Science says Bible and Quran are equivalent

[DrZoidberg]

I obviously disagree. If you want to learn Muslim moral codes go and observe what Muslims do. It's always better to watch what people do rather than what they say. People talk so much shit

Observing the actions of hypocrites in no way displays what they are supposed to believe and how they are supposed to act.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Are you arguing that Christians are less hypocritical than Muslims? If you're not I can't follow your argument.

- - - Updated - - -

I obviously disagree. If you want to learn Muslim moral codes go and observe what Muslims do. It's always better to watch what people do rather than what they say. People talk so much shit

Religions are human creations so they "suit" the particular group of people who created them (or for whom they were created by their leaders). Thus they reflect to a varying extent the characteristics of those by whom, or for whom, they were created, or altered as in the case of the Reformation.

Because of the unprecedented information explosion brought about at that time by the invention of the printing press, society changed, and religion was changed. It changed from a religion that favoured the idol worship of saints, of the bones of alleged saints, of god's mother, of various wonder-working images and sculptures, a religion which AFAIR had over 150 "holy" days in the year when no work was done (even at times of sowing or harvest). The reformed church and the leaders of the reformation, enriched by robbing the churches and monastaries (by then despised as sinkholes of various vices), allowed only a few holy days and enforced the 50 or so Sundays in the style of the Jewish Sabbath, adopting much more of the Jewish Old Testament scripture int their new faith.

This went along well with the new "Protestant work ethic", and allowed trade and interest on capital to flourish, viewing the result as god's blessings on the righteous new middle classes.. Much of all of this was done subconciously, especially the part when the self-righteous new middle classes enforced the work ethic on their underpaid millions of illiterate minions working in the new businesses and enterprises for the next 400-500 years.

As someone said, Maryiolatry gave way to Bibliolatry; which was much more business-friendly.

The less educated parts of Europe, Catholic and Orthodox, remained as before, idol-worshippers to a great extent, with some changes in Catholic lands brought about by the Counter-Reformation.

So IMHO it is possible to judge groups and societies in general, by the shit they talk and believe in, as well as by the manner and nature of each such group or society. This of course does not apply to the judging of individual members of such societies, except by statistical guesses, which of course do not apply to any one given individual.

I don't disagree with any of this. I'm wondering what it has to do with the subject?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Observing the actions of hypocrites in no way displays what they are supposed to believe and how they are supposed to act.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Are you arguing that Christians are less hypocritical than Muslims? If you're not I can't follow your argument.

- - - Updated - - -

I obviously disagree. If you want to learn Muslim moral codes go and observe what Muslims do. It's always better to watch what people do rather than what they say. People talk so much shit

Religions are human creations so they "suit" the particular group of people who created them (or for whom they were created by their leaders). Thus they reflect to a varying extent the characteristics of those by whom, or for whom, they were created, or altered as in the case of the Reformation.

Because of the unprecedented information explosion brought about at that time by the invention of the printing press, society changed, and religion was changed. It changed from a religion that favoured the idol worship of saints, of the bones of alleged saints, of god's mother, of various wonder-working images and sculptures, a religion which AFAIR had over 150 "holy" days in the year when no work was done (even at times of sowing or harvest). The reformed church and the leaders of the reformation, enriched by robbing the churches and monastaries (by then despised as sinkholes of various vices), allowed only a few holy days and enforced the 50 or so Sundays in the style of the Jewish Sabbath, adopting much more of the Jewish Old Testament scripture int their new faith.

This went along well with the new "Protestant work ethic", and allowed trade and interest on capital to flourish, viewing the result as god's blessings on the righteous new middle classes.. Much of all of this was done subconciously, especially the part when the self-righteous new middle classes enforced the work ethic on their underpaid millions of illiterate minions working in the new businesses and enterprises for the next 400-500 years.

As someone said, Maryiolatry gave way to Bibliolatry; which was much more business-friendly.

The less educated parts of Europe, Catholic and Orthodox, remained as before, idol-worshippers to a great extent, with some changes in Catholic lands brought about by the Counter-Reformation.

So IMHO it is possible to judge groups and societies in general, by the shit they talk and believe in, as well as by the manner and nature of each such group or society. This of course does not apply to the judging of individual members of such societies, except by statistical guesses, which of course do not apply to any one given individual.

I don't disagree with any of this. I'm wondering what it has to do with the subject?

I was saying that basing the teachings of a sacred book to a people would be a better way to fund out what they are to be like, yet not what they necessarily are in all cases. "Christianity" is a good example as is extreme radical "Islam".

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[4321lynx]

Are you arguing that Christians are less hypocritical than Muslims? If you're not I can't follow your argument.

I obviously disagree. If you want to learn Muslim moral codes go and observe what Muslims do. It's always better to watch what people do rather than what they say. People talk so much shit

Religions are human creations so they "suit" the particular group of people who created them (or for whom they were created by their leaders). Thus they reflect to a varying extent the characteristics of those by whom, or for whom, they were created, or altered as in the case of the Reformation.

Because of the unprecedented information explosion brought about at that time by the invention of the printing press, society changed, and religion was changed. It changed from a religion that favoured the idol worship of saints, of the bones of alleged saints, of god's mother, of various wonder-working images and sculptures, a religion which AFAIR had over 150 "holy" days in the year when no work was done (even at times of sowing or harvest). The reformed church and the leaders of the reformation, enriched by robbing the churches and monastaries (by then despised as sinkholes of various vices), allowed only a few holy days and enforced the 50 or so Sundays in the style of the Jewish Sabbath, adopting much more of the Jewish Old Testament scripture int their new faith.

This went along well with the new "Protestant work ethic", and allowed trade and interest on capital to flourish, viewing the result as god's blessings on the righteous new middle classes.. Much of all of this was done subconciously, especially the part when the self-righteous new middle classes enforced the work ethic on their underpaid millions of illiterate minions working in the new businesses and enterprises for the next 400-500 years.

As someone said, Maryiolatry gave way to Bibliolatry; which was much more business-friendly.

The less educated parts of Europe, Catholic and Orthodox, remained as before, idol-worshippers to a great extent, with some changes in Catholic lands brought about by the Counter-Reformation.

So IMHO it is possible to judge groups and societies in general, by the shit they talk and believe in, as well as by the manner and nature of each such group or society. This of course does not apply to the judging of individual members of such societies, except by statistical guesses, which of course do not apply to any one given individual.

I don't disagree with any of this. I'm wondering what it has to do with the subject?

Just that religions are not only reflections of moral attitudes but also, and sometimes largely, a reflection of, or indeed creation of, practical economic facts, and this should be considered in weighing their "moral" worth.

The Salafi Jihadists like ISIL, who with their "caliphate" claim the right to rule all the Muslims of this world, pick what they need from Islam to create their version of it and their "morality".
As far as moral behaviour goes, I found years and years ago that the morals of the bulk of Muslims of where I then lived were vastly superior to those of the bulk of the Christians there. But there was no talk of jihad then, and significantly, no oil to be found.

(For the uninitiated, Salafi = Wahabbism)

 

[ronburgundy]

Blech. You should read your own sources before drawing conclusions that they explicitly refute.



First, the analysis is nothing more than counts of emotional words stripped of all context. It treats a quote like "hold those who harm others in contempt" as being more violent and less merciful than "hold those who show mercy in contempt", when by any reasonable analysis the latter is more pro violent and anti mercy.

Besides, the actual data show the Quran and Bible are quite different.

The Quran is 60% higher in fear and anxiety, and the OT is 15% higher in Anger. Violence stems from both fear and anger, so on whole the Quran would have more emotional expressions that promote violence than the OT or NT. Plus, his "positive" vs. "negative" emotion analysis is meaningless. He assumes "trust" is a positive emotion, but in fact many ideas of "trust" in these texts are that people should blindly trust in God's authority, including when God commands violence that seems immoral or unjustified from a secular or natural empathy viewpoint.

Violence isn't condoned in either so trust in that context had little to do with anything.

Violence is very explicitly condoned and commanded in both the Quran and the Bible. It is also implicitly condoned by the many horrific acts of genocidal violence committed by the God of Abrah]am himself, who is "all that is good" and thus his horrific violence is condoned as "good". Advocating trust in a violent authority is to advocate violence.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Faith is a selfish and narcissistic blind deference to one's emotional whims and whatever invented authority suits one's selfish goals. Faith is emotion, and emotions are easily controlled and manipulated by social authorities. This is why systems that highly value faith consistently lead to authoritarian systems in which progress toward what is good for the many is impeded. What is good for the many requires liberty of each person, which requires the application of reasoned thought and rejection of any source of authority other than the empirical evidence that is accessible to each individual reasoning mind to verify. The respect for the importance of reason and each person's liberty to apply it underlies virtually all moral, intellectual, and political progress in the West over the last 5 centuries. When secular societies have most faltered has been when they tried to replace faith in God's authority with faith in another authority (such as with the Third Reich and the Communist State), rather than rejecting faith and deference to any authority over individual human reason.

 

[4321lynx]

Did the above diagram include consideration of the New Testament and various Vatican Councils and similar Protestant decisions over the centuries, and did it include the Hadiths and Sunnah and approval of any Bid'ah on the Muslim side?

Or does it simply refer to "the Bible", meaning that book of Jewish history, pseudo-history, fable, and myth, with a few moral precepts thrown in, and the bare-bones Quran? And in what translations?

 

[ronburgundy]

The bottom line is that individual words within the texts matter far less than the bigger more central ideas that define these faiths. The most central idea is the of God himself as the source of all this is good and should be, while also being a figure who is extremely and violently intolerant of disobedience and lack of faith and worship of himself, committing violent atrocity against people for their private thoughts and personal actions and are not at all immoral (harming others) by any modern secular standard.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all share this core concept, and that concept is inherently endorsing for authoritarian intolerance and violence against innocent people whose only "crime" is to not share the delusions of believers or who are believers that were disobedient of some rule having nothing to do with being a good person in any modern moral sense. That makes all these traditions similarly incompatible with modern human decency, democracy, and respect for human liberty.

 

[4321lynx]

The bottom line is that individual words within the texts matter far less than the bigger more central ideas that define these faiths. The most central idea is the of God himself as the source of all this is good and should be, while also being a figure who is extremely and violently intolerant of disobedience and lack of faith and worship of himself, committing violent atrocity against people for their private thoughts and personal actions and are not at all immoral (harming others) by any modern secular standard.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all share this core concept, and that concept is inherently endorsing for authoritarian intolerance and violence against innocent people whose only "crime" is to not share the delusions of believers or who are believers that were disobedient of some rule having nothing to do with being a good person in any modern moral sense. That makes all these traditions similarly incompatible with modern human decency, democracy, and respect for human liberty.

Nothing wrong with what you say, apart from a rather idealised view of modern secular man, and the institutions he has created or perhaps will create in the future. You yourself pointed out recent Communist and German Nazi failures.

 

[ronburgundy]

The bottom line is that individual words within the texts matter far less than the bigger more central ideas that define these faiths. The most central idea is the of God himself as the source of all this is good and should be, while also being a figure who is extremely and violently intolerant of disobedience and lack of faith and worship of himself, committing violent atrocity against people for their private thoughts and personal actions and are not at all immoral (harming others) by any modern secular standard.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all share this core concept, and that concept is inherently endorsing for authoritarian intolerance and violence against innocent people whose only "crime" is to not share the delusions of believers or who are believers that were disobedient of some rule having nothing to do with being a good person in any modern moral sense. That makes all these traditions similarly incompatible with modern human decency, democracy, and respect for human liberty.

Nothing wrong with what you say, apart from a rather idealised view of modern secular man, and the institutions he has created or perhaps will create in the future. You yourself pointed out recent Communist and German Nazi failures.

I don't presume that religious faith and Abrahamic God concepts are neccessary for organized social violence and oppression, just that they strongly enable it and make it more likely and harder to fight against. They are designed to do so. It is like guns and violence. Getting rid of them does not eliminate all violence, but their prevalence definitely increases the likelihood of extreme deadly violence, because that were designed for that purpose. Secularism doesn't guarantee moral or social progress, it just gives us a chance and opportunity to make it happen.

 

[4321lynx]

Nothing wrong with what you say, apart from a rather idealised view of modern secular man, and the institutions he has created or perhaps will create in the future. You yourself pointed out recent Communist and German Nazi failures.

I don't presume that religious faith and Abrahamic God concepts are neccessary for organized social violence and oppression, just that they strongly enable it and make it more likely and harder to fight against. They are designed to do so. It is like guns and violence. Getting rid of them does not eliminate all violence, but their prevalence definitely increases the likelihood of extreme deadly violence, because that were designed for that purpose. Secularism doesn't guarantee moral or social progress, it just gives us a chance and opportunity to make it happen.

I think our species is hard-wired for aggressive violence, real or threatened. Religion, with IMO its basis in fear, is a result of that perceived or actual violence and the attendant fear of it, or the wish to avoid that violence, perpetrated by family leaders, or siblings, or chiefs, or an external enemy. It is also a reaction to another fear: the fear of the unknown as manifested by storms, floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, sun and moon motion and phases, prairie and forest fires, failures of expected rainy seasons, diseases of humans and of animals, etc etc...

We need to be taught away from both, violence and religion. I don't think religion is a cause of violence, it is used as another label for the "other", the enemy.
And during the religious wars that enemy was sometimes your next-door neighbour, so to speak. Hence the added hate for the "traitor" to the old regime, or the dangerous Papist guilty of 1500 years of heresy etc..., or whatever...

 

[popsthebuilder]

ronburgundy,


Ultimately the Qur'an speaks of having mercy as God is merciful, and judging with equity as the Lord is just. It also speaks of how Christ is ultimately the judge, and not man, especially man that is transgressing against the known will of GOD himself.
The Bible speaks about non violence, equity, and helping those in need (widows/orphans). It speaks against violence even in defence. It also has all the same points that the Qur'an has about mercy, and not judging unless you are righteous, or at least doing so at your own peril.

As far as those who where destroyed due to there knowing sin without limit by natural disasters that where set in motion around the formation of earth; they where all warned repeatedly, and heeded not. It surly was for the betterment of later existence by God's will. Natural disasters happen. Even today people can see the extremes of the climate, and know of dangers of living in certain areas that are prone to natural disaster. Some could move if they cared to. Others may be stuck where they are due to the circumstances made by man. Everybody always wants to blame God for all the cruelty that is ultimately due to man's hand, but God also gave us freedom that we might eventually learn that with it comes responsibility. We are all capable of doing the right thing. This very capacity is the work of GOD in every living thing. It is the very will of existence as ordained by GOD.

Now you can argue about the Torah or Old Testament, but it is referenced in the same Torah/OT that Judaism was rife with manipulation, and blasphemy. Not that they won't be reconsiled unto God. Not that I don't think that it is profitable for the direction of man under God, but that the contrasting points or points that could be deduced from hystorical recount may be, well, against the simple truth of GOD that has been shown to all.

Anyway, all I'm sayin is they aren't violent, and it isn't God's will to be violent but just, and He is long suffering that we might one day grasp our placement here, and it's gravity, by God's will, and as such the will of all life and existence. And technichally advocating trust in a violent god would not necessarily mean you yourself advocate violence. If violence is coming from something other than man then that isn't violence in the traditional sense, or at least how I mean.

Faith is knowing of the will of GOD, and that it will be done. It's not about personal want or gain but really believing hat is written on your heart and putting it to use. It isn't an emotional whim, or some whimsical deferment of anything. Though some may display narcissistic behavior in all walks of life. It is due to greed and pride, both of which are expressly spoken against in all scriptures of all peaceable Faith in GOD. Faith isn't utterly blind, in fact far from it. Admittedly it doesn't take excessive, redundant thinking, but it does actually show things to many on many levels. If ones goals are regardless of self then what is selfish about it, or their faith in things not readily observable to all by their own will? Faith is a wonderous thing, a gift, readily available to all.

There is only one athourity and it's the same One Creator GOD in all faiths that have one.

You keep acting like emotions and whims are the same or go hand in hand. Faith isn't whimsical. You are the only one talking about insignificant little emotions resulting from selfish want. Emotions rate significance. If you had no emotion then nothing would matter to you. Emotions like pain are hardwired into us for our sake. Critical thought is actually triggered by real emotion from the selfless conscience. I guess your talking about something else, or just have no clue what you are talking about there.

You keep using the word authority, but I never said anything of the sort. God gave us freedom, you can think it a blessing, a curse, or neither, but the fact is that we are free by God's design, but bind ourselves to greed and the trapping if such. All will eventually end but God's will. So how is that authoritarian? All the word of GOD is for our sake, God doesn't need us, but gifted us with life, potential, opportunity, knowledge, and freedom on many levels.

Good for the many? Good for all.
What person says to not think at all? Instinct, intuition, and the conscience all work together with thought. Tell me; what advanced, efficient thought processes throw out related internal functions that influence further thought?
An emotional significance is tied to the Significance of life. If you think not then you really are fooling yourself.
Who throws out reasoning through Faith in GOD or what they know to be right? The "enlightenment" was the neuturing of potential for purpose as it relates to all existence.

I agree that man has used others' faith in negative ways, but if there was no faith whatsoever and all believed survival of the fittest then who would have stopped Hitler? But really if people werent so vain then they might see that even that is only really applicable in the context of continued existence of a species, and not the existence of one but the all of that species that that might have the chances for survival.

Pretty much; your entire post was ignorant and assuming, or knowingly manipulative. Either way it's not morally right, which is aplicaple when attempting to justify the end of people's freedoms under the guise of freedom.

Sad

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DBT]

'Ultimately the Qur'an speaks of having mercy as God is merciful, and judging with equity as the Lord is just. It also speaks of how Christ is ultimately the judge, and not man, especially man that is transgressing against the known will of GOD himself.
The Bible speaks about non violence, equity, and helping those in need (widows/orphans). It speaks against violence even in defence.

Depends entirely on which verses are read and which verses are ignored or disregarded. And context, precisely who these verses are referring to.

 

[popsthebuilder]

'Ultimately the Qur'an speaks of having mercy as God is merciful, and judging with equity as the Lord is just. It also speaks of how Christ is ultimately the judge, and not man, especially man that is transgressing against the known will of GOD himself.
The Bible speaks about non violence, equity, and helping those in need (widows/orphans). It speaks against violence even in defence.

Depends entirely on which verses are read and which verses are ignored or disregarded. And context, precisely who these verses are referring to.

Context is important. I wouldn't advise cherry picking or disregarding any verses though.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[4321lynx]

CANCELLED --- TRIPLE post!!!

 

[4321lynx]

'Ultimately the Qur'an speaks of having mercy as God is merciful, and judging with equity as the Lord is just. It also speaks of how Christ is ultimately the judge, and not man, especially man that is transgressing against the known will of GOD himself.
The Bible speaks about non violence, equity, and helping those in need (widows/orphans). It speaks against violence even in defence.

Depends entirely on which verses are read and which verses are ignored or disregarded. And context, precisely who these verses are referring to.

Yes. And exactly where, in which verses of the Quran, is the Jewish rabbi/prophet, Jesus, named as God? Your "It (i.e. the Quran) also speaks of how Christ is ultimately the judge, and not man..." implies that Christ is God. Or, popsthebuilder, is the Christ not synonymous with Jesus in your version of godworship?

 

[DBT]

Depends entirely on which verses are read and which verses are ignored or disregarded. And context, precisely who these verses are referring to.

Context is important. I wouldn't advise cherry picking or disregarding any verses though.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Aren't you cherry picking when you say - Ultimately the Qur'an speaks of having mercy as God is merciful, and judging with equity as the Lord is just. It also speaks of how Christ is ultimately the judge, and not man - given that some of what is written in the Torah, the bible in general and the Quran is not just, moral, reasonable or selfless?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

'Ultimately the Qur'an speaks of having mercy as God is merciful, and judging with equity as the Lord is just. It also speaks of how Christ is ultimately the judge, and not man, especially man that is transgressing against the known will of GOD himself.
The Bible speaks about non violence, equity, and helping those in need (widows/orphans). It speaks against violence even in defence.

Depends entirely on which verses are read and which verses are ignored or disregarded. And context, precisely who these verses are referring to.

In the Quran, there are 27 various verses that claim more or less that Allah predestines all that happens. You get no free will. And Paul claims all is predestined and we get no real free will. God chooses who to grant salvation to and who to damn.

If one takes any of these 'revelations' as being true free will is not possible.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Context is important. I wouldn't advise cherry picking or disregarding any verses though.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Aren't you cherry picking when you say - Ultimately the Qur'an speaks of having mercy as God is merciful, and judging with equity as the Lord is just. It also speaks of how Christ is ultimately the judge, and not man - given that some of what is written in the Torah, the bible in general and the Quran is not just, moral, reasonable or selfless?

Not at all. I speak of the main themes of the two based on actually reading them.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Depends entirely on which verses are read and which verses are ignored or disregarded. And context, precisely who these verses are referring to.

Yes. And exactly where, in which verses of the Quran, is the Jewish rabbi/prophet, Jesus, named as God? Your "It (i.e. the Quran) also speaks of how Christ is ultimately the judge, and not man..." implies that Christ is God. Or, popsthebuilder, is the Christ not synonymous with Jesus in your version of godworship?

Christ and Jesus are synonymous in ways. All those ways mean savior and messiah. None of them mean utterly equivalent to the One Creator GOD as a man. Jesus was put on earth for many reasons. Worshipping man as if GOD is not one of them.

Don't get it twisted; Jesus th Christ is the way to God and the direction of men by God's will.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Depends entirely on which verses are read and which verses are ignored or disregarded. And context, precisely who these verses are referring to.

In the Quran, there are 27 various verses that claim more or less that Allah predestines all that happens. You get no free will. And Paul claims all is predestined and we get no real free will. God chooses who to grant salvation to and who to damn.

If one takes any of these 'revelations' as being true free will is not possible.

Both are possible. One does not negate the possibility of the other.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[4321lynx]

Yes. And exactly where, in which verses of the Quran, is the Jewish rabbi/prophet, Jesus, named as God? Your "It (i.e. the Quran) also speaks of how Christ is ultimately the judge, and not man..." implies that Christ is God. Or, popsthebuilder, is the Christ not synonymous with Jesus in your version of godworship?

Christ and Jesus are synonymous in ways. All those ways mean savior and messiah. None of them mean utterly equivalent to the One Creator GOD as a man. Jesus was put on earth for many reasons. Worshipping man as if GOD is not one of them.

Don't get it twisted; Jesus th Christ is the way to God and the direction of men by God's will.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

,

And you maintain that the Quran says that? (IE the bolded sentence) In which verses? And where is Mahommed in this? And why are the Christian "People of the book" still considered to be infidels and treated as such? Or is it that you've got "it twisted"?