Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[shionoro]

Religious texts are not immune to being manipulated maliciously by those with ill intentions. Look at ISIS for example.

But a lot of the things that are in the Quran ARE fucked up.
That is something we should acknowledge.

That is true, no one can prove what happens after death, especially biological death. Many people experience clinical death but technically their bodies are still working. That's why people who are religious just gotta believe they will be in a better place and take a leap of faith. It wouldn't be fair and it's kinda morbid to think that someone who does despicable things can be in the same boat as someone with good intentions. What would be the point of living following laws, rules, etc.?

How so? The religious text I know are about fixing oneself and loving others.

The love depicted in those texts can be very harmful, so can the feeling be that you are a sinner.

 

[Reebi]

Religious texts are not immune to being manipulated maliciously by those with ill intentions. Look at ISIS for example.

So can anything be taken out of context (since when does media get the real story right?). Again, the issue isn't with the religion itself but the people who use it as an excuse. It's why a lot of court cases don't use freedom of religion it's hard to prove the illegal activity actual came from their religion because the action contradicts their religious text.

But a lot of the things that are in the Quran ARE fucked up.
That is something we should acknowledge.



The love depicted in those texts can be very harmful, so can the feeling be that you are a sinner.

Do you have any examples in Arabic (the language where it's in the original form)? How can loving your neighbour and loving your family be harmful? If more people put aside differences and learned to love one another, this world would be heaven.

I do agree, some people have an 'us vs them' mentality but everyone has struggles and humans are imperfect so it's unfair to judge. That's why I believe everyone shouldn't think like that (us vs them). The more one learns about a stranger the more one learns how much they are the same.

 

[shionoro]

Do you have any examples in Arabic (the language where it's in the original form)? How can loving your neighbour and loving your family be harmful? If more people put aside differences and learned to love one another, this world would be heaven.

Why do you need an example in arabic for that? Do you think the translations are so off that the teaching has no resemblances?
We know what is canon moral viewpoints in Islam and i know how a lot of gruesome parts are tried to be explained away. But the Quran DOES contain parts in which have terrible meaning.
Instead of employing rightwing pages, let's have the quran in a common translation given out by western muslims speak for itself:

https://quran.com/ Here is one of the most common english translations.
Let's go into one of the, in my opinion, most problematic parts: ... Or wait.
I decided to take another approach.

You give me a random number and i will look at the surah correlating with that number and I am VERY sure that every single sura contains problematic content.
I doN#t want to be accused of cherrypicking here.

do agree, some people have an 'us vs them' mentality but everyone has struggles and humans are imperfect so it's unfair to judge. That's why I believe everyone shouldn't think like that (us vs them). The more one learns about a stranger the more one learns how much they are the same.

Religion absolutely encourages that mentality.
And thus it is not unfair to accuse it for that.
Religion does NOT teach us to learn about strangers and possibly even be swayed by their ways.
As its very core concept, it teaches us strangers are wrong and at best that we should accept these poor fools.

No matter how it is masked, with how much 'love your next' and so on. At its core, it is that.

 

[M3J]

That is true, no one can prove what happens after death, especially biological death. Many people experience clinical death but technically their bodies are still working. That's why people who are religious just gotta believe they will be in a better place and take a leap of faith. It wouldn't be fair and it's kinda morbid to think that someone who does despicable things can be in the same boat as someone with good intentions. What would be the point of living following laws, rules, etc.?

How so? The religious text I know are about fixing oneself and loving others.

The Bible and Qu'ran as far as I know have passages of violence in it. The Bible thumping Jamaican coworker told me that it says in the Bible to stone the homosexuals, and that no man may lie in bed with another man. And apparently, it also said colored men are inferior... or that white men are superior, which the Americans during slavery era used to justify enslaving the blacks and Native Americans.

 

[shionoro]

The Bible and Qu'ran as far as I know have passages of violence in it. The Bible thumping Jamaican coworker told me that it says in the Bible to stone the homosexuals, and that no man may lie in bed with another man. And apparently, it also said colored men are inferior... or that white men are superior, which the Americans during slavery era used to justify enslaving the blacks and Native Americans.

There are some things mixed up here. What the bible says is that a slave belongs to its owner, so it is justifying slavery.
But it doesnt talk about black and white.

It is also true that the old testament wants its people to enforce stonings in some cases or beatings to death.

Howver, a lot of these rules, in the modern bible interpretation, cease to be in the new testament.

 

[M3J]

Got that based on a textbook or something. I forgot where, originally. But point still stands, religion for the most part has become toxic. Though, people like Shawn Michaels prove me wrong, thankfully.

Nevertheless, the Bible still at one point suggested killing homosexuals. You can't target the Qu'ran and pretend as if the Bible's peaceful.

 

[Reebi]

There are some things mixed up here. What the bible says is that a slave belongs to its owner, so it is justifying slavery.
But it doesnt talk about black and white.

It is also true that the old testament wants its people to enforce stonings in some cases or beatings to death.

Howver, a lot of these rules, in the modern bible interpretation, cease to be in the new testament.

Yes, most Muslims believe the original text in the original language is how it should be read.

Got that based on a textbook or something. I forgot where, originally. But point still stands, religion for the most part has become toxic. Though, people like Shawn Michaels prove me wrong, thankfully.

Nevertheless, the Bible still at one point suggested killing homosexuals. You can't target the Qu'ran and pretend as if the Bible's peaceful.

I didn't live in the Bronze Age but I would think making babies was a priority. However, the New Testiment, where Christians base their teachings, suggests otherwise "love thy neighbour". There are gay ministers here in Canada so I know they aren't all homophobics who take the Bible word for word. Most use the Old as a historical context because eating shrimp and clothes with more than one fabric was forbidden in that time period and how many Christians do? Same with pork and most of Europe don't do circumcision. Makes sense, I wouldn't trust pork or shrimp from 2000 years ago and clothing is different.

 

[shionoro]

Yes, most Muslims believe the original text in the original language is how it should be read.

I know that. But that doesn't change the meaning nor the interpretation of the meaning.
It's not like the majority of western muslims speaks arabic. They use the same translations as i do.

Or do you think you can only interpret the bible in its general meaning if you speak aramaeic?
The translation is good enough to find something problematic, hateful or generally wrong in every single sura with some few exceptions (and the exceptions are usually going on and on about how great god is, not any real content).

--- Double Post Merged, May 26, 2017, Original Post Date: May 26, 2017 ---

I didn't live in the Bronze Age but I would think making babies was a priority. However, the New Testiment, where Christians base their teachings, suggests otherwise "love thy neighbour". There are gay ministers here in Canada so I know they aren't all homophobics who take the Bible word for word. Most use the Old as a historical context because eating shrimp and clothes with more than one fabric was forbidden in that time period and how many Christians do? Same with pork and most of Europe don't do circumcision. Makes sense, I wouldn't trust pork or shrimp from 2000 years ago and clothing is different.

Christians in the US and other countries where they have enough influence still try to shun homosexuals.
Let's please don't delude ourselves. There are countries in which christianity doesnt do that, but it is still very clear that the christian god at one point thought all gay people should die.

 

[M3J]

Yes, most Muslims believe the original text in the original language is how it should be read.

I didn't live in the Bronze Age but I would think making babies was a priority. However, the New Testiment, where Christians base their teachings, suggests otherwise "love thy neighbour". There are gay ministers here in Canada so I know they aren't all homophobics who take the Bible word for word. Most use the Old as a historical context because eating shrimp and clothes with more than one fabric was forbidden in that time period and how many Christians do? Same with pork and most of Europe don't do circumcision. Makes sense, I wouldn't trust pork or shrimp from 2000 years ago and clothing is different.

Doubt the priority was making babies, especially when homosexuality seemed to be normal prior to the Bible being taken literally, I think? I remember reading how the Greek men had young male lovers or had sex with them anyway. While they're not all homophobic, it doesn't change the fact that the Bible at one point condemned homosexuality and supported maiming or killing them. People also hide behind the Bible to justify being against homosexuality. "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is probably the most common argument you'll hear.

And the Westboro Baptist Church. Crazy people.

 

[Spirit]

Yes, most Muslims believe the original text in the original language is how it should be read.

I didn't live in the Bronze Age but I would think making babies was a priority. However, the New Testiment, where Christians base their teachings, suggests otherwise "love thy neighbour". There are gay ministers here in Canada so I know they aren't all homophobics who take the Bible word for word. Most use the Old as a historical context because eating shrimp and clothes with more than one fabric was forbidden in that time period and how many Christians do? Same with pork and most of Europe don't do circumcision. Makes sense, I wouldn't trust pork or shrimp from 2000 years ago and clothing is different.

I'm a fan of thinking the bible needs a Third Testament honestly.

 

[Raven]

Check wars most of it because of religion and it still going on so don't limit it to one religion only because i saw many verses in different holy books that encourage wars and violence against women, gays, blacks and disbelievers. Imo Religions must have one source you can't just change the content as you please it is supposed to be a word of god that unite ppl into one group but in fact the opposite is happening you have catholic protestant orthodox in christinaty while you have sunna shia sufa in Islam. I think the religion matter is very complicated even for those who believe in the same faith so it needs study to discuss it.

 

[Spirit]

Check wars most of it because of religion and it still going on so don't limit it to one religion only because i saw many verses in different holy books that encourage wars and violence against women, gays, blacks and disbelievers. Imo Religions must have one source you can't just change the content as you please it is supposed to be a word of god that unite ppl into one group but in fact the opposite is happening you have catholic protestant orthodox in christinaty while you have sunna shia sufa in Islam. I think the religion matter is very complicated even for those who believe in the same faith so it needs study to discuss it.

I'm starting a Religious History and Anthropology course in 2018 and really looking forward to it.

 

[Raven]

I'm starting a Religious History and Anthropology course in 2018 and really looking forward to it.

I want to start too but not anytime soon xD

 

[Kappa123]

Yes, most Muslims believe the original text in the original language is how it should be read.

I doubt most muslims in Turkey know the meaning of more than a few verses. They just recite and memorize Arabic without any clue to meaning.

I can say from my experience, majority know more hadith than actual Quran verses.

 

[M3J]

The amusing part about right wingers wanting to give Jesus blowjobs is that Jesus himself would be immensely disappointed by the right wing. The shit they do and believe in go against his supposed preachings.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

As far as I'm concerned, the main point of Religion (and the one thing that every Religion has in common) is to achieve the Ultimate Realm. Doesn't matter how you look at it from a different angle: Hindus and Buddhists wishes to break apart from Samsara, Norse's goal is to reach Valhalla, and the Abrahamic Faiths (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) achieving heaven.

Unfortunately, this mostly works in theory and messy in practice. The biggest problem about Religion as a whole is its shroud of mysteries. For example, Hinduism being the oldest and active religion in human history has yet to unfold who is the founder (or if there ever was a founder). Why is it the case for the third largest religion in the world? At least with many other religions, there are known founders such as Siddhartha of Buddhism and Jesus of Christianity.
There are also other mysteries as well such as Moses and Jesus having powers, but I'll leave it at that.

Another major issue is that Religion can be used for manipulation and it being extremely "traditional": the caste system in Hinduism is really the religious version of a Social Status, with Dalit being the lowest of the lowest. Abrahamic faiths believing how they should treat non-believers or how they handle "crimes" such as homosexuality or adultery (yet in many of their texts, they agree that rape is acceptable if it's towards a non-believer, preferably a slave).

The sad part here is that I'm not even some atheist who says stupid shit like "ReLiGiOn Is BuLlShIt!"; I'm a Muslim that used to be some apologist when it comes to tragic incidents. In today's standard, I guess I fall under the category of a "Liberal Muslim".

 

[Kappa123]

No matter what it is, people will find a way to corrupt it.
Religion of Islam people believe in today is very different than its initial state. There are a lot of things that could be considered blasphemy according to Quran, yet people believe/practice them. Existence of hadiths is the most obvious example.

 

[Arjuna]

As far as I'm concerned, the main point of Religion (and the one thing that every Religion has in common) is to achieve the Ultimate Realm. Doesn't matter how you look at it from a different angle: Hindus and Buddhists wishes to break apart from Samsara, Norse's goal is to reach Valhalla, and the Abrahamic Faiths (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) achieving heaven.

Unfortunately, this mostly works in theory and messy in practice. The biggest problem about Religion as a whole is its shroud of mysteries. For example, Hinduism being the oldest and active religion in human history has yet to unfold who is the founder (or if there ever was a founder). Why is it the case for the third largest religion in the world? At least with many other religions, there are known founders such as Siddhartha of Buddhism and Jesus of Christianity.
There are also other mysteries as well such as Moses and Jesus having powers, but I'll leave it at that.

Another major issue is that Religion can be used for manipulation and it being extremely "traditional": the caste system in Hinduism is really the religious version of a Social Status, with Dalit being the lowest of the lowest. Abrahamic faiths believing how they should treat non-believers or how they handle "crimes" such as homosexuality or adultery (yet in many of their texts, they agree that rape is acceptable if it's towards a non-believer, preferably a slave).

The sad part here is that I'm not even some atheist who says stupid shit like "ReLiGiOn Is BuLlShIt!"; I'm a Muslim that used to be some apologist when it comes to tragic incidents. In today's standard, I guess I fall under the category of a "Liberal Muslim".

Well in Hinduism we don't focus on creator.It is said in our holy books like Upanishada and Vedas that Hinduism originated from Brahma(the ultimate being in all universes) or Trimurti or Adi Shakti herself.

Historically Hinduism originated among the Aryans who spread throughout Asia and Europe.When Aryans came to India,their religion mixed with Indus Valley civilization and formed the current version of Hinduism.

Main focus of Hinduism is on Karma to do good deeds and gain moksha or "Salvation".

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Well in Hinduism we don't focus on creator.It is said in our holy books like Upanishada and Vedas that Hinduism originated from Brahma(the ultimate being in all universes) or Trimurti or Adi Shakti herself.

Historically Hinduism originated among the Aryans who spread throughout Asia and Europe.When Aryans came to India,their religion mixed with Indus Valley civilization and formed the current version of Hinduism.

Main focus of Hinduism is on Karma to do good deeds and gain moksha or "Salvation".

Of course it's understandable that Hinduism doesn't focus on who the founder is, but isn't it at least important to know the person who happens to bring in Hinduism? It's really the same reasoning behind knowing who the Prophet Mohammad when it comes to Islam, for example; doesn't have to be anything related to "creating" a Religion, but more about "I have brought faith from <insert name of God>".
I'm saying this because, for an oldest active and 3rd largest Religion in the world, it's quite bizarre and mysterious that nobody knows who brought forth this faith.

I forgot that it originated from the Aryans. Forgive my ignorance in advance, given that it's been a while since I've taken World Religion courses.

I'm aware of the focus of Hinduism, but I forgot the term "Moksha". I think that's what I was trying to refer to when I said their goal is to break away from Samsara, because it's the key component to Reincarnation. You reincarnate until you become a Brahmin and die with good Karma to reach Moksha.
Although I could be mistaken, or probably mixed up with Buddhism, so feel free to correct me.

 

[Arjuna]

Of course it's understandable that Hinduism doesn't focus on who the founder is, but isn't it at least important to know the person who happens to bring in Hinduism? It's really the same reasoning behind knowing who the Prophet Mohammad when it comes to Islam, for example; doesn't have to be anything related to "creating" a Religion, but more about "I have brought faith from <insert name of God>".
I'm saying this because, for an oldest active and 3rd largest Religion in the world, it's quite bizarre and mysterious that nobody knows who brought forth this faith.

I forgot that it originated from the Aryans. Forgive my ignorance in advance, given that it's been a while since I've taken World Religion courses.

I'm aware of the focus of Hinduism, but I forgot the term "Moksha". I think that's what I was trying to refer to when I said their goal is to break away from Samsara, because it's the key component to Reincarnation. You reincarnate until you become a Brahmin and die with good Karma to reach Moksha.
Although I could be mistaken, or probably mixed up with Buddhism, so feel free to correct me.

Well as I said earlier our religious books say that the ultimate being created Hinduism.

And frankly my personal opinion is we don't need focus on creator.And mind it Hinduism states that it is a way of life,there is no human who had created it.

And regarding Moksha part,you were right but it doesn't state that need Brahman before you attain salvation.If one follows the true path,one will attain salvation.