Case in Point...

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet, he feels inadequate to opine on the Koran?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not having read the Koran implies not having read the Bible now? The Christians are in trouble - then again, they never pay much attention anyhow. "Midianites? I've never heard of those." "Have you read the Bible?" "A bunch of times! It guides my life."

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure about this? Don't you follow the God of Abraham? I thought giving away one's daughter was pretty routine in the biblical days.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible's rife with this stuff. Ownership of women goes without saying. And when the Isrealites were done genociding, they took the leftover girls and made sex slaves out of them. Even Jesus is pretty clear that women are supposed to obey men. In general Jesus was pretty much against slavery, but his words could easily be interpreted to support it. Hell, it's easier to interpret Jesus as supporting slavery than it is to support Jesus as the compassionate messenger of a loving God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet, he feels inadequate to opine on the Koran?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you implying he is not up to the task of opining on the Bible? What specifically do you take issue with?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Jesus part. (He obviously is well versed in the Bible, though.)

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I'm being serious. Surely you've seen the posts by theists wanting to know where we atheists derive our morality from. They claim it's impossible without the bible. Why don't we just rape, pillage, and plunder? How can we live without the bible to guide us in morality?

Now you come along and claim to get your morality from the bible, yet you are using your own morality to judge the very book you claim to be getting your morality from!

Doesn't this strike you as circular, if not inconsistent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Morality is not impossible without the Bible. Absolute morality is impossible without an Absolute Standard. Followers of religions such as Christianity and Islam use the Bible and the Koran as their reference to try to figure out that standard.

Does that answer your question?

[/ QUOTE ]

And when they get stuck they compare this version of an absolute standard to their own morality? No it doesnt answer the question, we're right back at the start.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I don’t understand the question. Is someone giving me authority to decide what is moral?

I can read some reference material and interpret it. I then have an opinion on what it means. That becomes my opinion.

If that reference material is indeed a reference for Absolute Morality, then how I interpret it does not change AM.

I can be right or wrong in my interpretation. To say that my morality is right or wrong is not really accurate. I don’t “have” morality.

[Subfallen]

Lestat -

I agree with you. The error is qualitative: objectifying women as sexual commodities that, once used, become worthless. This point of departure is the problem; some take it closer to its logical conclusions than others, but all share the same fundamental error.

Also, as Peter666 would point out, it makes perfect sense for a theocracy to take extreme punitive measures against sexual impropriety. Because their religion teaches that God thinks fornication is basis for eternal torture; aren't they really doing women a favor by veiling them from head to toe and locking them safely away?

[ZeeJustin]

I've only skimmed this thread, but I agree with everything Lestat has said.

This stuff is ridiculous, and I can't believe how few the people are that realize even a faction of the extent to which religion causes problems like these.

Freedom of religion is one thing when books are read and prayers are said, but when it comes to having the right to stone women over what some 1500 year old book said is just ridiculous.

[borisp]

Anyone take my "Koran challenge" yet? Trip report?

Open this book up and read what it says. Seriously.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I've only skimmed this thread, but I agree with everything Lestat has said.

This stuff is ridiculous, and I can't believe how few the people are that realize even a faction of the extent to which religion causes problems like these.

Freedom of religion is one thing when books are read and prayers are said, but when it comes to having the right to stone women over what some 1500 year old book said is just ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree as well I think but maybe there's some different use of the word ridiculous. The belief here is nowhere near as silly as say believing that dinasours were on some ark. Much more serious because of the consequences of the belief but not particularly silly.

Also I'm suprised people think that the roots of this belief/practice are particularly religous.

chez

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Also I'm suprised people think that the roots of this belief/practice are particularly religous.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a chicken/egg problem. The roots of the belief go back thousands of years, and "religion" meant something different back then. It's impossible to cleanly separate everything. To some extent, the scriptures themselves were civil, rather than spiritual, documents.

If people wanted to follow the Code of Hammurabi today, I'd criticize them too. But they don't - because nobody thinks it's divine.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone take my "Koran challenge" yet? Trip report?

Open this book up and read what it says. Seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Recommend a good online translation?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also I'm suprised people think that the roots of this belief/practice are particularly religous.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a chicken/egg problem. The roots of the belief go back thousands of years, and "religion" meant something different back then. It's impossible to cleanly separate everything. To some extent, the scriptures themselves were civil, rather than spiritual, documents.

If people wanted to follow the Code of Hammurabi today, I'd criticize them too. But they don't - because nobody thinks it's divine.

[/ QUOTE ]
but its not the case that this type of attitude is only found within the religous. The root cause is largly economic and 'She deserved all she got' is a common refrain even in our 'civilised' advanced world. Put those sentiments in a brutal primative society and the results aren't suprising.

Even if you think that the reason these societies are still brutal and primative is because of religon its not the case that root cause of this barbarism are religous.

chez