Pope Francis: "I don't think it is right to equate Islam with violence." - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;50810829]It's not "inaccurate" or "misrepresenting God's will" according to Christianity. It's part of the old covenant that only applied to the Jews for very specific purposes (generally to keep the Jews separate from the surrounding nations).[/QUOTE] Which only raises more questions. Why was it just to stone gays back then, but not any more? What changed? Isn't the idea that it was morally right to kill people for their sexuality at some point still abhorrent? [editline]1st August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50810817]the same reason he just said, documentation. there are christian versions of the bible that are just new testament if that concerns you, but since "The Holy Bible" is used by multiple religions it's probably not a good idea to just suddenly remove the Old Testament just because it doesn't apply to at least one of them infact I think this one Christian girl at my high school handed me a very small new testament once[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about what is being printed, I'm talking about what is being considered canonical and divinely inspired by the various churches and denominations.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;50810903]Which only raises more questions. Why was it just to stone gays back then, but not any more? What changed? Isn't the idea that it was morally right to kill people for their sexuality at some point still abhorrent?[/QUOTE] To be clear, it's about gay sex, not being gay. With that said, Christianity unapologetically says that homosexual activity is against God's will for sex and marriage. The punishment for breaking the moral codes in the OT were generally death (economic crimes were a notable exception). It's not like gay sex held a special place of punishment.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50810923]To be clear, it's about gay sex, not being gay. With that said, Christianity unapologetically says that homosexual activity is against God's will for sex and marriage. The punishment for breaking the moral codes in the OT were generally death (economic crimes were a notable exception). It's not like gay sex held a special place of punishment.[/QUOTE] Right but it's still abhorrent. The fact that other things like blasphemy or being a wizard were also punishable by death doesn't make it any better.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;50810994]Right but it's still abhorrent. The fact that other things like blasphemy or being a wizard were also punishable by death doesn't make it any better.[/QUOTE] Whatever you believe about the abhorrence of the death penalty and how it's applied, that has nothing to do with whether Christianity contains the same command to violence that Islam contains.

Wouldn't we be having a lot of issues with violent muslims if Islam was such a violent religion? I mean, most muslims are peaceful and living quietly (in Europe), why aren't they following the koran if it's the word of god

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50811071]Wouldn't we be having a lot of issues with violent muslims if Islam was such a violent religion? I mean, most muslims are peaceful and living quietly (in Europe), why aren't they following the koran if it's the word of god[/QUOTE] The vast majority of Muslims in Europe are nominal Muslims at best. This poll only mentions eastern European countries, but it still shows that European Muslims generally don't even do the 5 required prayers, with a large majority not even doing more than one prayer a day. It seems safe to assume that western European Muslims hold to Islam even less. ([URL]http://www.pewforum.org/2012/08/09/the-worlds-muslims-unity-and-diversity-2-religious-commitment/[/URL]) The same kind of numbers are seen for Mosque attendance.

Soo, Islam isn't inherently violent then, only the radical, violent muslims are? Or rather, only true muslims are violent?

[QUOTE=sgman91;50811012]Whatever you believe about the abhorrence of the death penalty and how it's applied, that has nothing to do with whether Christianity contains the same command to violence that Islam contains.[/QUOTE] Yeah probably. I'm using Christianity for my argument because I'm a lot more familiar with it than Islam but my core point is the same: a religion can't truly distance itself from violence if its scripture contains calls for violence.

1. I grew up in the Middle East. While I bear the countries I lived in no special love, I met many Muslims even there who were true moderates. 2. In Canada, the neighbourhood I live in happens to be about 60% Muslim. I served for two years on the board of a Residents' Association, made up of volunteers, whose purpose was to try to bring our community closer together, and give it a sense of unique identity. Almost every single other serving member of said board was Muslim, with ages ranging from 19 to 60. We organized community events, worked closely with a local church (Its pastor was on our board as well) to reach out to the Christian community, set up political debates during election seasons for the City Councillors of our ward and the Members of Parliament to represent us, worked with the city's mayor to ensure our community's needs were addressed, and generally helped provide a resource for people within our community to meet, get in touch, and get to know each other better. All were welcome, regardless of what they believed in or whether or not they were religious. The board was made up of both men and women, but all of them were tireless exemplars of the Canadian spirit of cooperation and multiculturalism that makes our country one of the greatest in the world. There were times during public meetings that members of the community opened up dialogues about the importance of making sure their kids weren't hanging out with the wrong crowd or consuming the wrong propaganda online - the sort that ends up converting shut-ins to radical Islamism. Never once was there any sign of favouritism or discrimination in their actions, nor any desire to 'keep it in the family'. Now, unless you're going to argue that those people I've lived and worked alongside for nearly a decade aren't 'real muslims', my life experience proves you to be full of shit, Monkah. Oh, and by the way, look at human rights abuses in Uganda in the name of Jesus, all following their particular interpretation of the Bible. You'll find them pretty damn instructive. For the record, I was raised Catholic, and I'm nonreligous myself.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50811145]Soo, Islam isn't inherently violent then, only the radical, violent muslims are? Or rather, only true muslims are violent?[/QUOTE] The former If the latter were true, the only true christians would be the kkk and we know it isn't true

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50810769]Besides that I'm kind of confused how we got to Christianity when the Pope isn't a Christian thing either[/QUOTE] The pope is christian though?

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50810769] Besides that I'm kind of confused how we got to Christianity when the Pope isn't a Christian thing either[/QUOTE] The pope came from a belief that the successors of the original apostles who followed Jesus called the Petrine supremacy, which was that Jesus trusted Peter to lead his church on earth when he said he was giving Peter the keys to the kingdom. Some of the early church leaders advocated the creation of a special church title for the bishop of Rome. Over time this title evolved into what would become the position of pope.

Wonder how the middle east would have been if the ottoman wasn't fractured and extremist groups never took over in the aftermath.

Why are people even arguing this "inherently violent" thing? It doesn't even matter if it's inherently violent or not. It is, on average, RIGHT NOW. If we were to receive a million christians from a (hypothetical) country where they take old testament literally and have courts and laws based on old testament, I would be wary about them just the same.

I really hate how "Islam" and "Muslim" are effectively interchangeable in layman discourse. Because I don't fear all Muslims, only CERTAIN Muslims, in certain areas. But I fear and hate the SHIT out of ISLAM. Much like how I know and can respect a lot of people who are Christians, and openly despise Christianity and all it stands for. It's easily possible to reject and oppose an idiology without instantly dragging in all its proponents, because people aren't black and white cartoon characters. You generally have really polite, totally non-violent Muslims in the United States, because Islam doesn't rule here, and notions of religion are free to expand their interpretations. Overseas in other countries, Islam is the dominating force, and a Muslim living there MUST subscribe to the specific interpretation the state approves. Anything else, however menial, is heresy. It quashes the possibility of the culture evolving, or of progressive ideals infiltrating and propagating, because in a lot of places that's grounds to have you locked-up or worse. So yeah, in such circumstances, the Muslims isn't necessarily the problem. But the institution of Islam IS. I don't believe in out-of-hand xenophobia, but I also call a spade a fekking spade. It's possible to criticize ideas without being racist.

[QUOTE=Vigilante2470;50815632][...] institution of Islam [...][/QUOTE] A common term for this specifically (where it's fundamentalist and/or politically authoritarian, usage is a bit blurry) is 'Islamism' (as opposed to 'Islam' in general/when talking purely about faith). Of course in your case the aversion seems to go further than that, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. It's pretty standard to make the distinction this way here in Germany, probably in part because we tend to have reasonably good experiences with Muslims here.

Agreed, equating Islam with violence is wrong just like equating "Christianity" with violence due to the "God hates Fags" people and Breivik is wrong, equating Wahabism isn't though. Doesn't help that Wahabism is the main form of Sunni Islam now since bin Saud holds the keys to Mecca. If we had the right numbers, I would argue that violence of the Catholic Church is far more horrifying back in history than the numbers of killed by Islam, but times and ideas change which I argue has gone in the opposite direction within Sunni Islam. Look at the Mu'tazila school of Sunni Islam if you don't believe me: [url]https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Mu%CA%BFtazila[/url] [QUOTE=SpaceGhost;50813750]Wonder how the middle east would have been if the ottoman wasn't fractured and extremist groups never took over in the aftermath.[/QUOTE] Would much rather imagine a history were bin Saud didnt win the war for Hejaz, but western meddling is a factor too of course.

They're not equal with violence, violence just happens to follow any time you see an influx of muslim immigrants ???

[QUOTE=Seerus;50817589]They're not equal with violence, violence just happens to follow any time you see an influx of muslim immigrants ???[/QUOTE] :speechless: Especially being German, you should already know that most of this was and continues to be [I]against[/I] them. What's left in terms of actual Islamists can be taken care of by police without falling back to any ignorant generalisations.

[QUOTE=Seerus;50817589]They're not equal with violence, violence just happens to follow any time you see an influx of muslim immigrants ???[/QUOTE] Even if that was true, you can't find any reason why that would happen that isn't "they are Muslims"? What about the lack of jobs? Housing? Hostility from people around them against them just being there?