The point is that every religion has problematic shit, because when they were made up society was less developed then now.
And back then when a new religion showed up, the major one usually tried to stamp it out with violence. So any new religion that wasn’t also violent, got wiped out pretty quickly.
The problem with religion is the tiny percentage who are far right extremists insisting that rules from over a thousand years ago need to be followed by everyone, and exactly by their interpretation. Not the vast majority who take the general message but understand shits changed since it was written.
Like, you get that right?
I thought I was being clear, but lots of people don’t seem to be getting it…
Society was no less developed 3000 than it is now. When you look at “modern society” they are no better than the Nazi’s in 1940 standing right behind another genocide for decades. Our society is morally bankrupt.
Humans are humans. Humans have not changed. We have funny phones and clothes now, but our hands brains and eyes are exactly the same as 3000 years ago.
That’s crazy how Jainism is still around then with tenets like non violence.
Anyway, I wonder if you realize you just implied that the far right extremists of any given religion are interpreting their religion correctly (i.e. closer to the original author’s intent) by virtue of being violent.
Like I said, it’s fine to just say a religion is morally bankrupt.
Its quite blatantly obvious nobody who comkits atrocities in the name of the text actually reads the texts. If they did they wouldn’t find time to do the atrocities or generally spread chaos.
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”
Isis and Hamas are literally doing what their holy book tells them to.
I’m open to other interpretations of what that verse means but it seems pretty clear to me.
As for the polytheists who have honoured every term of their treaty with you and have not supported an enemy against you, honour your treaty with them until the end of its term. Surely Allah loves those who are mindful ˹of Him˺.
Have you… read any of the texts?
It’s okay to say some of the shit in these religions is morally reprehensible on its face and not just because someone is interpreting it wrong.
The point is that every religion has problematic shit, because when they were made up society was less developed then now.
And back then when a new religion showed up, the major one usually tried to stamp it out with violence. So any new religion that wasn’t also violent, got wiped out pretty quickly.
The problem with religion is the tiny percentage who are far right extremists insisting that rules from over a thousand years ago need to be followed by everyone, and exactly by their interpretation. Not the vast majority who take the general message but understand shits changed since it was written.
Like, you get that right?
I thought I was being clear, but lots of people don’t seem to be getting it…
Society was no less developed 3000 than it is now. When you look at “modern society” they are no better than the Nazi’s in 1940 standing right behind another genocide for decades. Our society is morally bankrupt.
Humans are humans. Humans have not changed. We have funny phones and clothes now, but our hands brains and eyes are exactly the same as 3000 years ago.
That’s crazy how Jainism is still around then with tenets like non violence.
Anyway, I wonder if you realize you just implied that the far right extremists of any given religion are interpreting their religion correctly (i.e. closer to the original author’s intent) by virtue of being violent.
Like I said, it’s fine to just say a religion is morally bankrupt.
Wow, an example of a religion made up primarily of isolated monks that make up about 0.05% of world population…
Weird how that’s the most common example you could think of.
But I’m not getting into a slap fight about this. Which seems to be what your looking for, so you might get want to look elsewhere
Na I think you just realized you accidentally argued the problem IS the religions.
Its quite blatantly obvious nobody who comkits atrocities in the name of the text actually reads the texts. If they did they wouldn’t find time to do the atrocities or generally spread chaos.
Isis and Hamas are literally doing what their holy book tells them to.
I’m open to other interpretations of what that verse means but it seems pretty clear to me.
This verse is about going to war with people who broke a peace treaty. You skipped the parts before that.
https://quran.com/9/4
As for the polytheists who have honoured every term of their treaty with you and have not supported an enemy against you, honour your treaty with them until the end of its term. Surely Allah loves those who are mindful ˹of Him˺.