Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[TD1]

I assume II meant indoctrination in the style of Sunday school.

Ninja'd

[Rolan7]

Yeah for what it's worth that's how I read it too

[Graknorke]

Oh, no, the stuff I'm talking about is really rigourous. From what I've heard from my Muslim friends who had to do it, it's a daily or near-daily thing for a couple of hours a time, and they have to memorise and be able to recite huge swathes of the Quran. Maybe even the whole thing? And in Arabic too.

[Orange Wizard]

Oh wow. Right, yeah, that doesn't happen so much.

[Loud Whispers]

Indoctrination is probably too strong a word. JWs and such are very extreme examples, but you'd struggle to find a church where the kids aren't "encouraged" to believe in the locally accepted dogma/doctrine.

It's accurate since it is teaching them to live by and memorize off by heart a doctrine, in very literal terms. The Quran for example is the only book, secular or religious which has been completely memorized off by heart by millions of people. Going to church once a week does not quite compare to salat, reciting and praying five times a day verses from the Quran, learning arabic and having your property and children seized before being executed should you leave the faith, insult the faith or fail to practice the faith. Perhaps if you are lucky and you live under one of the more moderate schools of Sunni Islamic law blaspheming will not result in death if you repent. Rates of retention in Islam are higher than any other religion on the planet. Their practices are strict.

[Rolepgeek]

When they were talking about context, lemon, I think they were talking about how the definition of 'sleeping with a woman' is not 'rape' in the old testament. If she calls out (like it said), then it's rape, and she's not considered at fault. If she doesn't, then it's considered also her fault as it's then believed to be consensual or something. Hard to enforce/look at so who knows how it was actually handled, but using what seem like synonyms with a different connotation is what a lot of 'taking out of context' means.

Used to be that way for the Bible, too, Graknorke, 'specially back when we didn't have the internet, from what I've been told. Christianity is basically just going out of style; people have been getting slowly less devoted as time goes on, whilst Islam is still growing.

Also, honestly, I figured this thread was also for people discussing different ways to interpret various parts in a manner that fits with people's moral compass.


My big question for Loud Whispers is really one of: What are you suggesting be done, and/or trying to say? I can't tell if your concern is with the fundamentals involved in the Islamic faith, with the way it's practiced, or with how it's been practiced in the past.

[Frumple]

Really? I've only heard of that kind of thing in the more extreme sects like Jehovah's Witnesses or the isolationist American ones.

Yeah... sunday school (basically bible study for kids mixed with lovely social pressure and a nice heaping of local doctrine indoctrination) is incredibly common, at least in the US. The churches in question are just not as emphatic or overt about it, comparatively (usually). Still, pressure on kids to attend church (and church related activities) and espouse what they're told (sometimes accurately, sometimes not) are christian beliefs is pretty strong (as in, I've personally seen kids beaten until they couldn't walk for trying to refuse and the community not blink an eye, and that's in relation to some of the more moderate baptist sects ) in a lot of places, and it generally tends to start before they can even walk. It's even more pressured south of the border and in the christian parts of africa, or so I understand.

Though yeah, it's generally not as exacting or focused on the text itself as muslim practices are. Still very much indoctrination, just usually of a different intensity and emphasis.

[Loud Whispers]

My big question for Loud Whispers is really one of: What are you suggesting be done, and/or trying to say? I can't tell if your concern is with the fundamentals involved in the Islamic faith, with the way it's practiced, or with how it's been practiced in the past.

Take what I'm saying at face value. People are ignorant of Islam, its origins and its practice. Peace in Dar Al-Islam and peace are not the same. As for what is to be done? I don't know, depends on who you are and what your objective is I suppose. I have no say over 1,800,000,00 people, only I myself ~o.o~

[Graknorke]

Wow that's a bit scary to be honest. I always imagined that America was past that kind of thing.

[Rolepgeek]

Nothing is the same as peace except peace. People are ignorant of Islam, and in recent years often hateful. What it seems like you've been implying, and that might be misinterpretation is that they're right to be hateful. The start of Islam was a lot like the start of Christianity. It was popular because it was favorable towards the lower classes, and eventually worked it's way into society, and then spread violently once a critical mass was reached, a lot like Christianity. Every philosophical doctrine has extremists. Religion is a form of philosophical doctrine.

Islam and the people who practice it are not the same. There'll probably end up being as many sects of Islam as there of Christianity, once the region(s) settle down.

[TD1]

People seem to judge religions in terms of their age - not so. Christianity was more violent in the past because the past was more violent. Islam being a younger religion means that it should, at least in more peaceful countries (not the middle east, heh) be a more peaceful religion. Given that it's not all that peaceful in peaceful countries, one has got to wonder what is causing the violence.

[Rolan7]

Wow that's a bit scary to be honest. I always imagined that America was past that kind of thing.

Nooo, no.  I had to attend Wednesday Bible classes for about a year and a half, or two years.  When I was in a low place and staying with a grandparent.  And when I was little and my brother and I visited her, we went to Sunday School.

Sunday School isn't like a drill instructor, mainly because that would scare people off.  It's fun and games and hey Christ loves you and crafts.

Makes me sick in retrospect, and I'm honestly uneasy around any church now.

[Frumple]

Wow that's a bit scary to be honest. I always imagined that America was past that kind of thing.

Eh... parts are, parts aren't. It trends towards better in the more urban areas, usually. Bit harder to get away with things there, if nothing else, heh. Most of the population's in those areas, but there's still several countries worth of folks that, well. Aren't. And some nasty shit can get got away with when the sheriff knows yer pappy.

And yeah, as ro notes, the sunday school services themselves trend towards pretty chipper. It's usually the parents or other relatives that brings the stick (though fortunately that, at least, is on the downslope. Got lovely tales from the couple generations before about being switched until they bled for doing something unchristian, though) to accompany the carrot.

[lemon10]

When they were talking about context, lemon, I think they were talking about how the definition of 'sleeping with a woman' is not 'rape' in the old testament. If she calls out (like it said), then it's rape, and she's not considered at fault. If she doesn't, then it's considered also her fault as it's then believed to be consensual or something. Hard to enforce/look at so who knows how it was actually handled, but using what seem like synonyms with a different connotation is what a lot of 'taking out of context' means.

If its looked at that way, its clearly not that bad. The problem is that there are tons of cases today, and I'm sure there were back then where people get raped and yelling does nothing and no one hears them (because the rapist was smart enough to avoid trying to rape someone in the middle of a crowded area). Under biblical law, trying to accuse someone of raping you after that means you get put to death. So basically as long as the rapist doesn't get caught in the act, then they can't bring trial against him without being put to death if they win. E: And the husband could have his wife executed (for dishonouring him) if he found out too.
But I do agree with you, some of these laws obviously weren't enforced exactly as written (eg. your child can be put to death if they curse you) even back then.

[Rolepgeek]

People seem to judge religions in terms of their age - not so. Christianity was more violent in the past because the past was more violent. Islam being a younger religion means that it should, at least in more peaceful countries (not the middle east, heh) be a more peaceful religion. Given that it's not all that peaceful in peaceful countries, one has got to wonder what is causing the violence.

That's one way to view it, certainly. Which peaceful countries is it violent in?

Cuz, I mean, if you're talking about terrorist organizations being able to infiltrate and conduct attacks in generally peaceful countries, that's a different story than if you're trying to say that the population of general Muslims is conducting attacks because those attacks have to come from somewhere, right?

Violence in the middle east affects people elsewhere. Frustration and irritation with discrimination based on their religion, and feeling like your fellow [fill in blank here] are being persecuted, well...I mean, I'd been talking about unrest, not terrorism, but you know. People forget about that when they see genocide, and decide the whole movement is responsible. And I dunno about you, but if I was part of the rioters or whatnot, and find out some of the others have declared themselves in charge and begun killing people, I'd be rather scared of speaking out against them, myself.

When they were talking about context, lemon, I think they were talking about how the definition of 'sleeping with a woman' is not 'rape' in the old testament. If she calls out (like it said), then it's rape, and she's not considered at fault. If she doesn't, then it's considered also her fault as it's then believed to be consensual or something. Hard to enforce/look at so who knows how it was actually handled, but using what seem like synonyms with a different connotation is what a lot of 'taking out of context' means.

If its looked at that way, its clearly not that bad. The problem is that there are tons of cases today, and I'm sure there were back then where people get raped and yelling does nothing and no one hears them (because the rapist was smart enough to avoid trying to rape someone in the middle of a crowded area). Under biblical law, trying to accuse someone of raping you after that means you get put to death. So basically as long as the rapist doesn't get caught in the act, then they can't bring trial against him without being put to death if they win. E: And the husband could have his wife executed (for dishonouring him) if he found out too.
But I do agree with you, some of these laws obviously weren't enforced exactly as written (eg. your child can be put to death if they curse you) even back then.

I would say that that's not quite how it works. Probably what happens is that if she gets raped and no one hears (under biblical definition of rape blahblahblah), and then accuses him of it, it becomes a serious matter and trial and whatnot, and if she's deemed correct, he gets put to death and she doesn't, because she didn't try to keep it secret, and because God's Truth will prevail, so if she'd slept with him voluntarily, obviously she would be found out and they'd both be punished (with death). If, on the other hand, she's deemed to have born false witness, she gets put to death. Or something. We can't really know, I'm just trying to make the point that one should really interpret the laws in the most reasonable light possible, because having a religious law that isn't a foolproof legal document isn't exactly a crime.

Just pointing it out, there. I still disagree with a lot of the laws, but they weren't senseless.