"Islamophobia", that term which criminalizes religion criticism ... Can't wait to live in a world where blasphemy is forbidden again !
I guess nowadays: diversity is great, except for opinions. Can't wait to see the left crashing itself trying to compose with opposed sides, against homophoby on one hand and against islam criticism on the other, but islam is like christianism and probably other religions: homophobic.
Oh, shouldn't I be allowed to state that anymore ? Funny world you want to live in, but I guess that's what it is when you get confused and believe that your CS degree is worth a pol sci or law degree.
This is the Quran saying that husbands should beat those of their wifes who are disobedient, and that's just the tip of the iceberg, I could go on and on on about the Quran: I'm Algerian.
Sorry for the victims of my "islamophobia", but it's nothing compared to what the victims of islamic violence have been through.
I don't dispute that some Muslims' practices are incompatible with modern liberalism. But it can be unfair to judge a religion by the worst parts of its holy texts. Here's 1 Samuel 15:
7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt.
8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly....
10 Then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, saying,
11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night.
and then Samuel tells Saul:
18 And the Lord sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.
19 Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the Lord, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the Lord?
So here we have the Israelites slaughtering an entire population. But God is angry with them, because they did not also slaughter all the cattle.
Would it be fair to make that a summary of modern Christianity?
People who nominally think a text is infallible often in fact pay attention very differentially to different parts of it. That’s why few modern fundamentalists own slaves or stone disabled people who enter church. Perhaps you can ding them for inconsistency.... Meanwhile, many Muslims and Christians are not literalists in that sense.
> That’s why few modern fundamentalists own slaves or stone disabled people who enter church. Perhaps you can ding them for inconsistency....
I don't know of any religions which require adherents to own slaves, so it is not inconsistent for a fundamentalist to not own any. (In particular, Christians are commanded to obey the laws of their country[0], in general, so owning slaves would be inconsistent).
Also, I don't know why you think churchgoers would have a problem with disabled people. Jesus healed the sick, and didn't stone anyone. Perhaps you're thinking of the story of the woman caught in adultery, whom Jesus saved from being stoned.[1]
That doesn't sound correct. Perhaps you're mixing up the rules for tithing cattle[0] in Deuteronomy 15 with the rules for approaching Mount Sinai[1] in Exodus 19.
Christianity revolves around the fact that Jesus replaced the Old Testament with an entirely new one, and his teachings in some cases directly contradicted what the Old Testament says. It's not really fair to judge Christianity by version 1 of their book when Christian teaching about morality derives from version 2. That's why they're called Christians.
Sure. But they keep plenty - like the Ten Commandments. And many are, at least nominally, committed to the idea that the Bible is the Word of God, including the OT.
Anyway, it’s indeed my point that it’s not fair to judge Christianity (or other religions) by every part of their holy text, so I think we agree.
You're missing a bit of the back story and context with that passage, by the way. For example, Exodus 17 verse 8:
"The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim."
and earlier in the chapter you quoted, verse 2:
"This is what the LORD of Hosts says: ‘I witnessed what the Amalekites did to the Israelites when they ambushed them on their way up from Egypt."
It's not unreasonable to imagine that the Amalekites might have intended to carry out a genocide against the Israelites (something which the Israelites seem to have been uniquely disproportionately targeted with in history), and that an omniscient God might have known that putting an end to the Amalekites would be the most peaceful solution in the long run.
As for the cattle, perhaps God didn't want the Israelites to make a huge profit from their defensive war, lest they be tempted to start some other wars to profit more.
I guess nowadays: diversity is great, except for opinions. Can't wait to see the left crashing itself trying to compose with opposed sides, against homophoby on one hand and against islam criticism on the other, but islam is like christianism and probably other religions: homophobic.
Oh, shouldn't I be allowed to state that anymore ? Funny world you want to live in, but I guess that's what it is when you get confused and believe that your CS degree is worth a pol sci or law degree.