It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Most Violent Religion?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
Ok in a nutshell ...

There is no link between religion and the application of the religion in peoples lives... and to say otherwise is a silly waste of time.

I get it... i don't agree with it, but you have made your position abundantly clear.

Thank you for your input... but this thread needs to evolve.


Thanks for proving that you are only arguing against your own assumptions rather than what the person is saying.

Because it's not like it could be something like - every person is responsible for themselves and their own actions could it. It's surely not something logical that makes sense right?

How about we say atheism is the most violent religion? Look at all the atheists who have murdered millions of people in the world. Oh yeah, but then we look at all the atheists who don't do that stuff and so if I did say such a thing, I am the ignorant one.

I'm not even a christian and I don't belong to any religion. I think Christianity is the religion Jesus warns about, and I often post to that effect. I also often post about the violent history of the church and so forth. But that is all on the people themselves who did it. Can't just the rest of the people based on the actions of those individuals.

Collectivism is annoying and ignorant. To me, it's just like racism. Go ahead, replace "religion" with a race on this thread and see how it reads. If someone started such a thread, and then pointed out the level of thinking was racist, would you also accuse them of "trying to kill the thread" or whatever? Would you expect those people not to post about it?

Enjoy your thread. I think I would be better off trying to teach a blind man about the color blue.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by badmedia]




posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
You without a doubt have a very warped view of what this thread is about.

You make some very baseless assumptions as to which direction this thread will take, so much so that you haven't contributed anything to the inquiry at hand, instead you keep repeating the same old nonsense.

You can't be so naive, that you can't see a link between belief systems and the world their followers create.

I just provided a couple dozen quotes from the koran and bible that we can see have been applied to the world in the past and the present with devastating results. The evidence is indisputable, but noooooo you want to dissect every single case to avoid singling out any one particular belief system for being the most violent/abusive. This is simply a ridiculous proposition.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 

Actually, the quotes you provided show nothing about violence in religion. They may be interpreted to show misogyny in religion, but not necessarily violence.

Not really pertinent, as I'm sure you can find quotes that have been interpreted to show violence, but I'm a stickler for accuracy
.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
You can't be so naive, that you can't see a link between belief systems and the world their followers create.


And do you really think religion is the only belief system. Do you really think you do not belong to a belief system, or that you do not have beliefs?

It is the actions themselves that people take that are bad. And if you want to get to the root of the problem, then you need to attack the actions.

Such as, someone feeling they are for some reason justified in killing someone. That is a belief. We can easily sit here and discuss it on the merits, we can discuss why it is bad/violent and it automatically addresses the problem within any belief systems or religion.

We can sit here all day long and name off those such things, and I won't say an ill word to you. I would add many myself.

If the actions themselves are bad, then we can easily see where those actions apply to ANY and ALL religions or belief systems. And therefore any belief system that would include doing the actions deemed would be a religion or belief system that includes violence.

Take a look at the crusades. Those people thought they were justified in their actions, and because they were justified it was ok for them to kill and so forth. But it's not ok. How do we know? Because we look at the actions themselves.

It's funny because you keep accusing me of wanting to derail the thread or whatever, and I don't even belong to a religion. In fact, I pretty much dislike all organized religions because they tell people what to accept, rather than how to understand things. Full of dogma's and things which do not make sense, cause confusion and so forth. Which in turn leads people to doing violent things and so forth.

Of course, when you look at any religion who does such things in history, if the people themselves had instead focused on the actions being done, then they would have seen they were doing bad things.

If a man puts a gun to your head and is about to kill you, does it really matter what religion the man belongs to? Is it going to make a difference if he is Christian, Muslim or Atheist? Is it suddenly going to be good or bad based on that? No. Such things have no bearing at all on it. All that matters, and what determines it's a bad thing is the action itself.

Make a thread called "Most violent beliefs" and then maybe we can have a real discussion. Until then, I view you in the same light as racists.

Pointing out the violent acts of others who belong to certain religions and belief systems is nothing new. In fact, it's status quo for this world and generally used in order to justify their own actions - which are generally bad/violent as a result. But the people only focus on the other belief systems as bad, rather than their actions and stay blind to it.

Sorry, but I have little patience for such old and tired ways. Little patience for such low levels of thinking and rationalizations. It's all about the actions people take, and as long as people want to focus on groups and belief systems rather than the actions themselves, then you aren't helping.


Please don't dominate the rap Jack
if you got nothing new to say
If you please don't back up the track
This train got to run today




[edit on 7-6-2009 by badmedia]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Would you have just as much objection to the challenge of determining what is the
Most Peaceful Religion?

Would you think of me akin to a racist for making such a proposal for inquiry?

[edit on 7-6-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
Would you have just as much objection to the challenge of determining what is the
Most Peaceful Religion?

Would you think of me akin to a racist for making such a proposal for inquiry?


Yes of course. It's the same level of thinking and exactly what the "bad" people want. Because when you look at things in terms of groups, they will simply parade the "good" people in front of you, and then hide behind it.

It's an age old media trick of manipulation, and as I said before multiple times, it's exactly how they want people to think. When people are thinking and looking at things in terms of groups, it allows people to focus on certain things as a way of dismissing or promoting the group.

Take a rally about legalization of a certain thing. It's a big group of people. Some of them have real issues and make sense. But then the media is able to focus on a few teens who say things like "I dunno man, I just came for a good time". And then that is what the media shows, ignores the valid issues and then the entire group is labeled based on the perception "they" want.

And it works both ways. If something is deemed as good by "them" then you simply ignore the crazy people and highlight those with valid issues.

Look at what the media did with Ron Paul supporters. They did their best to highlight the worse of the crowd they could. When it came to other candidates, like Romney for example, then they ignore the crazy people. We all know there are crazy people who follow just about any candidate. But because of people who look at things in terms of groups rather than individuals, it's a manipulation that people buy over and over.

But the reality of it is if you look at the individuals and individual actions instead and base things on that, rather than groups then you by default will not fall victim to such manipulations, or at the very least do not contribute to it.

Go ahead and make a thread about Christians and treat them as a group. They will simply parade the "saints" and good people in response. Which then makes things like exceptions. Where as, if you treated the individual actions and beliefs, then they can't do that. So, rather than saying "Christian", mention the actions they do. Christians who believe and do 'this' are bad, Christians who believe they are justified in killing non-christians are violent/evil. etc. Guess what, they can't throw exceptions in your face then, and you are addressing the actual action that is the problem. And the people who commit such actions have nothing to hide behind.

People who deal in terms of groups and such rather than individuals are perpetrating ignorance. It is that level of thinking which allows those who are actually guilty hide behind others. What you are doing is wanted by the powers that be. It is status quo. It doesn't matter what the topic is, racism, religion, politics, nations or whatever. As long as you accept such ways of thinking, you give them the power of control through manipulation.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


As for Saudi Arabia supporting pedophiles, I had a friend who was TDY in Saudi Arabia and went to a public execution. The man was found guilty of child rape, and was beheaded in front of the foreigners as an insult. (The man was obese and the swordsman needed two hits to cut his head off.)

Since the big three Western religions support the death penalty, I think they are equally violent.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 

Actually, the quotes you provided show nothing about violence in religion. They may be interpreted to show misogyny in religion, but not necessarily violence.

Not really pertinent, as I'm sure you can find quotes that have been interpreted to show violence, but I'm a stickler for accuracy
.


If you want to be a stickler note what i wrote at the top of that post:



Now to get back to the task at hand... the business of determining the most violent/abusive religion?

Maybe a good place to start would be with the largest segment of our populous that has been historically and still presently in most countries still victim to prejudice... and i think islam and christainity may have a tie for being the most sexist. Proof being in the word of god and those who follow the word of god to the letter.

[sexist scriptures]

Such advocacy of superiority/control of men over women, turns women into property and men into owners... bring this application up to date and we see men thinking/believing that showers are women's ride to Satan's arms... now they only allow their wives to wash in the tub.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


wow... so they endorse child-marriage but if you aren't married to the child then sex is punishable via decapitation.

As for your vote for the most violent/abusive... you give christianity, islam and judaism, a three-way tie? Meaning the eastern religions don't make the cut? Just as with the Most Peaceful Religion thread, each vote counts and as i go i'm keeping a running total.. not the most scientific approach but it will have to do


[edit on 7-6-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


There are some practitioners of the Eastern religions who are violent toward each other, but the messages of the religions themselves are peaceful.

Since Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all derived from many of the same writings, they have tied each other. People here forget that Islam is an offshoot of Judaism just as Christianity is.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


The following is a copy in part from a related thread - in an effort to keep everyone on the same page...



You are obviously intelligent and care enough to persist... and for that i can not knock you. Matter of fact, i owe you a kudos for inspiring a new thread... The Evolution of Belief which i think your efforts on this thread and I believe religion is souring this entire site, it should be banned speak to... more expansive and encompassing as you had wished.

I hope you will give it a thorough review and i'm sure you will give me a proper whipping if i am out of line. Salute and cheers fellow info-warrior




posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 

Since Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all derived from many of the same writings, they have tied each other. People here forget that Islam is an offshoot of Judaism just as Christianity is.


Excellent point and logical means of narrowing down the candidates. The 'world beliefs family tree' from The Evolution of Belief thread helps to illustrate the value of this insightful proposal.





[edit on 8-6-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Something like a new religion that is based on world wide looting.

The religion of Islam divides the world into two sections:
1. Dar al Islam - The land of Islam
2. Dar al harb - The land of war
Islam means 'submission' so it is clear what dar al islam means. Dar al harb is called the land of war, because it is defined by Islam as 'land that just has not been conquered yet). As with Islamic history, and the actions of Muhammad Great examples here from Islam's own texts, when Islam spreads, it does so first (to establish a base) by peaceful immigration. Then the influence spreads and conversions become forced - women, children, property & wealth taken as 'booty' (ie. looting). See here specifically. Note that the Quran is (believed by Muslims) to be the exact word of God (not inspired and NOT changed). The ahadith are the sayings and actions of Muhammad. So you have on that page ^, Allah telling Muhammad and Muslims to loot and take booty. Muhammad also claimed that Allah had made him 'superior' to other prophets because he could take booty. There is so much more info, but that's all for now (I could write pages and pages!)


Originally posted by jmdewey60
It is not so much new, but old and hidden in secret and becomes evident when the wicked come forward who will bring the necessity for God to rescue a remnant, while they destroy the planet in total annihilation.

Islam is peace!! Isn't that what Muslims and gullible presidents keep telling the world? I'm sorry, but Islam WAS peace, but those (few) verses in the Quran were abrogated by the fight and forcibly convert verses.


Originally posted by jmdewey60
The followers of Mohamed would do war for the sake of spreading their religion. These other people will create a war for the ultimate sacrifice, the people of Earth. They believe their god will protect them inside their fortification.

Eh... not quite. Muhammad plageurized heavily from the Bible when he was making up the Quran. When it came to eschatology, he just mirrored what the Bible had. So in the bible, there is the antichrist who would bring a 7 year peace treaty. In Islam, it is the Mahdi who is on the side of Islam who will force Islam on the whole world and he will bring '7 years of peace'. Then Isa (jesus) will return and break the cross and kill the swine - forcing those who were paying the 'jizya' (subjugation tax paid in order to keep your own relgion and not have to convert to Islam) to convert to Islam or be killed. Those paying the Jizya would be Christians and jews.

Anyway, long story - if you'd like to read more see here. Also it's interesting to note that the 'mark of a true beliver' is the 'mark of prostration on his forehead' (Quran 48:29).

But since it's a 'mirror copy' of the Bible, why would you expect it to be different huh?


Originally posted by jmdewey60
The word for their god has a double meaning. A literal fortress and a force, as in the forces of nature.

I don't know what this means. The word for their god is "Allah." Originally there were 365 pagan stone idols in Allah's 'house' (the Ka'ba) but Muhammad destroyed all of them except for 1 (which is lodged in the wall to this day) and elevated that ilah (god) to al ilah (the God). So literally, "Allah" is a contraction of Al ilah (the god), but it has become his NAME also.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Hesperornis
 

Hahahahaha....I'd never heard of wikiislam before you linked it, but one look in the FAQ explained what an "unbiased" and "neutral" website it is:


FAQ on WikiIslam
...the primary goal of WikiIslam is to help Muslims leave Islam by providing them with information that may otherwise not be available to them.


Thanks, but I'd even take Conservapedia over this, any day.
.


Anyhow, I'm not one to condemn the message purely because of a bad source, so I looked at the content of your post as well. Unfortunately, once again, I didn't have to look far before I noticed the term "Dar ul-Harb", something that (unlike what you claim) is not found in any of the Islamic Scriptures.

Sorry, but no.

If you ask me, the most violent religion is Ignorance. Unfortunately, the Sect of Ignorance seems to be present in almost all religions (and non-religions) of the world today.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
Hahahahaha....I'd never heard of wikiislam before you linked it, but one look in the FAQ explained what an "unbiased" and "neutral" website it is:


FAQ on WikiIslam
...the primary goal of WikiIslam is to help Muslims leave Islam by providing them with information that may otherwise not be available to them.


Thanks, but I'd even take Conservapedia over this, any day.
.

At WikiIslam we assume that Muslms already know the good things about their religion. However, many are not aware of the bad things. This is affirmed by apostates who say "I never knew Muhammad had a 6 year old wife" or "I never knew that Muhammad did this or that". That is why we made WikiIslam. WikiIslam quotes directly from Islam's own texts to show these things. So, unless you have an issue with Islam's own texts, then you have no cause for argument here. Many of the texts are available online, and are always linked to. You can click through and view the sites directly on Islamic websites.

What else do you need? There are already thousands of dawaganda sites on the Internet portaying the good side(s) of Islam, and containing 'apologetics' for some of the more well-known bad things. Another one is pointless.


Originally posted by babloyi
Anyhow, I'm not one to condemn the message purely because of a bad source, so I looked at the content of your post as well. Unfortunately, once again, I didn't have to look far before I noticed the term "Dar ul-Harb", something that (unlike what you claim) is not found in any of the Islamic Scriptures.

Really? Have you read all of Islam's scriptures? There are well over 20,000 ahadith (counting every collection I'm aware of), the Quran, the tafseer (many commentaries explaining the Quran - over 200 that I'm aware of), the Sira, books of jurispurdence. etc...

WikiIslam does not host any full texts of the above, because that would lead people like you to claims of bias (ie. editing of the texts et..) so we just link to them on Muslim websites when required.You can find The Quran & 4 ahadith collections on this site. If you require more sites or more collections please let me know. Although there are some collections that are not available online as of yet (ie. Tabari - 39 volumes).

So to claim "dar al harb" is not 'found in ANY Islamic scriptures' (I'm sorry but) shows that you don't know jack about Islam, yet you feel that you have the right to tell people who HAVE studied, that is not in their texts. Oh LOL.

Here is one book on Sunni Jursprudene that contains the phrase "dar al harb" - although a google search would have given you plentiful information. So, before claiming I was definitely wrong, did you bother with an old google search there?


Originally posted by babloyi
Sorry, but no.

Oh LOL


Originally posted by babloyi
If you ask me, the most violent religion is Ignorance.

HEAR HEAR!!! Got a mirror there?


Originally posted by babloyi
Unfortunately, the Sect of Ignorance seems to be present in almost all religions (and non-religions) of the world today.

So is your ignorance of the religious kind or the non-religious?


Sorry but I just find it laughable that I have spent 3 years studying Islam, and bothered to compile information for other people to read (so they don't have to spend all the time I did) and then I get accused of bias and making things up because the accuser can't be bothered with a google search.

[edit on 19/6/2009 by Hesperornis]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 

If you ask me, the most violent religion is Ignorance. Unfortunately, the Sect of Ignorance seems to be present in almost all religions (and non-religions) of the world today.
Good one.
I would go further and say that on the top of all religions and even governments and big corporations are a sect of evil that prey on the ignorance of the people below them.



[edit on 19-6-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Hesperornis
 

Hello Hesperornis!

Great to know of the length of time you've spent "researching" Islam. I myself have spent some 7 years researching it, if that is in any way pertinent to the argument. I'd consider myself reasonably knowledgeable about Islam, so it is okay. I think I know where I can obtain the Quran and Hadith online, but thanks for trying to school me anyway.

You might be new to the internet
, but the anti-islam sites probably outnumber the islamic sites, or they come pretty close. Whatever the case, I'm pretty sure there isn't a lack of sites explaining the "bad things" with Islam. Of course, there is no reason for your site not to exist either!

Also, if you notice, I said that the term "dar ul-harb" is not anywhere in the Islamic scriptures. I'm not talking about tafseer, or any random website on the internet. I think you'll find my statement is valid. Otherwise you could claim that Christianity is insane based on stuff that Pat Robertson has written.

I'm sorry if you take offense that I accused you of bias. By your own admission, you have highlighted the "bad things" in Islam, and your (website's) mission statement is "to help muslim's leave Islam".


Originally posted by Hesperornis

Originally posted by babloyi
If you ask me, the most violent religion is Ignorance.

HEAR HEAR!!! Got a mirror there?

I love you too!



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
I think I know where I can obtain the Quran and Hadith online, but thanks for trying to school me anyway.

No problem. So were you being dishonest when you said that 'dar al harb' is not written in any text, or did you mean not that you were aware of?


Originally posted by babloyi
You might be new to the internet
, but the anti-islam sites probably outnumber the islamic sites, or they come pretty close.

This is not correct.


Originally posted by babloyi
Whatever the case, I'm pretty sure there isn't a lack of sites explaining the "bad things" with Islam. Of course, there is no reason for your site not to exist either!

I have already explained the reason. Simply asserting that the "bad things about Islam" sites are equal to (or almost) the dawaganda sites is no evidence at all.


Originally posted by babloyi
Also, if you notice, I said that the term "dar ul-harb" is not anywhere in the Islamic scriptures. I'm not talking about tafseer, or any random website on the internet. I think you'll find my statement is valid. Otherwise you could claim that Christianity is insane based on stuff that Pat Robertson has written.

What do you class as "scriptures"? I was merely pointing out that Islam is not just the Quran - there are more texts as well. So saying it's not in the 'scriptures' is a little disingenous because Muslims have more texts which they use to follow their religion.


Originally posted by babloyi
I'm sorry if you take offense that I accused you of bias. By your own admission, you have highlighted the "bad things" in Islam, and your (website's) mission statement is "to help muslim's leave Islam".

Yes so? You don't know me, and you don't know of my interactions with Muslims and non-Muslims (and ex Muslims) so you cannot possibly say I only talk about the bad things about Islam. Simply because Wiki Islam does, again, is no reason to accuse me personally of bias.


Originally posted by babloyi
I love you too!

LOL *high five*



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Hesperornis
 


Originally posted by Hesperornis
Yes so? You don't know me, and you don't know of my interactions with Muslims and non-Muslims (and ex Muslims) so you cannot possibly say I only talk about the bad things about Islam. Simply because Wiki Islam does, again, is no reason to accuse me personally of bias.

I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth. Since I don't have the best short-term memory, it gets confusing, even for me. When I used the term "unbiased", I was talking about your website, as you can see from my first post in response to your post. I shall make sure that from now on, when I talk of your website, I shall explicitly mention this, and when I talk about your responses, I shall explicitly state this.

Would you agree then if I said that "While I cannot be sure about you yourself (and I never made any claims towards your bias), your website is definitely biased"?

As for what I class as scriptures, you mentioned it yourself in your previous post: The Quran and the authentic Hadith. For example, I would not classify Tabari as part of the scripture (although it may possibly make references to it). Also, I would not classify the Sirat as part of the scripture (mostly due to the lack of rigor in testing it, but that is my personal view). I would definitely not classify anybody's tafseer as part of the scripture.

A parallel in Christianity (for easier understanding of others, if not yourself), could be that the Bible is part of the Christian scriptures, as well as perhaps the Catechisms for Catholics (I am not sure about this one), but no christian would claim that the writings of Thomas Aquinas are part of the Christian Scriptures.

Do you find fault with my classification? Because it seems to be the universally agreed classification with regards to Islam (some sects may argue about certain hadith being valid or not, but most agree on the bulk of authentic hadith).

So once again, I state "Dar ul-harb" is not found in any of the Islamic Scriptures.
I find it troublesome that are trying so hard to label me dishonest because of this.

[edit on 20-6-2009 by babloyi]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join