PAUL AUSTIN MURPHY ON POLITICS

PAUL AUSTIN MURPHY ON POLITICS


The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here


This blog used to be called EDL Extra. I was a supporter (neither a member nor a leader) of the EDL until 2012. This blog has retained the old web address.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Wednesday, 31 March 2010

Bible Versus the Koran [by Peter Pedant & Age of Enlightenment]

AgeofEnlightenment:
"Whether it be 'inspired', a 'message', or 'written' by god, it all comes down to the same arrogant mentality; people who say they know the mind of a omnipotent and omniscient being that is untestable, unprovable, and that it should not be believed by evidence but instead on faith. You can get your fair share of demagogs in any religion Peterpedant, who will base their immoral actions on scripture."

All the same, do you not agree that a collection of documents written by different people at different times in different contexts allows for much greater interpretative freedom than that which is exclusively from one source: Muhammad, and claiming to be the direct verbatim words themselves? Hypothetically speaking of course?

As a side note, in your studies, have you found the Bible to be overtly political, governing every aspect of a Christian's life, as can be found within the Qur'an/aHadith/Islam?

AgeofEnlightenment:
"Personal experience arguments don't work I'm afraid, if you're keen to flag fallacious arguments then don't use them."

"I've met christians who say that the bible is also the 'immutable' or 'eternal' word of god, and I've met some muslims who take a less literal interpretations of the quran."

"Saying that comparing islam to christianity is the same as comparing apples to oranges is retarded, since islam borrowed from christianity."

Islam borrowed from Christianity so therefore they are the same right? What logic are you using here?

The Bible, which generally moves from relatively violent episodes to far more peaceful mandates, the Qur’an travels the exact opposite path. They couldn't be more different. The handful of earlier verses that speak of tolerance are overwhelmed by an avalanche of later ones that carry a much different message. Abrogation cannot logically work in reverse so muslims must either accept naskh or contradiction/heresy as you have correctly pointed out.

While Old Testament verses of blood and guts are generally bound by historical context within the text itself, Qur'anic imperatives to violence usually appear open-ended and subject to personal interpretation.

The second covenant tells it's followers NOT to get involved in violence or killing of non-believers.(Abrogation Logical) Whereas the Medinan LATER verses of the Qur'an tells followers to kill and subjugate non-beleivers (Abrogation Retarded) Could this be the reason why Christians and Jews are never involved in speeched calling for the death of non-beleivers or being invovled in acts of violence using OT as justification and Muslims are. Often? .

Jesus had a chance to be cruel or physically harm someone he did the opposite and was kind to them. His message was that god didn't want people to be violent or to use the Old Testament to justify violence. His message about "he who is without sin cast the first stone" was an effort by him to cancel out the Old Testament laws about stoning people to death. Again, abrogation logical.

Islam is the polar opposite in so many ways, if you cannot see that then I cannot help you.

Age of Enlightenment:
"A christian saying that the bible is 'man-made' isn't what I or you were asking, you were saying you've never heard a muslim say that their religious texts are contradictory; try to have a consistent standard argument for both please."

Correct me if I am wrong AoE, but weren't YOU the one bringing in Bible equivalence? I was just stupid enough to take the bait in responding to it.

AgeofEnlightenment:
"I can't tell you how many times I've seen in person, or on the internet; christians who get apologetic, go into a rant, or even send death threats whenever someone points out a contradiction in the bible."
Personal experience arguments don't work I'm afraid, apparently.

"In reality there's very, very few people in any faith who are willing to admit that their scripture could be wrong or inconsistent about something, because to do so would instantly make them heretical."

There is not another religion in the world that consistently produces terrorism in the name of religion as does Islam. The most dangerous Muslims are nearly always those who interpret the Qur’an most transparently. Thats why other faiths do not concern me. You are the one who is always so keen to use equivalence to deflect or justify Islam. My challenge was not being laid at the feet of Jews and Christians but at Muslims. It's no good pointing the finger and saying 'Well they do it as well....'. It wouldn't hold up in a court of law.

Well maybe an AoE kangaroo court it would

No comments:

Post a Comment