Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post Reply New Topic

I would say it's more like how Man has interpreted the religions, and how Man's ego manifests itself via their interpretations.

It's the religions as interpreted by Man, perhaps, rather than the religions themselves.

There are plenty of both faiths who don't espouse homophobia, war, etc.

Can you tell please tell me what you mean with homophobia and denying women full equality? I'd like to have some context and maybe you can put some scripture with it. I might be able to explain the things you seem to struggle with.

To be a Christian is to rely on Christ to be their savior.

That means buying into the notion that substitutionary punishment is somehow moral.

It is not, so to say that one is a Christian is to say that they follow an immoral creed.

An intelligent observer will see that both Christianity and Islam have created intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions that deny women and gays equality under the law. They also both grew themselves with the sword instead of good deeds and are therefore unworthy of being called moral ideologies.

Moral people will agree and will renounce their faith if they are Christian or Muslim.

Regards
DL

You are correct, yet the majority do and show how immoral they are by supporting their immoral religions.

Regards
DL

Indeed, yes. Man interpretation can be altered by all sorts of factors. Such as hate and grief, but also for personal benefit. But I think misinterpret might be a better word to describe this.

I am not struggling at all.

I am not sure if you are talking Islam or Christianity so will touch on both.

Christianity calls gays abominations and the secular laws they promoted have only recently been outlawed.
Christianity goes by Genesis where you will find, --- he will rule over you. Scriptures also say, that women are to remain silent in church and not teach men anything. In the Commandments, women are classed with the possessions of men.

In Islam, Sharia is clear that women are worth only half of what men are worth.

Google any of the key word I put and you can find all the citations you can handle.

Regards
DL

One thing to keep in mind when I'm talking about religion...is that I'm an agnostic atheist who seeks to ponder religion from a relatively objective standpoint.

A documentary film does not make a legitimate source. A web search for Sharia and Canada does get a lot of hits, but no reliable sources which show what you describe. Searching news articles for Sharia Canada turned up nothing, really.

Alternative dispute resolution is a method for reducing the burden on the courts. Often it starts with mediation, in which a trained professional tries to find areas of agreement between the parties. This requires understanding how the parties perceive a just outcome, and that is likely to have some religious basis. So, in the case of arbitration between two people who share a conceptual framework of justice, that should be the framework used by the court, to the extend that it is compatible with local law. To construe this as the imposition of Sharia in Canada is absurd.

To the rest of the debate, you can find examples of people of any religion behaving badly or well. Finding correlations between the number of Muslims and apostasy or blasphemy prohibitions doesn't prove anything. The promotion and enforcement of that kind of law is a hallmark of the authoritarian state. It makes a nice distraction for an angry population, diverting that anger from the government.

The most vocal advocates for overthrowing western governments and imposing religious law of any kind tend to come from western countries, from the local converts to extreme ideologies.

No a Christian is a term used to describe a follower of Christ. People used the term 'Christians' to describe these people. You however forget something realy important Jesus shouldn't only be your Savior but Lord aswell. This means you subdue yourself to his rules and his complete authority over every part of your life . This includes keeping his commandments. If someone tries to do this a.k.a 'follow Christ' he is a Christian. If he doesn't, well then he isn't a Christian.

This is known as the "No True Scotsman" argument. It means that you get to decide who is or is not a true christian, and thus all true christians are good and noble, no matter how much bad people do in the name of christianity. It is a logical fallacy, because it makes your claim non-falsifiable.

I do not know what that means. Religions are supposed to be based on morals.

I look at their morals and most of those are subjective.

What do you mean by objective standpoint?

Regards
DL

Thanks for the laugh. I was due for a good one.

Listen. Learn.

https://www.clarionproject.org/videos/w ... -iii-begin

Regards
DL

Jesus mentions who is a true Christan or not. Who am I to decide who is or isn't a true Christian? Christians can do bad things lets not forget that. But Christians strive to make Jesus Lord of every expect of their life. And if they don't, they aren't followers of Christ. Read the Gospel Jesus has a lot to say about who his followers are, and who aren't. And you should argue with Jesus over this not me. Because I didn't pull some "No True Scotsman" argument, Jesus did . And since he is Lord he gets to decide who is followers are and who aren't, ok?

+ 1

Regards
DL

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels my friend you couldn't be more wrong. Let's take the part of Scripture about homosexuality shall we.
Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

It says that a male who lies with another male as he does with a female is an abomination. This doesn't mean that a homosexual is an abomination but the act itself. If Christians however see these people as an abomination you should really begin to ask if these people are Christians to begin with. Because I have never seen a Christian seeing another person as an abomination, regardless of what horrible things he has commited. And if you say you did, these people propably aren't Christians so don't start on this.


Leviticus 20:13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

This piece of Scripture requires a whole lot of more context than the other one. I can explain this one aswell but we are not talking about this one as for now maybe you would like the context, just ask.

Ehm lets see. Women are a possesion of their husbands. You said in Genesis 'he will rule over you', good that you mention this. Let's take the whole piece of Scripture shall we.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

This however isn't a commandment or a rule. You should see it as a punishment. And history has confirmed the fact that men indeed rule over women. Women rights and every thing women can do nowadays are because men allowed them to do so. Men gave women rights. However not only our female counterparts received punishment males aswell. Let's take a look.

Genesis 3:17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. 18"Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; 19By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

Well lets see you also mentioned something about Commandments and women being male possesion. Can you maybe quote that Scripture? I can't find it for the time being.