Case in Point...

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter. When a book actually says, "if she refuses to have sex with you, stone her to death," it's irrelevant that most worshippers think it really means this or that.

The clearest, most direct interpretation says you must commit atrocities. That's enough to indict the text and any religion it's based on.

If the meaning is actually compassionate, then torture and brutality shouldn't be used to couch that meaning. The idea of a God planting these words, knowing that some people will take them at face value, torturing, killing, and raping their neighbors, is sick. It's absurd, but it's also twisted and evil.

As long as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are based on these texts, they will be sick, pathological religions regardless of the specific actions of their followers. An instruction manual on doing horrible things is an instruction manual on doing horrible things, even if people like to interpret it nonliterally.

Those publishing the message "commit atrocities" shouldn't be let off the hook just because they intend that message to be taken with a heavy dose of special nuance. Certainly the readers can't be relied upon to apply such nuanced readings, and extremism is only intellectual honesty among those who don't understand the various technicalities that make this rule or that rule inapplicable. As long as you say that the command is God's word, it stands to reason some people will obey it at face value. The seed of the violence and hate is the text itself, even if it's a stupid interpretation of the text that results in such behavior.

One thing that skeptics (if not all atheists) do believe is that everything - everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Nothing is absolute, nothing is the ultimate reference or the ultimate authority, and therefore a single misinterpretation can't result in awful behavior.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter. When a book actually says, "if she refuses to have sex with you, stone her to death," it's irrelevant that most worshippers think it really means this or that.

The clearest, most direct interpretation says you must commit atrocities. That's enough to indict the text and any religion it's based on.


[/ QUOTE ]

where does the koran say this? i'm not familiar w/it at all and i assumed that it was being interpreted loosely in order to justify atrocities.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter. When a book actually says, "if she refuses to have sex with you, stone her to death," it's irrelevant that most worshippers think it really means this or that.

The clearest, most direct interpretation says you must commit atrocities. That's enough to indict the text and any religion it's based on.


[/ QUOTE ]

where does the koran say this? i'm not familiar w/it at all and i assumed that it was being interpreted loosely in order to justify atrocities.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's Leviticus, dude. This discussion shouldn't be limited to Islam, which has historically been relatively peaceful. I know that there are some verses in the Koran that, taken literally, are pretty damning. But I don't want to discuss them, as I've never read the Koran and am ill-equipped to deal with arguments of context/etc.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter. When a book actually says, "if she refuses to have sex with you, stone her to death," it's irrelevant that most worshippers think it really means this or that.

The clearest, most direct interpretation says you must commit atrocities. That's enough to indict the text and any religion it's based on.

If the meaning is actually compassionate, then torture and brutality shouldn't be used to couch that meaning. The idea of a God planting these words, knowing that some people will take them at face value, torturing, killing, and raping their neighbors, is sick. It's absurd, but it's also twisted and evil.

As long as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are based on these texts, they will be sick, pathological religions regardless of the specific actions of their followers. An instruction manual on doing horrible things is an instruction manual on doing horrible things, even if people like to interpret it nonliterally.

Those publishing the message "commit atrocities" shouldn't be let off the hook just because they intend that message to be taken with a heavy dose of special nuance. Certainly the readers can't be relied upon to apply such nuanced readings, and extremism is only intellectual honesty among those who don't understand the various technicalities that make this rule or that rule inapplicable. As long as you say that the command is God's word, it stands to reason some people will obey it at face value. The seed of the violence and hate is the text itself, even if it's a stupid interpretation of the text that results in such behavior.

One thing that skeptics (if not all atheists) do believe is that everything - everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Nothing is absolute, nothing is the ultimate reference or the ultimate authority, and therefore a single misinterpretation can't result in awful behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you’ve been reading Farenheit 451.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like you’ve been reading Farenheit 451.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, censorship is cool. That's what I'm always saying.