Muslims put in camps like FDR did with Japanese Americans?

I'd be fine with most Muslims interpreting those texts differently because I don't believe inanimate objects have inherent power like you do as an Animist.

 

Please love people more than you do, because many OTHER people interpret the Bible worse than the UC do. Care about them enough (like I do) that that concerns you - find your compassion. The fact that the Bible says to hate gays and women is apparently not a concern of yours - I know your heart is bigger than that, however.

 

In other words Mohammad is not a role model for today, and Allah did NOT write a book that is "for all time", as the Qur'an implies. That's not intellectually consistent, I'm afraid. It's also dangerous that many 7th century norms would be taught in the 21st century. For example, Mohammad had a Jewish leader tortured to get that tribe's booty - can you say that Mohammad got that wrong (in an effort to try to raise Muslims' level of morality today)? Can you? I can.

 

The Unitarians would object quite strongly to your claims that the Bible says to hate anyone.

But given you are a hateful Anti-Theist, I would trust their interpretation over yours.

 

That's not what's best for the world, however.

 

I don't hate theists, but I do realize that their texts are very damaging to the world. Can we agree that it would have been best if Jesus had said "look, harming gays is wrong, and we will specifically let ethical gays in to heaven". A Modern Secular Humanist would of course say that, so we are more caring than Jesus. Can you rise to this level, as well, my friend?

 

Again, you are not very concerned that the Bible says to kill gays (this creates hatred towards gays), and that gays can't get into heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Please love people as much as I do, and say that it would have been better if it did not say those things.

 

But many won't - so that makes it a book that is not what's best for the world, of course. You don't seem as concerned about doing what's right for the world as much as I do. Open your heart to more love, and you will some day.

 

So the King James version was a complete waste of time then because people could access versions that came prior to that (by your logic.)

 

Considering torture in that era was commonplace? Considering it was wildly considered correct that truth could not be assertained from a criminal or enemy until they were tortured?

 

Wait, you claim to be a Humanist yet you are going to say who know what is best for 6 billion individuals?

 

No. YOUR INTERPRETATION of their texts ic applied are bad. But your interpretation is always the most literal, hateful, and ignorant version that could possibly be used and then you act like every religious believer is stupid enough to follow that version.

 

Now I've heard everything! Incredible. I never thought I'd see a person on this forum DEFEND TORTURE (well, except for people defending Q5:33)...but I guess if you live long enough you see it all! Since you clearly appear to not be concerned about humanity (torture is bad, dude) I'm going to leave this thread for now so that I can do what atheists always do.

 

Unitarians interpret those passages very differently. Why should I assume your interpretation is correct?

 

Support your claim that "many won't be"?

 

The King James Version is a TRANSLATION.

 

I'm not defending anything. Different time periods have different moral standards.

Do you think it's fair for you to be condemn as evil because you MIGHT be doing something that MIGHT be considered abhorrent by some unknown possible future society?

 

Because our Muslim population is so low(about 1%. England's is about 6%.). And because Muslim Americans are essentially law abiding and respective of constitutional rights, rather than being fanatical mid-easterners. I don't see your scenario as even a remote possibility. It looks to me that the problem isn't so much with whether or not someone is a Muslim, as it is the culture from which they come.

 

Good point. Camps would happen in Europe before they would happen in America.

 

Apparently one needs to be extremely S L O W A N D C L E A R when making comments meant for you, so allow me to clarify.

The very loud and violent "Voices" predominant in Current Islam far outweigh the few whispers put forth by the non-violent adherents, which makes the louder the face of this religion.

 

Does that make it Okay?

 

Hehe, type S L O W L Y when typing for Q.

The "face of the religion" is whoever it is (any you appear to be right), but the religion itself is defined by ALLAH AND MOHAMMAD's deeds/words in the Islamic texts (not just a particular Muslim's interpretation of Allah and Mohammad's words). And Allah/Mohammad said some vile stuff.

 

Great reply!
You're on a roll.

 

When those better societies show up, and I'm ethical inferior to them (I probably will be), THEN AT THAT TIME, yes, you can say that I am not a good role model for THEM AT THAT TIME, just like Mohammad is not now. You seem to forget that in Islam, Muhammad is known as al-Insān al-Kāmil (the perfect human) and uswa hasana (an excellent model of conduct), and not just for one small particular moment in time, but for all time. So Muslims can't condemn Mohammad for having sex with the child (Aisha), because his example is for all time. That's why many Muslim nations have had laws approving of sex with kids. Barbaric.

 

Have A Nice Day