The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom 303 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Jonathan Drake

  As an analogy . . .

  Right-wing Conservatives see gun violence as isolated incidents by mentally unstable persons, RATHER THAN an indictment of all gun-owners. In fact, they get very pissed off when Liberals make that connection.

  This assigning of total culpability to an entire group is just another manifestation of the Muslim/terrorist issue, according to Aslan.

  I agree 100% with this. It's spot on. 

  Ive watched half of the debate so far, and Aslan is on point. I don't hear him saying anything I disagree with so far. Ive made a similar argument to the one he makes about history elsewhere on the forum but he does it with far superior articulation and a much more educated stand. I'll be reading all of his books pretty much immediately.
• 

  Simon

  The problem Islam has is that there aren't just a handful of mentally unstable individuals which is the equivalency argument some often make i.e. "well christians bomb abortion clinics" (consider the scale and frequency). There are whole countries full of people following religious inspired laws that enact barbaric punishments for the slightest of crimes. People are maimed and killed for nothing more than "who they are". Having the wrong race / gender / sexuality / beliefs in many muslim countries is a death sentence.

  However much people want to claim otherwise, the evidence is that these extreme views are shared by at least a sizeable segment of muslims and in many cases a majority. They are extreme in the beliefs but that doesn't mean it is a small number of people who hold them (unfortunately).

  The fact that people can't criticize or question the dogma without fear of losing their life proves it. Aslan even admits that people live in fear of their lives in Muslim countries if they speak out against many things. This is where I think he's a little slimy - he knows the reality but choses to side with his religious beliefs over truth and refuses to make that final and blindingly obvious connection that it may have something to do with Islam itself.

  Arguing whether those people's version of islam is the right or wrong one is nonsensical - it is the version they believe so "is" Islam for any intent. Christianity doesn't follow the bible - do you want to judge it on what it does or what it reads from? If they are different and the differences in action are for the better then that's good. If both are bad then I think it's reasonable to consider that there may be a connection.

  It reminds me a little of the German claim "we didn't want the war" ... yet somehow they managed to raise an army. I don't believe the claims that Islam is a religion of peace when it seems at the centre of so much barbarity and killing.
• 

  William Penwell

  I listened to the interview with Reza Aslan. A couple of points I noted. He said that the scholar Josephus refers to Jesus. This passage is believed to have been added centuries later by Christian scholars.  When he refers to the gospel accounts he says, "The Gospel accounts are based on revealing truths, not facts". Again the statement doesn't make sense. It comes down to believing something based on faith not facts. I like how he also said there were dozens of messiahs during the time of Jesus that were all persecuted and crucified. Like the interviewer added, why was this man Jesus any more special?   
• 

  Simon

  Like the interviewer added, why was this man Jesus any more special?

  Yeah, whichever one they picked would then be special in that he was picked to become the basis for the stories and myths.

  It would be more accurate to say that he was special in that regard, but certainly not unique.
• 

  cofty

  Terry - I don't go along with the gun control analogy.

  Every Muslim is obliged to submit to every word of the quran as the very words of god. There is no tradition of liberal theology in Islam, the most basic rules of the faith forbid it.

  It is true that Muslims who are prepared to kill others in order to promote their beliefs are a relatively small minority. However these are the ones who are being most obedient to the words of Mo. JD is right in claiming that Mo was conciliatory in the early days. His most vitriolic stuff comes later once he gained enough followers.

  Outside that smaller circle is a much larger one containing conservative Muslims. This represents millions of people who actually believe that sharia law is a suitable guide for life in the 21st century. This is the domain of misogyny, female genital mutilation, confinement of women inside the home, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, denial of education to girls and wife-beating (Mo recommends it). Look at any country that is ruled by conservative Muslim principles. It is socially backward and oppressive.

  Beyond that circle is the majority of Muslims who are a lot like the majority of JWs. They just want to raise their families and be enjoy life. They probably know very little about the quran in their own language but they believe what they have been taught about piety and charity. 

  The challenge is how these silent millions can claim their new enlightened version of Islam. 

  
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  I don't go along with the gun control analogy - me neither. Simon's German analogy seems better. It's seems obvious to say that Nazism had something to do with Germans, even though not all Germans were Nazis.

  Criticising Islam or calling for reformation is in no way attacking muslims as a whole, in the same way that criticising or ridiculing the Catholic church or WTS is not attacking catholics or JWs.

  People talk about the fact that there's such a diverse range of Islamic interpretations as if that's something wonderful. I couldn't disagree more. Diversity isn't always 'enriching'. All I want is for Islam to acknowledge its place within Western society, something that is yet to happen.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  I don't go along with the gun control analogy - me neither. Simon's German analogy seems better. It's seems obvious to say that Nazism had something to do with Germans, even though not all Germans were Nazis. 
  

  Criticising Islam or calling for reformation is in no way attacking muslims as a whole, in the same way that criticising or ridiculing the Catholic church or WTS is not attacking catholics or JWs.

  People talk about the fact that there's such a diverse range of Islamic interpretations as if that's something wonderful. I couldn't disagree more. Diversity isn't always 'enriching'. All I want is for Islam to acknowledge its place within Western society, something that is yet to happen.

  
  

  I could see this, because it's also true that the Qurans words ARE IN FACT being used even though they are being MISUSED. So in a sense the German to Nazi comparison does sound good but in a sense it does not. People like to claim that millions of Muslims may not be ISIS but that they agree with their actions. This is absolutely not true. Just because many Germans in Germany didn't speak out against Naziism doesn't mean they supported them - it means they understood of they spoke out they'd be killed. 

  The center of the Muslim world is right there in the same region with ISIS. Therefore the majority will not speak out, because they will die if they do. However, all around the world in farther away lands they are fearlessly condemning these people. So even if we can say that the Germany illustration fits, we are really just agreeing that that the majority do not support the radicalism the few are displaying. 

  also, naziism had nothing to do with Germans. Hitlers ascension to power was a mischievous one where his true intentions were at first difficult to see. Once he had power things went wrong fast if I remember correctly. The issue wasn't all of Germany, just the one German. Just like the issue with radical Islam isn't all of Islam, just the one leading radicalist.
• 

  TerryWalstrom

  As a more general argument, in a crowd of 100, one man with a bomb asserts far more

  influence than the 99 peaceful victims. 

  So what?

  So, the % of peaceful to violent is irrelevant.

  Let's add another layer . . .

  In a crowd of 100 religious worshippers, it still only takes one fundamentalist who regards the 99 as wishy-washy to wreak havoc. Indeed, hard-liners are most often enemies of their own religion.

  Another point to consider . . . 

  It isn't unusual for hard-line fundamentalists to 'flock together' into an uber-community of  fringe devout. Logically, they'll incite each other's worst instincts.

  Now watch what happens. 

  Let's make our 100 groups instead of individuals.

  In a country of 100 religious communities, it only takes that one violent group to create widespread mayhem while the 99 other groups look on in horror. Mind you--these are all the same nominal religion.

  What does all this prove?

  Whatever other countries and religious groups might conclude about this religion, the real harm is actually only being wrought by the 1% and not the 99%.

  What are we to infer from the above?

  Just as in the case of mentally disturbed individuals with weapons, (who may belong to fringe groups like David Koresh in Waco), the active ingredient is full-blown CRAZY.

  _____________

  I grew up with some crazy people in my family.

  My grandfather put a pistol in my mother's face and threatened to kill her if she didn't agree with him about whether or not a certain family portrait was a bad photo or not.

  Can we say photography was the reason for the threatened violence?

  I have a cousin who invited me to live with her and her husband. When her husband decided to go to a family reunion (which my cousin couldn't attend) she planned to kill all the household pets, shoot her husband when he returned, and spend the rest of her life in prison.

  I assure you, 'family reunion' was NOT the cause of this craziness.

  When I warned my cousin's husband and took steps to get her doctor involved; I was called every vile name in the book and told to get out within 24 hours "or else."

  I did!

  What is my point?

  CRAZY people don't need real reasons for being or doing crazy. They use any pretext as justification.

  Remember the shooter at the premiere of the Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises?

  It wasn't Batman's fault.

  Remember the guy with the book Catcher in the Rye who shot Ronald Reagan?

  It wasn't J.D. Salinger's fault.

  CRAZY is at fault.

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
• 

  cofty

  The issue wasn't all of Germany, just the one German - JDrake

  That simply isn't true. Millions of Germans enthusiastically adopted the belief that they were the chosen race and that those who would contaminate that purity must be eliminated.

  It took one person to ignite the flame but it took a whole nation with few exceptions to make it happen.

  
  
• 

  cofty

  Terry - Muslim terrorists are not crazy. They acting entirely rationally based on an assumption that the quran is literally true.

  Thank god for the benevolent hypocrisy of the vast majority of those who pretend to believe the quran.