I'm with McAdam on biblical violence, even in the New Testament http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

However, there are not the exhortations for Christians to kill hypocrites, apostates, and unbelievers as there are in the Quran. In the New Testament, God and his angels do the dirty work, or He exhorts Christians to do self-harm.

Perhaps he might offer an opinion on the content of my last post. Is there a general view in the Islamic world that the violence done by its followers is self-defensive, and initiated by unbelievers?

Of course Islamic violence is in self defence
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2900259/Gunmen-kill-11-Charlie-Hebdo-attack.html
In the Charlie Hebdo attack they entered the office with peaceful intent and merely wished to shew the workers there that they were peaceful by not firing their weapons but a foolish person berated them and laughed at their guns and said that they looked like cartoon characters.
This was to much so the shooting started.

We must remember though that the attackers (as they became through no fault of their own) probably had deprived childhoods and were led astray by people who distorted the teachings of Muhammad and that these murders (excusable though they are) are the result of lunatic minds and cannot be laid at blame to Islam or its teachings.

McAdam/NC,

Do they teach mis-quoting in madrassas ?

I suggested that " .... the Koran was not only a ridiculous mish-mash of desert traditions, garbled oral memories of bits from the Torah and the New Testament, but that - by hanging onto outdated and primitive precepts - its followers were backward 'thinkers' as well. A parrot is not necessarily a thinker."

I did NOT say that Islam was ridiculous, although now that you mention it ......

I'll stick with that. As an atheist, I can't take any religion or other quackery seriously: whether it's burning bushes, or a god giving somebody blocks of stone tablets on a mountain, or in a cave, or out of an elephant's arse, it's all rubbish to me.

Not necessarily a con-job, but a set of fables and parables, bits and pieces, that gradually coalesce into a book of fables and parables, get refined, touched up, improved, stories that sanction how the people in power already believe, until somebody says, "Yeah, that'll do it. That's The Book."

One major problem with Islam, and all tribal-oriented religions as I see them, is that they have no room for enlightened thought or discussion. they can't even explain gravity, or relativity, or any social doctrine worth the name, let alone equal rights for women, and care for people in groups other than one's own [cf. the Good Samaritan parable]: in that sense, Islam is still a pre-civilized set of backward dogmas.

Sorry :)

Joe

Luciferase, Constance, Kactuz

Luciferase,

Charlie Hebdo killings are crimes against humanity and also against Islam. The criminals must face the full force of law.

Also, no level of self-defence can justify this type of violence.

Before it is taken too far, Luciferase, as we have been discussing, please know that there is NO justification of such act in Quran.

Constance,

I have responded to your message (12:57 pm), today and will be happy to discuss it further if you wish.

Kactuz,

After seeing how long you stay in the thread this time, I will respond. You disappear, break the continuity of a discussion and then reappear suddenly without a hint of reference to the previous discussion.

My response will be pretty much like my 31 Dec and 4 Jan posts you have NOT answered till today.

Your comments on 5:32 (Quran) are ridiculous as they can be if one mistakes you for normal person. But you are a different case. Even then, I will try to get the real meaning across, after making sure that you are there and listening.

Let me know if you want to proceed and will be available to continue.

McAdam and NC.

There is an interesting topic up the top of the list, why are you not up there defending Islam against the attacks?

Re Quran 5:32
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=32
NC, based on the many interpretations given at that reference, isn't it quite probable that kactuz has it right?

This site may help in further discourse on this thread, rather than appealing to preferred authorities.