Bible Versus Quran Experiment - Genius!

by cofty 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • JustHuman14

    I will add my 2 cents as well:

    Lot was willing to give his 2 daughters to the people of Sodom so they can rape them, in order to protect the 3 visitors. What kind of father will do that!!??? The entire passage there is no name for the wife of Lot. She is being killed because she looked back, and then the 2 daughters that previously are offered to to be raped, they decide to sleep with their father, since their mother is dead!!!! Now, God, that destroyed the 2 cities due to their immoral behavior, completely ignores the same behavior from Lot's daughters! In the text it seems that Lot continued to live after the destruction isolated from the rest of the world.

    Moses, commands the Israel soldier to kill everyone in the city that they will conquer, but leave the virgins for them!!! So we have ethnic cleansing, rape, that it is acceptable from God( same behavior of what we see now days in the turmoil area of Middle East by the specific group)

    In the Book of Deuteronomy we see the following commands: If someone rapes a virgin, then can pay compensation to her dad and then he can married her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    If a woman doesn't scream on a rape attempt she is guilty of fornication and the penalty is death

    If a woman in her attempt to protect her self from rape, grabs the "balls" of a man, then the penalty is to cut her hand!!!

    To summarize: The Old Testament was written by misogynist nomads living in the desert in tents, (while during that era we have thriving Hellenic civilizations, like the Minoan) and unfortunately a vast majority of mankind considers those scriptures as Divine....

  • Heaven

    As Bart Ehrman has said, when he teaches his classes, on the first day he asks who are believers? and they all raise their hands and then when he asks who has read the Bible?... not very many hands.

    We are all fed interpretations of scripture and maneuvered through the Bible by religions as they cherry pick the scriptures they wish to use for their agenda.

    Religion is a snare and a racket. It is cancer disguised as candy. It is slavery presented as 'works' to control. Faith requires abandonment of logic and reason. It demands you become a liar, that you become intellectually dishonest, and that you accept fantasy and myth as truth and reality.

  • Crazyguy
    Great posts Human and Justhuman14.
  • the girl next door
    the girl next door

    Shared this video and received commentary that "it speaks more to a lack of intelligence and 'true christians' would not be shaken because its 'out of context'" I came across the following article on which I offered right back:

    by Ali A. Rizvi

    I recently posted the following statement to my Facebook timeline:

    “The worst of beasts, in our view, are the followers of Allah—those who believe in Islam. They’re the ones you make treaties with, but they break those treaties every time because they have no fear of the law.”

    The statement, of course, is blatantly bigoted hate speech against Muslims. But it is not something I have written. It is a passage from the Quran, verses 8:55-56, with references to disbelievers replaced by “followers of Allah” and “those who believe in Islam.” You can read the original verse here.

    Several commenters jumped on it, accusing me of taking these verses “out of context.”

    “It’s a warfare verse,” said one. “It’s like taking a sentences out of a military book. If you are at war, then I think its fair that you can say it. But it is only applied in self-defense. You have to have a just reason for it.”

    Okay, I told him. Let’s change the context then. Suppose the U.S. is at war with ISIS or Al Qaeda, and the president says:

    “The worst of beasts, in our view, are the followers of Allah—those who believe in Islam. They’re the ones you make treaties with, but they break those treaties every time because they have no fear of the law.”

    Does that read any better?

    “It does if the fight is on the land of the one being attacked,” he replied. “The aggressor can be identified easily by where the war takes place. What if the attacked people are fighting in self-defense?”

    Fine. Let’s suppose ISIS or Al Qaeda has attacked New York City, and the president says, in response:

    “The worst of beasts, in our view, are the followers of Allah—those who believe in Islam. They’re the ones you make treaties with, but they break those treaties every time because they have no fear of the law.”


    The commenter persisted. “But the verse wasn’t for the general public. It was for the soldiers fighting in the war. It is only talking about people who break treaties.” And so on.

    I won’t repeat the passage again. The point was obvious: however you paint the modified quote, it still reads as hate speech against all Muslims. There is no “context” that justifies labeling an entire people “the worst of beasts.”

    And herein lies the problem: if there were a book that talked about Muslims the way the Quran talks about disbelievers, heads would roll. Literally.

    The primary argument we hear against critics and satirists of religion like the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists—who satirized all religions, not just Islam—is that their speech “offends billions of people.”

    But what about the religions they’re targeting? The Abrahamic holy books—respected and revered by billions worldwide—prescribe the killing of disbelievers (Quran 8:12-13, 47:4; Leviticus 24:16); order their adherents to fight and enslave those with differing beliefs, a la ISIS (Quran 9:29-30, Deuteronomy 20:10-18); endorse wife-beating (Quran 4:34) and the stoning to death of non-virginal brides (Deuteronomy 22:20-21); order women to quietly submit to the authority of men (1 Timothy 2:11-12); and mandate the public lashing of fornicators (Quran24:2) and the killing of homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13).

    Who should really be offended here? If hate speech were really the issue, these books would be the first to go.

    When confronted with these facts, apologists will often respond by saying these texts should not be read “literally”—a concern that is certainly well-founded considering their contents. They know how terrible these books would sound if they weren’t liberally “interpreted” (read: distorted, sanitized), or read the way one would read any other book. When the literal word of a deity requires repeated, long-winded explanations from his human followers simply to prevent it being interpreted to mean what it actually says, it doesn’t make a great case for divine authorship. If anything can mean anything, the whole thing becomes meaningless.

    The reality is, religious moderates take their scripture “out of context” more than they’d like to think. Islamic apologists, for instance, like to quote the verse 2:256, which says there is “no compulsion in religion.” They won’t tell you (and many don’t know themselves) that the very next verse, 2:257, says that those who do choose to disbelieve will be “companions of the Fire; they will abide eternally therein.” You’ll also hear them quote verse5:32, which says, “Whoever kills a soul…it is as if he had slain all mankind. And whoever saves one—it is as if he had saved mankind entirely.” But again, if you read on to the very next verse, 5:33, you’ll see that Allah wants anyone opposing him or his messenger to “be killed or crucified…their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides,” for “causing corruption.”

    What is more offensive? Those words? Or those who choose to reject and criticize them?

    It is true that a religion should not be defined by the actions of its adherents. However, it can be defined by the contents of its canonical texts—like the Quran, which is the one thing common to all Islamic sects and denominations, fundamentalist or moderate. The fact that most Muslims are non-violent doesn’t automatically erase all of the violent verses from the Quran, in the same way that that Jews eating pork or having premarital sex doesn’t mean either act is suddenly allowed by the Jewish faith. In the words of Alishba Zarmeen: most humans are more moral than the scriptures they hold sacred.

    Fear of causing offense is not a sound reason to stop calling out hate speech, whether it comes from Tea Party Republicans, the KKK manifesto, or the Quran and Bible. And the misinterpretation/metaphor/out-of-context excuse is just that—an excuse. It doesn’t make these texts read any better.

  • cofty
    Great post thanks
  • Ruby456
    problem is, girl next door, you need to be consistent then, which is to put your own reasoning regarding violence into context of what it is defined by and see if it does any better than Qur'anic texts. By doing this you will be able to see that what defines us is not this or that text but our humanity - we are all in a similar boat then. Richard Dawkins tends to forget this when he indulges in his relio phobia
  • Vidiot
    Well played, gentlemen, well played.
  • steve2
    The statement by Christians, "We only follow Scripture" is up there with fairy tales that end with, "And they lived happily ever after", as the two most fancifully ignorant sentences in the Western world.
  • JWdaughter
  • Diogenesister
    Islam is growing, why?

    Basically, imho it's the concept of evil that plagues Christians - they cannot find a satisfying answer to it that also does not change their concept of god ie all good, knowing, powerful.

    Muslim theologans dissolve the problem of evil straight away as they believe evil is part of god also - a way of learning, essentially.

    I would like to point out that if they believed in conversion the Isrealites would behave like isis in a heartbeat - they have and do, only in their case the issue at stake is land.

    The problem is the same - the 'god given right'for or to do something!😡

Share this