The Religion of Peace?

[Jive Turkey]

Here's a definition

"A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism"

What have I said that differs from this and makes me intellectually dishonest?

[Kieran McConville]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

I'm not being intellectually dishonest. Nothing I ever say is dishonest. I'm not a bullshitter. But go ahead an define fundamentalism as you see it.

And you couldn't care less *bwink*

Well that or your preferred sources are. Ok, here is my understanding of the matter:

Yes, of course, the fundamentalists, whether in one of the world's major religious faiths, or in politics, will say they're bringing it back to basics, to the true fundamentals. I'd argue that given their intellectual dispositions and given the enormous timespans (usually) since the founding of the community in question, they are going to get it badly, badly wrong.

They are going to propose a literalised, and thus bowdlerised, version of the thing. You see it in Christianity too, where any reading of the source text that is not informed by some understanding of the historical background in which those texts were compiled is going to veer well off the beaten track sooner or later. Creationism and such nonsense, that has squat to do with anything.

Actually, I'll say this about Islam, I think it has been very poor at reevaluating and shedding light on its source text, at 'biblical scholarship' for lack of a better analogy.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

Well that or your preferred sources are. Ok, here is my understanding of the matter:

Yes, of course, the fundamentalists, whether in one of the world's major religious faiths, or in politics, will say they're bringing it back to basics, to the true fundamentals. I'd argue that given their intellectual dispositions and given the enormous timespans (usually) since the founding of the community in question, they are going to get it badly, badly wrong.

They are going to propose a literalised, and thus bowdlerised, version of the thing. You see it in Christianity too, where any reading of the source text that is not informed by some understanding of the historical background in which those texts were compiled is going to veer well off the beaten track sooner or later. Creationism and such nonsense, that has squat to do with anything.

Actually, I'll say this about Islam, I think it has been very poor at reevaluating and shedding light on its source text, at 'biblical scholarship' for lack of a better analogy.

I'd argue it's intellectually dishonest to write off my view point as such. It's not like I'm presenting you with anything unfalsifiable. Instead of implying I'm trying to pull one over or haven't considered my sources, just address the points

Creationism is nonsense in they they're hijacking recent scientific discoveries and trying to show them as proof of the existence of god; This often takes a deliberate and insincere interpretation of text to shoehorn things in. (among many other things)

But this is what I mean by you guys clouding the water with needlessly complicated definitions and premises. As is the case here, we aren't talking about some possibly symbolic verse, we're talking about pretty straightforward commands. For the entire history of the quran, the penalty for apostasy has been death. It's not like people are reinventing the wheel with this

[BEAL]

I just don't get why people have to live their life based on a book written thousands of years ago. I'm not saying I'm a better person because I don't, but I think the world would be better if they didn't.

[Kieran McConville]

I don't think my description is unnecessarily complex, it's simply saying that there's no reason to take at face value the claims of fundamentalists (of any stripe) to represent the true essence of their worldview. As though such self-definition were uncontested.

With the creationism example, I meant simply that the mythical accounts as given in Genesis were the prior impetus for creationists to go to such a silly effort in the first place.

Death penalty for apostasy, that sounds pretty hardcore alright. No argument there. They must figure they're prosecuting something pretty profound. Which is to say, what else is in the Quran? I assume it doesn't spend 600 pages describing the myriad ways in which the apostate should be slaughtered.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

I'd argue it's intellectually dishonest to write off my view point as such. It's not like I'm presenting you with anything unfalsifiable. Instead of implying I'm trying to pull one over or haven't considered my sources, just address the points

But the premise you're basing the points on is not accurate. You claim that fundamentalists practice the purest form of religion, but that is simply not something that is provable. I'm sure the fundamentalists agree with you, but I doubt you would get the same consensus if you were to poll a roomful of religious scholars, priests, imams, etc.

The Quran says lots of things, as do all holy books, but I don't believe any of them say "only those who follow everything in this book literally are true believers."

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by Diemen

I don't believe any of them say "only those who follow everything in this book literally are true believers."

2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, [literally God-breathed] and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

[Pearl]

I really don't like debates over who's a real Catholic/Jew/Muslim/Hindu/atheist/etc. It's putting people into small boxes when faith is diverse according to each individual. I once worked with a Muslim who had tattoos on his wrists, drank alcohol and even ate pork (now that was a shocker). Yet he observed Ramadan, prayed 5 times a day and was saving up to go to Mecca. Does that mean he really doesn't qualify as a Muslim because of those minor rules over body art and diet? Come on.

And hey, I once knew an atheist who attended Christmas mass with his family, out of respect for them. I knew another one who almost married a devout Catholic. Are they less atheist for doing what they did?

Honestly, the way I see this sort of debate is one group putting down another to feel superior over them, or to form a kind of control over them. Meaning, they're thinking: "hey, that guy isn't really a Christian because he doesn't believe the Bible is the absolute Word of God. I can drill that into him and basically taunt him about it because I can".

Live and let live. If no one being hurt, why bother? Who are you to own another person's beliefs?

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, [literally God-breathed] and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

"All scipture is given by inspiration of God" ≠ "Everything written here must be taken literally"

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, [literally God-breathed] and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

Two things about this scripture.

1. You'll notice that there's a difference between "inspired" and "God-breathed", so even amongst the English translations there's not a clear answer.

2. This verse is Paul talking to Timothy about the word of God that they knew and learned from. It would be rather silly for Paul to have known that that very sentence too would be considered "God breathed".

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

Death penalty for apostasy, that sounds pretty hardcore alright. No argument there. They must figure they're prosecuting something pretty profound. Which is to say, what else is in the Quran? I assume it doesn't spend 600 pages describing the myriad ways in which the apostate should be slaughtered.

I agree that it doesn't spend 600 pages describing that. I've said countless times in this thread that the rational approach is to take each claim on its own merits; the irrational approach is to label the whole thing "religion" and defend all the beliefs equally. Ya, there might be a whole bunch of verses in there about butterflies and pixie dust and chocolate waterfalls, but they don't excuse the ones about killing people and cutting their heads off. You might say to me that I'm taking the violent verses and judging the entire book on them. And to that I'd say, I can make you a sandwich with the juiciest, most delicious steak you've ever eaten, on bread straight from the baker's oven, with a selection of your favourite toppings and sauces, but if I put shit on it, it's still going to taste like a shit sandwich.

Originally Posted by Diemen

But the premise you're basing the points on is not accurate. You claim that fundamentalists practice the purest form of religion, but that is simply not something that is provable. I'm sure the fundamentalists agree with you, but I doubt you would get the same consensus if you were to poll a roomful of religious scholars, priests, imams, etc.

The Quran says lots of things, as do all holy books, but I don't believe any of them say "only those who follow everything in this book literally are true believers."

But you're arbitrarily deciding that what is written in these books mustn't really be what the author meant. There's no evidence whatsoever that these commands are meant to be taken as metaphor. They aren't like stories in the bible that could mean one thing or another. They're commands from writer to reader. You can't look at a verse that says "kill him" and wax poetic about how that may or may not actually mean what it says.
And we seem to be getting lost in a debate about what fundamentalism means, when that wasn't even the original point. "Fundamentalism" seems to be a derogatory term used to get religion off the hook. And at some point, when so many are practicing the religion in a certain way, they're no longer the "fundamentalist extreme", they're the norm. We aren't talking about some fringe group here. The whole premise coming from you guys seems to be that it's not a violent religion because there are millions of people practicing it peacefully. But when those millions are practicing it peacefully because they're ignoring the violent bits, that point of argument is completely moot.

Originally Posted by Pearl

Live and let live. If no one being hurt, why bother? Who are you to own another person's beliefs?

People are getting hurt. Tortured. Stoned to death. Limbs and body parts cut off. Hanged. That's the whole point of this thread.

Originally Posted by Diemen

"All scipture is given by inspiration of God" ≠ "Everything written here must be taken literally"

If you got a letter from your boss asking you to do something specific, you wouldn't try to read it metaphorically. There's no evidence that any of this is meant to be metaphorical. The metaphorical interpretations are made when the scientific evidence disproves their claims so absolutely, metaphor is only way to save the writings from complete embarrassment. 2000 years ago, the world was literally made in 7 days. Adam and Eve were real people. Let's not pretend god actually wrote any of this.

[Cactus Annie]

Originally Posted by Pearl

I really don't like debates over who's a real Catholic/Jew/Muslim/Hindu/atheist/etc. It's putting people into small boxes when faith is diverse according to each individual. I once worked with a Muslim who had tattoos on his wrists, drank alcohol and even ate pork (now that was a shocker). Yet he observed Ramadan, prayed 5 times a day and was saving up to go to Mecca. Does that mean he really doesn't qualify as a Muslim because of those minor rules over body art and diet? Come on.


Live and let live. If no one being hurt, why bother? Who are you to own another person's beliefs?

I like what you said here. I would consider myself to be irreligious, which means I hate how humans have used religion as a means to bully and control people. I hate how the Catholic church's lack of acceptance over the abuse scandal has led to increased dislike for all Christian domains. I am not and never have been a Catholic. I do not know how to answer your questions about the abuse. It just seems like a large organisation that even has its own country (when you look through an atlas it lists the Vatican as a separate principality).

I do like the Quakers. They are peaceful people, they don't seem as though they are trying to rule over the state like the Anglican Church of England, they do not knock on my door trying to save my soul by following Jehovah.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

People are getting hurt. Tortured. Stoned to death. Limbs and body parts cut off. Hanged. That's the whole point of this thread.

I get you there. But my point earlier was in response to you saying if someone doesn't believe or agree with everything in their holy texts, then they are not really what they claim to be. That kind of attitude is trying to put people in boxes and defining who they are for them.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Pearl

I get you there. But my point earlier was in response to you saying if someone doesn't believe or agree with everything in their holy texts, then they are not really what they claim to be. That kind of attitude is trying to put people in boxes and defining who they are for them.

There was a bit of discussion on this in a thread a few weeks back. As I said there, and at the risk of Ashley coming in and verbally beating the shit out of me , I contend that those not adhering strictly to the fundamentals of a religion are living a more secular life. I was pleased to read this in the article Beal posted a few pages back:

"I also understand that extremism in any ideology isn't a distortion of that ideology. It is an informed, steadfast adherence to its fundamentals, hence the term 'fundamentalism.'"

[Kieran McConville]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

"I also understand that extremism in any ideology isn't a distortion of that ideology. It is an informed, steadfast adherence to its fundamentals, hence the term 'fundamentalism.'"

That is precisely the point I've been contesting. It simply isn't necessarily so. Some crank outfit like the Westboro Baptist Church - to pluck an example out of the air - are not fundamental adherents of Christianity. They are are in fact not Christian at all. Their every word and action flies in the face of the founder's preaching.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

They are are in fact not Christian at all. Their every word and action flies in the face of the founder's preaching.

Well, according to you.

Which *is* a fairly fundamental problem with religion -- all religion -- itself.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

There was a bit of discussion on this in a thread a few weeks back. As I said there, and at the risk of Ashley coming in and verbally beating the shit out of me , I contend that those not adhering strictly to the fundamentals of a religion are living a more secular life. I was pleased to read this in the article Beal posted a few pages back:

"I also understand that extremism in any ideology isn't a distortion of that ideology. It is an informed, steadfast adherence to its fundamentals, hence the term 'fundamentalism.'"

Maybe, but that doesn't make a person less Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Sikh or whatever they may be. It also doesn't make them less likely to believe in a God(s).

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

That is precisely the point I've been contesting. It simply isn't necessarily so. Some crank outfit like the Westboro Baptist Church - to pluck an example out of the air - are not fundamental adherents of Christianity. They are are in fact not Christian at all. Their every word and action flies in the face of the founder's preaching.

Just because they're crack pots doesn't mean they have to be fundamentalists.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

There's no evidence that any of this is meant to be metaphorical.

How do you prove metaphorical intent?

You single out one religion, why? Do you realize the OT asks for "rebellious sons" to be stoned to death? And why just the son, what about the daughter, how come they don't lay out the full road map? Shit, what are those "purest form" simpletons supposed to do? "Punishable by death", oh that only has to mean by man and not by God, I'm so glad you have deciphered all of these religions for us.

The truth is that you know little about the certain religions, you just want to insult the intelligence of those that believe and characterize those that distort as the "true believers". Your approach is the intellectual dishonesty that you are accusing others of having.

[Kieran McConville]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Well, according to you.

Which *is* a fairly fundamental problem with religion -- all religion -- itself.

Well no, come on... I know I'm veering close to a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, but do Christ's recorded teachings seem to you to advocate the lack of charity and abundance of hatred that the likes of Westboro (or Falwell after 9/11) exhibit? There are ambiguities in religion but it doesn't mean just anything.

I'd say the same for the, perhaps less bigoted but certainly more avaricious, 'Prosperity Gospel' types. They're free to call themselves Christian, but I say they are its exact antithesis.