"Slavery and beheadings, it is part of our religion"

This CNN article seems to show that slavery and beheadings are indeed a part of the religion of the enemy that we are fighting: http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/22/world/meast/inside-isis-juergen-todenhoefer/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
But is this true? Is slavery and beheadings a part of their religious texts, or is it not? Your opinion?

I myself tend to believe them, if they say "yes", then we'd need to SHOW that's it's not a part of their religion.

 

33:50 - "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."

23:5 - "... except with their wives and slave girls, for these are lawful to them:..."

 

That was quick!
So it would appear that ISIS/Boko/AQ/Taliban/AlShabab/IslamicJihad/Hamas and the hundred or so other Jihad groups have been telling the truth all along, and the Muslim apologists, insisting it's a "religion of peace", have been wrong all along, or am I missing something? Would a Qur'an missing those two verses be a better book than one that includes those verses?

 

It is a religion of peace but only if you follow the early Mohammad. You can chose to follow the later violent Mohammad and still be OK by Islam.

 

You are wise. Too bad Obama is not as wise as you.

 

Perchance your systematic unwillingness to even consider the usual ideas dealing with this issue could shed some light on the reason why theists are unwilling to answer your other threads.

Now, personally, I am no fan of the expression "of peace" because it is not well defined (does it mean that it can only bring peace? That it was initially inspired by peace? That it can be interpreted in a peaceful manner? Or what?), but I believe the idea that one interpretation should reflect on other interpretations (without further well declared similarities) is too simplistic.

Should the idea that screwdrivers can be used to kill people (and have been) reflect badly on the idea that screwdrivers are pretty useful for building houses? No. There are certainly sensible arguments that can be made, carefully stating whatever links one would make and the exact circumstances under which the argument holds, but so far, none of that has been mentioned. The only arguments I've seen have been more or less equivalent to the ones that people use to link atheism to Stalinist atrocities. If we want others to not make daft associations, then we should extend the courtesy of not make them ourselves.

 

My thread "If evolution is true, then obviously "Jesus" is not real" received this message "This thread has exceeded post limits and is now closed.", so I do think people answer my posts. But I pose incredibly tough questions for them to answer, and THAT'S why they wouldn't respond. My post about Hitler vs. Jesus: they can't answer that in that example Jesus was less damaging to Jews that Hitler, so they either attack me or don't answer the question. Their religion is being exposed for what it is, nothing more than legends.

 

We're in a war, so why don't you mention those for us, then.

- - - Updated - - -

Swensson, would a Qur'an missing those two verses be a better book than one that includes those two verses?

 

You are calling for a speculation... nothing factual.

 

So if we had a version of the Qur'an that was like I alluded to, you'd want those two verses (that approved of taking sex slaves!) ADDED to that version? Is that what you're saying!? You'd add them in? Sex slaves?

 

I thought we went over this several times. You are not entitled to answers to your threads. If you want to know why Christians don't answer, you could ask. Swensson's theory is as good as yours, and there are about three other reasons neither of you have touched upon including the reasons I recommend that they don't. Maybe they see the game as counterproductive, unhealthy for participants, beneath them, or a waste of time. I doubt the questions are all that hard for people of faith who know the scriptures and their historical and religious context much better than either of us do.

 

They CAN'T answer them in a logical, consistent, moral way, THAT'S why.

- - - Updated - - -

You have no idea how wrong you are about this.
They'd do it, if they could, and easily put the uppity atheist in his/her place, to go scurrying back to reading "The God Delusion", with the atheist sucking their thumb and in utter defeat all the way....as a former theist I know why they don't....because they don't have the truth on their side.

 

I'm not. That being said, my primary concern when it comes to violent or possibly violent conflicts is human wellbeing (usually through peace), and that is not achieved through poignant arguments, no matter how correct. Even to Plato and his contemporaries (and probably way before that), it was obvious that waterproof arguments were not an efficient way to resolve differences of opinion to one's favour.

However, far be it from me to leave a question unanswered or point unmentioned, so as an example of a possible argument, I would name the idea that a non-radical muslim may perpetuate the idea of getting one's truths from the Qur'an, which socially may propagate to someone who is more susceptible to more extreme forms of Islam.

Possibly. Of course, I don't consider myself to be an expert on the context of the Qur'an or the middle east, and judging from your interpretation of Jihad, I'm not going to take it for granted that your understanding of Islam is fair, but for the purposes of this discussion, yes, it would probably be better.

I have no interest in defending the veracity or intrinsic moral nature of Islam or the Qur'an, and I don't wish to come across as doing so. However, I have hesitations based on the chaotic nature of international (and prenational) relations. For instance, it is not inconceivable that a less malleable or warish religion might have been ignored in favour of an even worse one. As I've argued before, I believe that much of the war in the related region would have appeared in one way or another anyway, it being situated where it is with respect to trade routes and natural resources and defences. With that in mind, I have a hard time thinking that the edition you suggest would make much of a difference. Thus, my consideration would have to be very hypothetical (which is the way I prefer to phrase myself anyway) and as such, I would have to include possibilities such as a semi-peaceful religion being replaced by an outright warish.

I was referring to this thread.

So should I then conclude that your unwillingness to consider the position I have explained here and on many other occasions because it's too tough for you? That seems to me to be a little harsh and presumptuous.

 

Defending their god from an "ignorant" atheist like myself, and at the same time helping the poor misguided atheist away from a certain eternity in hell.....they think that's a waste of time? Then they aren't as moral as they claim. No, they'd show us atheists where we are wrong, easily, logically, consistently. They don't do that, because they don't have the truth on their side, I propose. But I've been wrong before.

 

How well some of us already know. It is cute that you throw in that parameter of "logically', when at other times some atheists point out their belief that Theists are 'illogical'. If you are one of those type atheists, then your requirement of 'logically' 'consistent' answers is an irrational requirement to be made of those that you might consider to be 'illogical'.

 

I did not skip to work this morning. I can skip. I could easily skip to work this morning or any other. I chose not to skip to work this morning. Had you 'dared' me to skip to work this morning, I still would not skip to work, because your dares, however 'uppity' you may have delivered those dares, do not control me. Maybe I don't skip because it is tiring. Maybe I do not skip because I did not hear your dare. Maybe I do not skip because I am not in the mood to skip and your dare was inconsequential or coincidental to my decision to skip or not. . Maybe I do not skip because I don't like to feel manipulated into skipping. Maybe I do not skip to work because if you like to watch me and feel rewarded, you are more likely to have me skip tomorrow and the next day.

You do not know squat about why posters do or do not respond to you. You pick your favorite reason and thrust it forward. You just are not so important as to determine most or all theist behavior around here. For someone who purports to be governed by logic and reason, I'd think you get this stuff already.

 

That presupposes that theists believe you will be persuaded by reason logic etc, that they believe you won't simply get more obstinate, stubborn and obnoxious than they perceive you to have been in the past.. It presupposes that you are rational rather than irrationally attached to your view. Now considering you sure don't have me, as a fellow atheist, convinced that a Vulcan could get through to you on this or any issue, I think it likely that theists have their doubts that it would be a good use of their time. By the way its not a moral duty for anyone to provide you with posts that prove you wrong or right. It is not a moral duty to respond to your dares or give you any attention whatsoever. If they think that discussing the topic with you is feeding into a dysfunctional interaction, they may have a moral duty NOT to discuss it with you.

 

For example, if I "thrust forward" my claim that the reason that they don't remove the parts of the bible that say to kill their kids if they turn out gay is because Christians are bad parents, they don't seem to give me a logical, consistent, ALTERNATIVE to that claim. They of course would if they could. Instead, they, like you, attack the messenger. So of course I'm left to think that Christians are bad parents - until they give me a good reason why they don't do that simple loving thing (remove the parts that say to kill gays.)

 

If Jesus is a "loving" role model like they claim, then I believe they would indeed try to help me out of my "delusion", and to see the light of the lord. If they cared for me, they would.

You mentioned "logic": I'm not sure LOGIC is something that they rely on much, since they believe that it's, say, very logical that a person who accepted slavery (Jesus) could be the best role model of all time. They must have a different view of that word than atheists do.

 

Do you consider your consciousness to be a slave to your body? If you do, then you condone slavery. If you don't, then please explain why your consciousness can only be displayed to others through your bodily actions.

 

When I claim that Jesus is immoral for not letting, say, Ben Franklin or Gandhi or crank into their magic Apartheid "heaven", he'd rather see them burn (one sick SOB), you think the reason they don't answer me is anything OTHER than the fact that they deep down realize that Jesus is incredibly immoral, and they don't wish to think about and/or discuss that inconvenient fact? I think it's very clear why they discuss stuff with me less than they would otherwise do.

 

No offense, Incorporeal, as I know you mean well, but that's by far the worst attempt I've ever seen to defend Jesus' approval of slavery. See btthegreat, this is what I'm constantly up against! Never will they say "ok, look, yes, Jesus was immoral for accepting slavery as he of all people would have known better, but I'm STILL afraid of his hell, so I'll still continue to suck up to him."

That would be refreshing if they were that honest. I think Jesus did a lousy job of teaching them to be honest.

- - - Updated - - -

I rest my case, btthegreat!

 

Again. we'll try this again. There are the same multitude of reasons for not providing you an alternative, as there are for me to refuse to skip to work despite the fact you dared me to skip to work. Maybe many of them did not read your questions, do not read your posts, or enter your threads. Maybe they scan them but do not respond because they feel lazy, or disinterested, or feel their answers will not be accepted whatever they are, because prior history has suggested your attitude or mental state is not conducive to open dialogue with theists, or maybe they do not perceive it to be open to dialogue even if it is. Maybe they do not like you. Maybe they are too busy. So for many theists in this forum it is very probable that they would NOT provide a logical, consistent, ALTERNATIVE, despite the fact that they could.

And you are not left to do or think anything because posters on this forum did not give you what you want them to. You choose to think what you choose to think.

 

So why even bother, right!? If we can't solve all the world's problems in one act then we shouldn't even bother, is that it?

So how many lives would it have to save before you'd advocate a change in those texts? I say one life. How about you?

 

So you consider betraying your own beliefs to be an act of 'honesty'? You rest your case because you are fearful of answering the question that was presented to you. That is an act of your own intellectual dishonesty.