make up whatever the hell they want, and nobody can question them. If enough people actually think logically and question them.. that's where sects come from.

[Leafsnail]

I'm still not sure that all the devil's in the interpretation.  The lines about killing gays are pretty unambiguous (and, to be honest, the defence of just "being old" isn't really good enough.  People are basing their lives on it today).

[Sergius]

There are "so many coincidences" because million-to-one events are bound to happen pretty damn often when you have a billion chances of them per day. Also, you tend to remember when things are unusual a lot more than you remember when they aren't.

What is the probability of life evolving on Earth as it is now? I'd argue that the chances are 1 in 1.

[Ampersand]

This whole thread long, I've felt like this.

http://xkcd.com/386/

[Sergius]

I recall some of the pharaohs claiming to be gods. That would have been before christianity. I doubt you could find any historical evidence to suggest that it has ever existed without a concentration of power but there isn't really any evidence at all so any claims I make are inconsequential.

You see pharaohs… I see power mongers who pre-date the other mayor religions…

Yes but from looking at them, it's easier to deduce that they're pharaohs than to figure out they're power mongers. It's the hat, you see.

[Jreengus]

Capital punishment or also Legal killing is the same, a true ancient pre-medieval concept which is still used in large portions of the (civilized) world. Even a country like the USA still uses it. While I agree with using it mostly for saving feeding money for pedofiles/sex offenders/murderers/drugs dealers

Hmmm minor pet peeve of mine here, it takes more money to kill someone than imprison them for life.

[Sergius]

I must agree with you that some portions of Islamic law looks like it was copy/pasted from any random medieval European country in the 5th century, but is that a reason to hate them for it?

Another problem with religious people, is that they always equate criticism to hatred and persecution.

On the other hand...

I believe in some Islamic countries the crime of stealing is still punished by chopping of the thiefs hand(s). To be honest… I love that law even though it is cruel (provided no health benefits are given to that person for “repairing” his hand).

You answered your own question.

[Andir]

Capital punishment or also Legal killing is the same, a true ancient pre-medieval concept which is still used in large portions of the (civilized) world. Even a country like the USA still uses it. While I agree with using it mostly for saving feeding money for pedofiles/sex offenders/murderers/drugs dealers

Hmmm minor pet peeve of mine here, it takes more money to kill someone than imprison them for life.

Are you sure about that?  It costs me $13 to buy a box of 9mm ammo.  That's more than enough.

[Jreengus]

Yes, but that's called murder.

For it be legal they have to be pretty damn sure the person didn't do it. And that means trial after expensive trial, hearing after expensive hearing. And then they still go and kill a few innocent people by accident.

[Cthulhu]

Yeah, it costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life.  A lot of the time the person never even gets executed, they just sit on death row forever.