Sentenced to Death for Blasphemy - Why?

It is so barbaric to kill someone for merely present critiques to a certain views.

What are the root causes for the above?
Notable, what is the psychology behind such terrible evil urges and impulses to silence the view of others with death?

Ok, but isn’t it tempting fate, to do what he chose to do?

One who was charged with Impiety and corrupting the
minds of the youth was Socrates and another who was charged with
blasphemy under Jewish law and Treason under Roman law was
Jesus…

it is an old gimmick designed to whip up the supporters of
the regime into greater faith in the regime…

it is just another reason for the separation of church and state…

Kropotkin

Well, in part because Islam teaches you to be terrified of God. Anything that insults God, or might, if you let it stand, you are an accomplice. To eliminate any voice or person that seems to or does criticize or question or insult God, is a must. It will trigger survival terror. No one wants a deity to be angry at them, to consider them not on that deity’s side. Especially an angry deity. Organized religions not only potentially soothe some fears, they create a boatload of other fears.

KT,

That’s right. The so called “peace” or soothing element that people obtain from their respective religions comes at the cost of being literally terrified of a powerful deity. Religions create as much fear and disharmony as they seek to alleviate, possibly more.

Then the question is WHY do Muslims and other theists associate themselves with a God [all powerful] that need to be protected from being insulted.

Isn’t it ironic that an all-powerful whatever-omni God need fallible-weak believers to protected it from insults by non-believers or even believers?
Why can’t the all-powerful God prevent non-believers from insulting Him or kill those who insulted Him?

The explanation for the whole shebang is this;

1. DNA wise ALL humans are infected with an existential crisis.

2. The majority of infected humans conjured up the idea of God is conjured out of nothing to relieve [soothe] and feel psychological secure the existential crisis. This is like clinging on to a security blanket.

3. Blasphemy and insults to one God or founder prophet erodes the credibility of the theists’ belief and thus the strength of their security blanket, triggering terrible insecurities and mental anguish. This is like people pulling away their security blanket.

4. To ensure the security to their 'security blanket [God is really real] SOME believers will resort to shut or kill those who insult their God and founder-prophet.

The implication from the above is,

• if there is no theism, then there is no killings related to theistic blasphemy at all.
• certain theism [Islam and some others] condone evil and violence merely in relation to critique and insults of their God.
• theism is grounded on very primal psychology where say 20% of believers are inherently, thus easily triggered to be evil and violent [this is very evident].

Therefore, humanity must addressed the above points and should not be ignorant of the above as most people are at present.

Note my post and explanation above.

It’s hard to quantify the various fears, but certainly religions both soothe and terrorize. The deities are often like dictators and are treated as such. Of course there are other kinds of deities and people who consider, for example, the Bible, partially correct but also distorted by the culture of the time and the psychology of the individual writers.
t

At least they directly talked shit about the religion in a documented way. Back when we were uncivilized, the mere suggestion that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around would earn you a nice auto-da-fe from the Catholics.

The psychology? I’d have to be crazy to understand crazy, at least, I’d have to be crazy in that way. Brainwashing, indoctrination, the whole nine.

Way back then, during the primal tribal days, if the others [from another tribe] look or sound different, they would be killed instantly.

In the case of the Catholics and other Protestant, I don’t believe the ‘killing’ for whatever blasphemy was due to Christianity being inherently bad. It is basically, the “Christians” were bad wearing the ‘human-being-hat’ rather than bad Christians.
Christianity per-se is an absolutely pacifist religion with its overriding pacifist maxim of ‘love all - including enemies’ and the likes.

The psychology:

1. DNA wise ALL human beings has the potential to commit terrible evil and violent acts.
2. The ideology of Islam has evil laden elements that catalyze and trigger the above potential into actual actions that drive SOME [appx. pool of 320 million] Muslims to commit terrible evil and violent acts.
3. As such, these ‘SOME’ Muslims are always in a state of highly strung threats from non-Muslims.
4. This is why even cartoons and blasphemy will trigger SOME Muslims to kill non-believers.

What is critical re psychology is the ideology of Islam is brewing that cauldron of potential evil and violence within a large percentile of Muslims who will commit terrible evil and violence upon the slightest threat to their religion. [Quran 5:33]

Therefore humanity must give attention to this terrible threat from the ideology of Islam and the natural [unavoidable] ‘SOME’ evil prone Muslims who are easily inflamed into evil and violent acts.

What is happening is at present the majority of non-Muslims and even Muslims are behaving like ostriches and pretending Islam is basically a peaceful religion when in reality Islam is inherently a malignant, evil and violent ideology.

I don’t think it was due to Christianity being inherently bad, either. I also agree with you about the general message of, if not Christians, at least The Bible. Other than being Christians in the first place, the main problem many of them seem to have is that they either did not read or do not actually understand The Bible.

1.) Ok. I really don’t see why DNA warranted specific mention, but that’s fine.
2.) Wait a minute. Why is it the people who were bad in one and the religion that is bad in the other? That doesn’t seem right.
3.) Ok.
4.) Ok.

Do you know what Quran 5:33 says? For one thing, violence doesn’t even necessarily have to be involved in the punishment. One of the punishments proposed by the Quran as acceptable is simple banishment from the land, and no, it’s not referring to death. Furthermore, it’s implied that the choice of which punishment to employ is left up to the Governmental body in question and what law is decided upon. Additionally, The Quran stipulates that the law of the land be followed as long as that land is one that guarantees religious freedom: In other words, The Quran does not give the Muslim permission to carry out any of those punishments if those same punishments would contravene the land where they are located. To suggest otherwise is a perversion of what is actually said.

Quran 5:34 also speaks of repentance as long as that repentance comes prior to apprehension and while not under duress. If it does, then the Quran revokes the Muslim of the authority to do any of the punishments proscribed.

I don’t know why you separate the intention of the religion and the so-called adherents for one religion and not the other.

It is the generic DNA and RNA that establish all the primal instincts in all humans, e.g. fight or flight, kill or be killed, aggression, violence, and others.
It is these “pre-programmed” instincts that are the potential to evil and violence when triggered and there is weak impulse control in a large percentile of humans.

Note Steven Weiberg [edited] quote;

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good [and bad people] to do evil - that takes [the evil ideology embedded] religion.”

The inherently pacifist religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity comprised of good and bad believers, but there is nothing bad in their ideology to influence their bad believers to commit evil and violent in the name of their religions.

A bad religion is one where its ideology itself contain evil laden elements that exhorts its believers to war against and kill non-believers. While the good believers in such an evil laden religion will not obey its evil commands, the natural percentage [say 20% conservatively] of evil prone believers will feast on the ‘evil’ commands to please their god as a divine duty to ensure salvation.

Here is Quran 5:33;

5:33. The only reward [recompense, punishment] of those [infidels] who
[1] make war [HRB: yuḥāribūna, angry at, go against? ] upon Allah and His messenger and
[2] strive [S3Y: wayasʿawna ] after corruption [FSD: fasādan; mischiefs, wronged] in the land;
[list]i. - will be that they [infidels] will be killed [QTL: yuqattalū] or
ii. -crucified [SLB: yuṣallabū], or
iii. -have their [infidels’] hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or
iv. -will be expelled out of the land.
Such will be their [infidels] degradation [KhZY: khiz’yun] in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs [infidels] will be an awful doom; [/list:u]

Note [2] above;
[2] strive [S3Y: wayasʿawna ] after corruption [FSD: fasādan; mischiefs, wronged] in the land;

The term “FSD: Fasadan” in Arabic when translated as “corruption” is too limited.
From the Arabic dictionary and usage, “FSD: Fasadan” include the slightest threats to the religion of Islam.
In some tafseer, disbelief in Islam is deemed as a Fasadan.

Upon condition [2] non-Muslims who commit or in a state of ‘Fasadan’ can be
-be killed [QTL: yuqattalū] or
-crucified [SLB: yuṣallabū],
as commanded by Allah.

The majority of Muslim will not obey the above command but;
those naturally born evil prone Muslims [SOME not all] who killed non-believers for reason of ‘fasadan’ they are merely obeying the command of Allah to ensure salvation.
Fasadan can include being a disbeliever [kafir], instigating a threat to Islam, e.g. drawing cartoons, blasphemy, etc. besides other serious fasadan.

Another point is no Muslim can judge, only Allah can judge on Judgment Day.
Therefore when Muslims kill non-Muslims for committing fasadan such as drawing cartoons, blasphemy and other threats, no Muslims as human can make judgment those Muslims who killed are wrong.

Thus 5:33 and many other such verses are an inherent threat to the rest of humanity where it trigger the natural percentile [DNA/RNA driven] of evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evil and violent acts* as a divine duty to please Allah.

• to the rest of humanity such acts are evil and violent, but to the Muslims these acts are supposedly ‘good’ as commanded by Allah.

Yes, repentance means convert to Islam.
But 99% of kafir will not want to convert to Islam which to them is an evil ideology.
Therefore 5:33 will be activated at all times since the majority are non-believers.

I am just stating facts as supported by evidences from the respective holy texts from their God.

The God of one religion exhorts believers via its holy texts to war against and kill non-believer upon the slightest threats [FSD: fasadan] e.g. 5:33 and many other verses.

The God of another religion demand its believers to love one’s enemies and others regardless of the actw of the enemies [sound dumb? but that’s the way it is]. How can such a religion itself and its ideology be an evil laden religion?

Let’s suppose that I was willing to stipulate that—what the hell does it have to do with one’s religion in particular?

First of all, whether or not you believe the religious texts to be fictional, you could literally make the same argument about any fictional work. You could make it about non-fictional works. The words may drive people to action as a motivator, but the words do not themselves commit actions, because they are just words. You know the old adage, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people?” It’s kind of like that, except the guns are a bit closer to being complicit in the killing of people than the words are, unless you hit someone in the head with an extremely heavy book.

Even then, the words themselves are subject to interpretation, or an adherent to a particular religion can simply not thoroughly read the relevant religious texts at all, as is so often the case. I don’t care what the religious work is or is not, if you read something keen on finding a call to violence, then you will probably be able to find a call to violence.

This is where we get into interpretations. You want to interpret the religion as being inherently evil, which is fine, because you can interpret it in whatever way you see fit.

The first two words that seem widely subject to interpretation are, “Make war.” What does it mean to you to make war against Allah? What does it mean to me to make war against Allah? So, the first problem that you have with the text itself is that it stipulates that one should not make war against Allah, but it fails to provide all of the possible conditions under which, “War,” has been made.

After that, we get into, “Threats to the religion of Islam.” Do you think a drawing on a piece of paper presents a, “Threat to the religion of Islam?” I certainly don’t and I would argue that, while many adherents see it as offensive, they don’t think an unflattering depiction is going to stand a chance of bringing down the entire religion.

But, it can mean that if you really want it to mean that. I maintain that those who wish to commit violence will generally try to find a way to justify it, at least unto themselves. I think that most people try to justify most of their actions by one means or another.

You say, “In some tafseer,” some is a qualifier. You seem to acknowledge that it is believed by some tafseer, but not others. Again, interpretation.

I promise you also that the problem is not unique to religion. It’s a common problem in philosophy, and really, any form of argument, debate or conversation. What’s the problem? The problem is introducing words and phrases into a position without stating (and agreeing) about what those words and phrases are intended to mean.

In my view, you’re really just talking about the difference between how a sane and decent person chooses to interpret something and how an insane person chooses to interpret it. I could interpret, The Cat in the Hat to mean that I should kill my mother. I don’t, but I could. I think most people would disagree with my interpretation.

Again, interpretations. I can call anything that I want to call a, “Cactus,” a cactus, just most people aren’t going to agree with me that a dog is now a cactus.

As to the rest, that’s why we have separation of church and state, which I think most people who live in such a society consider a good thing.

The texts, taken as a whole, are not evidence of anything except their own existence. I’m sure some passages evidence something. The passages that are open to interpretation are either not evidence, or they are evidence of whatever a person wants them to be evidence of. How do we evaluate the quality of evidence? Social contract theory would suggest that the more people believe that the purported evidence is evidence, then the better the evidence is. Or, in the case of court systems, you only have to convince certain people, often 12 of them.

Again, what you have quoted does not suggest that non-believers should be killed for the mere act of being non-believers unless you want it to suggest that, which you clearly very much do, but for reasons I don’t understand.

Finally, don’t ask me how Christianity can be an evil-laden religion because I never said that it is. I don’t think that religions are evil unto themselves. I think they are some combination of fairy tale and an expression of ideas.

1. DNA wise all humans are “programmed” with a potential to commit evil and violent acts.
2. Appx. [conservatively] 20% are born naturally with an active evil and violent tendency -these are the evil prone.

then we have the following;
A. Religion A - Thou shall not kill. love your enemies.

B. Religion B - War and killing of non-believers is sanction upon any threat [vague] to the religion.

As you can from the above religion-A is independent of point 1 and 2 above.
Whereas the 20% of evil prone believers from religion-B are likely to be triggered to commit evil and violence because their God permit such evil and violent acts with the slightest justification.

The mature and wise religion like Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism and others seem to have understood the inherent evil and violent tendency is human beings [albeit not in terms of DNA/RNA]. Thus they ensure they have an overriding pacifist maxim to prevent their believers from committing evil and violent in the religion’s name and to absolve itself from blame if believers were to commit evil and violent acts.

The immature and non-wise religion-B do not understand human nature thoroughly thus made provisions for their believers to commit terrible evil and violent acts upon some very vaguely defined threats and conditions.
Example Quran 5:33.

Note Quran 2:216
2:216. Warfare is ordained for you [Muslims], though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.

Note 54+% of the Quran’s 6236 verses has elements that are contemptuous to non-Muslims which are likely to brainwash the evil-prone 20% to hate and kill non-believers as ordained.
The effects and consequences are already so evident from the 1400 years history of Islam and the evil prone Muslims.

Thus when a religion, e.g. religion-A is ignorant of the “programmed” evil and violent potential and introduced evil elements that are likely to trigger their % of evil prone believers to commit evil and violent acts, there are terrible consequences to humanity. This is very evident.

So the above knowledge [intuitive or explicit] do have hell of a lot of impact on how one’s religion will influence its believers to act morally or commit evil and violent act.

There are significance difference and impact in the following;

1. When anyone read any fictional work in general there is no element of subliminal compulsion by anything other than the person’s inclinations towards good or evil.
   Obviously those who are inclined or vulnerable to evil and violence will be influenced by the evil laden fictional works. This is why there is censorship and PG rating for books, computer games, media, movies, etc.

2. However there are elements of subliminal compulsion when a political or social ideology is involved.
   Note books of ideologies, like Main Kempf and others do have some sort of compulsion on the evil prone due to their strong affiliation with the respective ideologies.

3. But the subliminal compulsion in a religion is more significant and critical because there is a matter either eternal life in heaven or eternal torture in hell in the hands of a God.
   Thus in order to ensure one is entitled to eternal life, a religious believer will have to obey the command of his God or else con-compliance would lead to eternal HELL-fire for him. In addition some believers will have added zeal to obey whatever their God commanded so as to ensure they will go the heaven with eternal life.
   Therefore when the religious texts of God’s words included commands to war and kill non-believers upon vague conditions, SOME [the evil prone] believers will zealously act in accordance to the natural tendency to please their God to doubly ensure they will go to heaven with eternal life.

Abraham was even willing to sacrifice his son to obey God’s words to please God.
The Islamic terrorists are willing to sacrifice their life to kill non-Muslims because such acts are sanctioned by Allah as in the Quran [evidence available].

Yes, you can questioned it is a matter on interpretation.
If the terrorists interpret in the most evil and violent reading of certain verses, which fallible human on Earth can judge they are wrong since only God can judge on his own words.

Thus to be fool proof or idiot proof, the preventive strategy is to ensure the authorized holy text do not include any evil and violent laden elements that are ambiguous and open to interpretation.
The problem is Islam did not ensure its holy text are fool proof from evil prone believers interpreting the evil laden elements therein compelling them to commit evil and violent acts as evident.

You seem to be ignorant of the above nuance points to the issue.

It is not me who is interpreting 5:33 that is critical.

5:33 enable Muslims to kill or crucify non-Muslims upon threats [fasadan].
There are various listing of what constitute fasadan [threat to Islam] in the Quran.

When the evil prone Muslims interpret the drawing of cartoons and blasphemy of Islam as fasadan [threats] re 5:33, thus Allah permit them to war against and kill those cartoon artist and blasphemers, then they went ahead and kill non-Muslims, who on Earth can judge they are wrong?
I need an answer to this.

Yes, I mentioned “SOME” tafseer from reputable Islamic ulamas, but it is a critical ‘some’ in terms of quantum.
If these ulamas influenced merely 20% of Muslims, that would be a pool of 360 million evil prone Muslims.
If only 0.1% of this pool are really hardcore and very zealous we still have a dangerous quantum of 360,000 evil prone Muslims lurking to kill non-Muslims upon the slightest threat or insult to Islam.
This is not a prediction or speculation, it is a reality of real evil and violent acts supported by real evidence.

It is because of this critical and dangerous quantum [small %] that religions [especially with large followings] must have fool proof verses that do not include any evil laden elements in their holy texts.
Problem with Islam is the Quran is heavily loaded with evil laden elements that influenced the very small critical % of large quantum to commit terrible evil and violent acts upon non-Muslims and even other Muslims.

Note my point re interpretations.
It is obvious in 5:33 Allah permit Muslims to kill or crucify non-Muslims with the slightest threats [fasadan] from non-Muslims.

You can argue your point till the cows come home.

The problem is there is NO ONE human on Earth who can judge their interpretation is wrong.
This significant SOME evil prone Muslims insist Allah permit them to kill non-Muslims who had or are a threat to Islam. Who on Earth can and WHO ARE YOU to judge they are wrong?
Fact is these evil prone Muslims are compelled to kill as permitted because they want to be sure of eternal life in paradise.

You are falling back on interpretation again.
My evidence are the verses which is Allah words which cannot be compromised and must be taken literally as applicable.

It is not my interpretation but what I presented is how SOME [pool of 360 millions] evil prone Muslims would have interpret the evil laden verses in the Quran in alignment with their active evil tendency.

E.g. an ideology is evil unto itself where it main texts, e.g. Main Kampf is loaded with evil elements.
Similarly, a religion is evil unto itself if it sole authorized texts and words from God is laden with evil elements.

“Make war” is very obvious in the literal sense.
dictionary.com/browse/war?s=t

I agree if others make war against one, then it is justified to go to war in self-defense. This is very common sense in the political and general sense.
However, I do not agree such a provision should be included in a religious text where it will lead to abuse by the evil prone believers in the name of God.
Self-defense in war and against aggression should be dealt with via politics and other means and not via religion.

Other than the literal meaning, the practice of charging interest is also ‘making war against Allah’.
versebyversequranstudycircle.wo … messenger/

The Quran and Hadith provide guidance as to what ‘make war’ represent.

Anything italicized is a quote from you, my responses are shorter and are in bold.
[i]

1. DNA wise all humans are “programmed” with a potential to commit evil and violent acts.
2. Appx. [conservatively] 20% are born naturally with an active evil and violent tendency -these are the evil prone.

then we have the following;
A. Religion A - Thou shall not kill. love your enemies.

B. Religion B - War and killing of non-believers is sanction upon any threat [vague] to the religion.

As you can from the above religion-A is independent of point 1 and 2 above.
Whereas the 20% of evil prone believers from religion-B are likely to be triggered to commit evil and violence because their God permit such evil and violent acts with the slightest justification.

The mature and wise religion like Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism and others seem to have understood the inherent evil and violent tendency is human beings [albeit not in terms of DNA/RNA]. Thus they ensure they have an overriding pacifist maxim to prevent their believers from committing evil and violent in the religion’s name and to absolve itself from blame if believers were to commit evil and violent acts.

The immature and non-wise religion-B do not understand human nature thoroughly thus made provisions for their believers to commit terrible evil and violent acts upon some very vaguely defined threats and conditions.
Example Quran 5:33.

Note Quran 2:216
2:216. Warfare is ordained for you [Muslims], though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.

Note 54+% of the Quran’s 6236 verses has elements that are contemptuous to non-Muslims which are likely to brainwash the evil-prone 20% to hate and kill non-believers as ordained.
The effects and consequences are already so evident from the 1400 years history of Islam and the evil prone Muslims.

Thus when a religion, e.g. religion-A is ignorant of the “programmed” evil and violent potential and introduced evil elements that are likely to trigger their % of evil prone believers to commit evil and violent acts, there are terrible consequences to humanity. This is very evident.

So the above knowledge [intuitive or explicit] do have hell of a lot of impact on how one’s religion will influence its believers to act morally or commit evil and violent act.[/i]

[b]Deuteronomy, Chapter 13: Game, Set, Match. Interestingly in Deuteronomy, the punishment for promoting the worship of other Gods is ABSOLUTELY death, there is no banishment. You have to gang up on them and kill them. The translations all seem to be pretty direct on this point.

I’ve got to be honest with you, I’m not convinced that you’re as familiar with the religious texts as you should like to imply.[/b]

[i]
There are significance difference and impact in the following;

1. When anyone read any fictional work in general there is no element of subliminal compulsion by anything other than the person’s inclinations towards good or evil.
   Obviously those who are inclined or vulnerable to evil and violence will be influenced by the evil laden fictional works. This is why there is censorship and PG rating for books, computer games, media, movies, etc.

2. However there are elements of subliminal compulsion when a political or social ideology is involved.
   Note books of ideologies, like Main Kempf and others do have some sort of compulsion on the evil prone due to their strong affiliation with the respective ideologies.

3. But the subliminal compulsion in a religion is more significant and critical because there is a matter either eternal life in heaven or eternal torture in hell in the hands of a God.
   Thus in order to ensure one is entitled to eternal life, a religious believer will have to obey the command of his God or else con-compliance would lead to eternal HELL-fire for him. In addition some believers will have added zeal to obey whatever their God commanded so as to ensure they will go the heaven with eternal life.
   Therefore when the religious texts of God’s words included commands to war and kill non-believers upon vague conditions, SOME [the evil prone] believers will zealously act in accordance to the natural tendency to please their God to doubly ensure they will go to heaven with eternal life.

Abraham was even willing to sacrifice his son to obey God’s words to please God.
The Islamic terrorists are willing to sacrifice their life to kill non-Muslims because such acts are sanctioned by Allah as in the Quran [evidence available].

Yes, you can questioned it is a matter on interpretation.
If the terrorists interpret in the most evil and violent reading of certain verses, which fallible human on Earth can judge they are wrong since only God can judge on his own words.

Thus to be fool proof or idiot proof, the preventive strategy is to ensure the authorized holy text do not include any evil and violent laden elements that are ambiguous and open to interpretation.
The problem is Islam did not ensure its holy text are fool proof from evil prone believers interpreting the evil laden elements therein compelling them to commit evil and violent acts as evident.

You seem to be ignorant of the above nuance points to the issue.[/i]

[b]
1.) I think you’re missing my point. I consider the varying religious texts to be works of fiction, and since many of them fundamentally disagree with one another, at least one of them must be a work of fiction. The only difference is the fact that youngsters are exposed to the religious texts whereas the parents might not choose to expose those whose brains are still in early development to, say, Die Hard With A Vengeance. It’s really a problem of promoting these religious texts as incontrovertibly true and absolute, which gives credence to the fiction that at least one of them surely must be.

2.) I basically agree with that.

3.) That’s not why it is more significant or critical. It’s more significant and critical because it is taught as incontrovertibly true during an individual’s formative years. It’s borderline obsessive with many people. Hell, I even go the occasional Sunday without watching a football game during NFL season, but there are people out there who, if they miss church, you can rest assured they are dead or otherwise completely incapacitated.

You have to look at it from the perspective of being taught these things not only from your parents and other guardian adults with a direct interest, (who themselves were taught it from same) but then you also spend a meaningful percentage of your life in an echo chamber of these things.

The key point that you are missing is that it doesn’t necessarily have to be a religion, though it almost always is. If you could get enough people saying the same thing and prohibit exposure to anything that might speak to the contrary, you could accomplish the same ends with literally anything you wanted to and a young enough child.

And again, Deuteronomy, Chapter 13. And again, game, set, match.[/b]
[i]
It is not me who is interpreting 5:33 that is critical.

5:33 enable Muslims to kill or crucify non-Muslims upon threats [fasadan].
There are various listing of what constitute fasadan [threat to Islam] in the Quran.

When the evil prone Muslims interpret the drawing of cartoons and blasphemy of Islam as fasadan [threats] re 5:33, thus Allah permit them to war against and kill those cartoon artist and blasphemers, then they went ahead and kill non-Muslims, who on Earth can judge they are wrong?
I need an answer to this.

Yes, I mentioned “SOME” tafseer from reputable Islamic ulamas, but it is a critical ‘some’ in terms of quantum.
If these ulamas influenced merely 20% of Muslims, that would be a pool of 360 million evil prone Muslims.
If only 0.1% of this pool are really hardcore and very zealous we still have a dangerous quantum of 360,000 evil prone Muslims lurking to kill non-Muslims upon the slightest threat or insult to Islam.
This is not a prediction or speculation, it is a reality of real evil and violent acts supported by real evidence.

It is because of this critical and dangerous quantum [small %] that religions [especially with large followings] must have fool proof verses that do not include any evil laden elements in their holy texts.
Problem with Islam is the Quran is heavily loaded with evil laden elements that influenced the very small critical % of large quantum to commit terrible evil and violent acts upon non-Muslims and even other Muslims.[/i]
[b]
The law can judge that they are wrong, for one. Other parts of the Quran detail following the laws of the land provided that the land allow for religious freedoms otherwise. In other words, if it’s illegal to kill someone, then it’s illegal to kill someone and they should not do it. Granted, they are not necessarily beholden to the laws of other lands, but it is what it is.

Also, Deuteronomy, Chapter 13. [/b]

[i]
Note my point re interpretations.
It is obvious in 5:33 Allah permit Muslims to kill or crucify non-Muslims with the slightest threats [fasadan] from non-Muslims.

You can argue your point till the cows come home.

The problem is there is NO ONE human on Earth who can judge their interpretation is wrong.
This significant SOME evil prone Muslims insist Allah permit them to kill non-Muslims who had or are a threat to Islam. Who on Earth can and WHO ARE YOU to judge they are wrong?
Fact is these evil prone Muslims are compelled to kill as permitted because they want to be sure of eternal life in paradise. [/i]

Yeah, and in Deuteronomy Chapter 13, one MUST kill them. There is no alternative, no possibility of banishment, you have to kill them. For me, Deuteronomy seems a lot less open to interpretation on this one, and at least Quran 5:33 permits banishment from the land as opposed to killing them.

[i]
You are falling back on interpretation again.
My evidence are the verses which is Allah words which cannot be compromised and must be taken literally as applicable.

It is not my interpretation but what I presented is how SOME [pool of 360 millions] evil prone Muslims would have interpret the evil laden verses in the Quran in alignment with their active evil tendency.

E.g. an ideology is evil unto itself where it main texts, e.g. Main Kampf is loaded with evil elements.
Similarly, a religion is evil unto itself if it sole authorized texts and words from God is laden with evil elements.[/i]

[b]Deuteronomy, Chapter 13.

It’s not the religion itself that is evil, but the application thereof that can be evil, depending on how one defines evil. For me, religious texts are works of fiction, so they are no more or less inherently evil than is any other work of fiction…which I don’t consider evil because they are just words on a page.

Why does it seem like this doesn’t happen as frequently with Christianity? I’m going to suggest a combination of laws and culture. Regardless of what The Bible says, a huge majority of adherents are simply taught not to kill anyone, regardless of what their religious beliefs may be. I’m not sure that there is a majority Christian country where murder is legal, exception perhaps to legally sanctioned death penalties. Some Christians are taught that one should only kill themselves and their own children, by not getting vaccinated.[/b]

Game, Set, Match??
You playing with your own different rules.
Yours is a straw man.

I opened an OP on
‘Who is a Christian [proper]’
here;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=194780&hilit=who+is+a+Christian
Note my definition of who is a Christian;

Now, from a rational, critical thinking and philosophical perspective, the objective definition of ‘who is a Christian’ has to fall back on the Gospels of the NT, i.e. as per the words and doctrines from God.

As such ‘who is a Christian’ is one who has entered into a covenant [explicitly or implicitly] with God.

The terms of the covenant/contract can only be in the Gospels of the NT.

“Deuteronomy, Chapter 13” is from the OT and not within the New Testament [NT].
A Christian as defined need not comply with the evil laden elements in the OT but is CONTRACTED with God to comply only with the NT and specifically the Gospels of the 4 apostles.
As such, a Christian-proper must comply with the overriding pacifist maxim of ‘love all - even enemies’ and thus “Deuteronomy, Chapter 13” is a non-contractual term for a Christian-proper to comply with.

Your “Deuteronomy, Chapter 13” and whatever evil laden elements in the OT are irrelevant for a Christian-proper whose main doctrines to be complied with are from the divine principles of Gospel ONLY.

Note ALL the Abrahamic believers must enter into a CONTRACT or Covenant [this term is critical] with their God to comply with the terms of the contract in exchange for a promise of eternal life in heaven or paradise.

If the contract terms are overriding pacifist like that of Christianity, there is no room for any Christian to kill non-Christians as a divine duty as commanded by their Christian God

If the contract terms compelled the believers to war against and kill non-believers within certain conditions of threats to the religion [as in Islam], then Muslims has to comply to war against and kill non-Christians as a divine duty as commanded by their Islamic God, else they may not get to paradise with eternal life.

Actually all Muslims by definition are contracted-killers and contracted-war-missionaries, albeit a large majority of them do not comply with their agreed upon contract but prefer to be more-moral-human than being-more-Muslim.

Therefore it is the religion [Islam] that is to blame if the contracted terms the believers has to comply with, contain evil and violent laden elements as commanded by their God.

Note I raised another OP, i.e.
Do Not Blame Muslims
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=191104&hilit=do+not+bash+muslims

Yes, the guilty Muslims must be accountable for their evil and violent acts, but the primary blame should not be laid upon the evil prone Muslims who are unfortunately and naturally born with an active evil propensity.
The primary blame should be focused on the ideology [as the ultimate root cause] that contain the evil laden elements that triggered the vulnerable evil prone to commit evil and violent acts.

It is the same with Nazism where the blame is not on the German people but the primary blame is on the ideology of Nazism and its founder and gang close to the leader.
Now that humanity has suppressed Nazism, there is no more Nazi-related genocides, terror, evils and violent acts.

As for Islamic evil and violent acts, the blame must be focused on the Quran and its evil laden verses. The founder, Muhammad had long gone but preventive steps must be taken so that Muhammad is not idolized as an exemplar.
Thus if we suppressed Islam like what we did with Nazism, then there will be no more [ZERO] Islamic related genocides, terror, evil and violent acts.

The unavoidable naturally born evil prone will be triggered by other non-religious elements, e.g. politics, social, mental illness, moral, etc. and they must be dealt with accordingly but these are off topic to this “Religion and Spirituality” section.

Note it is also commanded in the Quran, the law of the land should never override God’s Law.
Therefore the evil prone Muslims will never respect any secular or man-made laws except those that comply with God’s command as in the Quran.

In addition, what is the use of laws of capital punishments where evil prone Muslims will sacrifice themselves to kill as many non-Muslims as possible in an ultimate win-win situation where their martyrdom will earn them extraordinary merits and rewards in paradise [with bonus of 72 eternally renewable virgins and eternal erection].

M.A.D [mutual assured destruction] has not effect on Muslims. As such, when those evil prone Muslims get access to cheaply and easily available WMD [nukes or biological] they will have no hesitation to use the WMDs fully since regardless the human race is exterminated, they will end up as martyrs in paradise as well rewarded as mentioned above.

Your “Deuteronomy, Chapter 13” is an empty shell as explained above.

Your “Deuteronomy, Chapter 13” is a straw-man.

I had spent 3 years full time researching the Quran, so I know the Quran reasonable well.

Yes, the Abrahamic holy texts are fictional but,
it is evident the Quran - the ideology of Islam - is inherently malignant, evil and violent in its ethos that compelled and influenced the vulnerable evil prone to commit REAL evil and violence as a divine duty to please their God. [Full Evidence Available]

You can test the above thesis very easily, i.e.
if you go to any city square in Afghanistan or Pakistan at present, then start drawing cartoons of prophet Muhammad and watch the reactions of the Muslims majority there.
It is likely [a critical] SOME believers of the so-claimed ‘religion of peace’ will break you up in pieces.
Then they will justify their acts as commanded by Allah quoting the relevant verses from the Quran or Ahadith.

On the other hand, if you draw the cartoons of Jesus Christ, the Buddha and any non-Muslim founder ANYWHERE, you will not likely end up in ‘pieces’. Most likely you will be starred and ignored.

Therefore it is obvious it is the ideology of the religion that is to be blamed as the primary and ultimate root cause.

No quotes this time.

1.) Okay, so now you want to play the game of, ‘Denounce the entire Old Testament as obsolete.’

-The first thing that you have to understand is that it is inappropriate to give a definition of what it is to be a, “Christian,” because your definition is inconsistent with reality as far as self-description is concerned. The reason that your definition ois inconsistent with reality is because there are self-described, “Christians,” to whom your definition directly does not apply. I would summarize Christians as loosely belonging to one of three types:

A.) Christians who believe that only the New Testament applies as it replaces the Old Testament completely. These Christians either do not teach the Old Testament at all, or, if they do, they teach it as something more akin to a history lesson. First this and then this where the latter applies. I suppose that the Seven Laws of Noah would be considered to be Universally applicable, as well.

B.) Christians who believe that all of the moral laws in the Old Testament (i.e. what little peaceful shit there is) still apply.

C.) While in a substantial minority, those who believe that both Testaments, however contradictory to one another, still apply equally.

Therefore, your claim would only apply to categories A & B, but not so much to category C.

It is perfectly fine if, in your own view, you want to separate those two categories and say that one is a Christian while the other is not actually a Christian, but I would say those in category C would disagree with your assertion in the most vehement of ways. I would also disagree with your assertion for the following two reasons:

A.) My definition of a Christian is simply any person who believes in and worships both the God of Abraham and Jesus Christ. Yes, that would also make a Mormon a form of a Christian.

B.) Even if my definition is not correct, I would tend to fall back on self-description. Absent strict proof that cannot be subject to interpretation, who am I to assert that an individual is not who or what he or she says he is? Therefore, if someone were to say, “I am a Christian, but I do not believe in Jesus Christ,” I would suggest that they either do believe in Jesus Christ or are not a Christian. I would argue that the person fails to meet the most fundamental and generally accepted standard of what makes a Christian a Christian. Barring a statement such as that, I would have no standing to argue against such a self-description.

Anyway, it seems that you want to make it a necessary quality to disregard most of, if not outright repudiate, the Old Testament as applicable Holy Doctrine in order to be a Christian and I argue that such is not true. I maintain that the only qualities necessary to be a Christian are the belief and worship of God and Jesus Christ as well as that of self-description.

A reasonable argument can be made that the Church of the Nazarene, at least in some incarnations, is an example of category C.

2.) The New Testament is Almost Entirely Peaceful

The first thing that you have is Romans 13 which essentially states that God has put, “Rulers,” in place and that those rulers of the Earthly domains are specifically ordained by God. My assumption would be to infer that they consider this as applicable only in predominantly Christian nations, but that assumptions may be in error. It may be referring to all rulers.

Of course, these rulers do not act as an agent outside of humanity itself. For a death to happen, a man must kill a man. If the rulers order the death of a man, or several men, whether by means of war or otherwise…the Christian is bound to comply. Therefore, war and violence can only be initiated by Governments, but it can be initiated.

The Chapter of Peter 2 verifies Romans and states that whether it is a king or some other form of governance, they were sent by God to enact the punishment against evildoers.

While it may not be true for all Christians, the Earthy rulers are generally seen to be acting as agents of God (Donald Trump and Barack Obama both included). Because they are acting as agents of God, their words and orders are to be heeded, even if those words and orders include sending a Christian off to war to kill another man or men. At a minimum, most Christians have to accept that the rulers have the celestially ordained right to make these decisions, even if they choose (pacifists, conscientious objectors) to not participate themselves.

What would happen if all Christians were to refuse to participate is a question I have never seen dealt with, most likely because it would take a hell of a stretch for that to even hypothetically be the case. Would it still be God’s bidding if no Christians were directly involved in the execution of the orders of the rulers? That question probably lacks a satisfactory answer and doesn’t matter to me because I am not a Christian.

In conclusion to Items 1 & 2 I counter that The New Testament is not strictly pacifistic as you claim. While it comes damn close, there is that glaring exception, and it is a major one. The rulers may enact wars and punishment because they are acting as instruments who have been installed not just by people, but by God himself. It is from this premise that Divine Monarchies can even exist, by the way.

What makes it such a major exception is the fact that it conveys divine authority to the rulers to do whatever the hell they want to. It also conveys an implicit order to Christians that they must either comply or not do anything to step in the rulers’ ways because to do so would be to step in the way of the intentions of God himself.

By your own terms, the Christians are bound to this aspect of the contract as they would be with any other. I did not create that term, you did.

The New Testament is pacifistic, with exception only to the death penalty and the most spectacular and significant exception of all of them: War.

3.) Nazism has not been suppressed because there are still Nazis. I can go onto Amazon and purchase Mein Kampf, I just checked, and am probably now on a Government watchlist if I wasn’t already. I can go to some libraries and check it out for free. I’ll stipulate that Nazism was defeated such as there were Nazis who were in power and now are not, but not that it has been fully suppressed.

4.) I was going to go with Chapter 4 of the Quran, which you claim to know intimately, but I will instead adopt the same theory as you and take what comes after Quran 5 as replacing, if there is indeed anything to replace. Therefore, I am going to quote a few passages from Quran, Chapter 6, which should illuminate the positions in the regard of following the laws of the land:

—There is no need for them to kill anyone because Allah is going to take care of that on the Day of Resurrection. We, again, can combine that with the fact taken from Quran 5 that simply letting the blasphemer leave the land (banishment) is an option. It might not necessarily be Allah who decides the life or death of that person, but it certainly can be and will be for any remaining in the end.

—This passage is extremely relevant to the conversation because it stipulates that, if the extremists are wrong in their interpretation, then they have lied about Allah and will not receive the eternal reward.

—TURN AWAY from the wrongdoing people. I don’t see anything about killing them. Turn away until they enter into another conversation.

—Turn away. Ignore.

—Again, leave them alone. Do not do anything to instigate them lest they return it back to Allah. Do not start anything and do not escalate anything. Ignore them.

My Propositions

1.) It is a work of fiction, and as such, cannot be blamed for physical actions.

2.) Some interpretations are more violent than others while some are less violent.

3.) You say that the people are born with a natural inclination towards evil, but maintain that it is the religion that essentially brings the evil out. I maintain not that the first part of it is true, but that if it were true, something else would just as likely bring out the evil…but the person would be less likely to act on it because:

A.) There is strength in numbers. A person, acting alone, would be less likely to accomplish as much.

B.) Strength in numbers also applies to resources. They can pool and effectuate resources to achieve still greater damage.

C.) Strength in numbers makes them harder to stop than is an individual person.

D.) A person acting alone and outside the scope of a religion would receive far less encouragement. There would be fewer like-minded people who agree with the motivator behind the actions because:

a.) It might not come down to a shared belief.

b.) The motivator wouldn’t even necessarily be perceived as being greater than the self.

—I am willing to stipulate that which we will loosely term and agree upon as, “Evil,” exists. I am willing to stipulate that evil can and often is perpetrated if not under the guise of religious beliefs, then under the guise of at least protecting one’s own religion. I am willing to stipulate that there are evil people. I am willing to stipulate that some of same are religious. I am willing to stipulate that some people behaving evilly under the guise of religion know that what they are doing is evil whilst others may actually believe they are doing good. I am willing to stipulate that certain people perceived to be in religious authority can take advantage of the propensity for evil in others, soft-mindedness, or some combination of both with the goal of furthering evil objectives.

—I am willing to stipulate that the Quran (as a whole) could be more easily interpreted as a call to violence than can the New Testament specifically, if it makes you happy.

—What I do not stipulate is that it makes the religion itself evil. It is no more evil unto itself than is any other religion. Words on a page in a book. It is not the words, it is the people, but it is not unique to those people. Those people who share the qualities of being both Islamic and evil simply happened to do a more efficient job of finding one another and accomplishing their ends.

To that point, I could write something that is substantially more a direct call to violence than the Quran could ever hope to be. I could claim that what I have written is a religious text and came to me directly from God. It could be dripping with violent tendencies and calls for bloodshed of those who do not believe it. I could write it such that there are no exceptions whatsoever to that bloodshed and leave no doubt that those who fail to shed blood fail my fake god. It woul;d still be nothing more than words on a page that accomplish nothing of themselves except existing on a page.

Note the relation between Christians and Christ.
The critical verse of the NT is John 3:16 and the likes;

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 is an “offer” of eternal life from God for anyone to “accept” Jesus Christ, thus the words and direct message of Christ which is only in the Gospels and no where.
Where there is an acceptance to an offer, that constitute a ‘contract’ i.e. covenant.
The terms of such a divine contract can only be from the Gospel of the NT and not the OT.

Anyone can claim to be a “Christian” but cannot be a Christian-proper unless the above conditions of entering into a personal relationship with Christ/God via a divine contract/covenant.

If a so-called Christian were to kill non-Christians with reference to the OT, he would be rebuked by Christ/God on Judgment Day. i.e.;

Christ/God to killer-Christian:
WTF!! I commanded as per contracted terms that you must love your enemies, but you killed so many people against my commands.
You will be sent to hell and punished in hell fire.

There is no way the killer-Christian can plea innocence with reference to a copy-cat of the OT verses since they are not part of the New personal covenant a Christian has to sign up with God.

Your C is not Christianity-proper but those are pseudo-Christians and if the had killed other humans would be sent to Hell.

Whatever is stated in the NT, the pacifist-Maxim is overriding.
It is not for Christians to override it with their free will.
However, if any Christian has to kill for the greater good or whatever reasons they will have to bear the responsible and hope for forgiveness if their acts are justified.
Ultimate it is for God to judge and not for any Christian to make the judgment whether they will be punished or not if they kill.

It is true an individual can purchase the Mein Kampf, but there would be no great impact until the ideology is organized in large group as in the past. Note there were millions of Nazis and their allies in the past. We have 1.6 billion Muslims following Islam.
If the individual who purchased Mein Kampf and declare himself a Nazi and commit any evil, he will be treated like a criminal but not in terms of an evil ideology.

[quote]
4.) I was going to go with Chapter 4 of the Quran,[/b] which you claim to know intimately, but I will instead adopt the same theory as you and take what comes after Quran 5 as replacing, if there is indeed anything to replace. Therefore, I am going to quote a few passages from Quran, Chapter 6, which should illuminate the positions in the regard of following the laws of the land:

—There is no need for them to kill anyone because Allah is going to take care of that on the Day of Resurrection. We, again, can combine that with the fact taken from Quran 5 that simply letting the blasphemer leave the land (banishment) is an option. It might not necessarily be Allah who decides the life or death of that person, but it certainly can be and will be for any remaining in the end.

—This passage is extremely relevant to the conversation because it stipulates that, if the extremists are wrong in their interpretation, then they have lied about Allah and will not receive the eternal reward.

—TURN AWAY from the wrongdoing people. I don’t see anything about killing them. Turn away until they enter into another conversation.

You have cherry-picked the above verses which has no impact to counter my points.

6:12 is a condemnation of the non-believer [Kafir].

6:21 refer to non-believers, especially the Jews and Christians who lied about Allah. E.g. The Jews and Christians claimed Allah has a biological son, Allah is Three [trinity] which is an insult to Allah. There are other ‘lies’ the non-believers had made to the Islamic Allah.
6:21 do not refer to the extremists who has declared the Shahada thus are contracted with Allah as Muslims.

6:106 Again this is condemnation of the Christians who associate “three Gods” with Allah who is claimed to be ONE only. This is a straw-man by Islam - Christianity never claimed there are three gods.

The gist is more than 3400 [>54% ] out of the 6236 verses in the Quran are directed contemptuously against the kafir - non-believers using the most demeaning and dehumanizing terms exhorting Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims under very vague condition of a threat to Islam. 5:33.
This is the main theme of the ideology of Islam, i.e. it is literally “hate speech” against non-believers which has contributed to numerous genocides and killed > 270 millions throughout the 1400 history of Islam.
Under the threat of an existential crisis, believers are willing to do anything as commanded by God to ensure eternal life in paradise, unfortunately in Islam, God’s commands are loaded with evil and violent elements.

Are you aware of the numerous lone-wolf[s] who had killed many in the name of Allah as influenced by the evil laden elements in the Quran.

Note the control point,
If there is no Islam with its evil laden Quran, there would be no Islamic related evil and violence where the killers will often quote verses from the Quran to justify their killings and evil acts as a divine duty to please Allah to ensure eternal life in heaven.
You deny the bolded point above?
There so much evidence to support this point where the killers would shout Allah-u-Akbar and justify their killings with verses from the Quran.

Note in the case of secular evil acts which are influenced by the evil and violent elements in the media, movies, computer games, books, music, etc.
It is proven fact where psychologists and the convinced authorities have blamed the sources that influenced the vulnerable to commit evil and violent acts. This is why there is censorship and PG rating for secular evil and violent elements.
While the perpetrators who committed evil and violent acts must be accountable for their acts, the primary blame is on the media, books, etc.

Therefore the primary blame for the terror, evil and violent committed by SOME evil prone Muslims must be laid upon the root source, i.e. the ideology of Islam with the terrible evil and violent elements in the Quran which is supported by the Ahadith.

Note, while the contract with God is implied in Christianity via John 3:16, the need to enter into a contract/covenant with Allah in the Quran is VERY explicit. The relevant terms for contract, covenant, pact, promises, in the Quran are [in Arabic] ‘3HD; ahdan’ ‘MThQ; Mīthāqa.’

I have covered the 6236 verses and 77,400+ words in the Quran very thoroughly, so if you cherry-picked verses, you won’t get pass me.

The two things are not necessarily inconsistent with one another. For one thing, the Seven Laws of Noah are still accepted as completely valid by almost all Christians, but they are in the old testament and did not come out of the mouth of Jesus. I also believe that we have agreed that The Bible is a work of fiction and that neither of us believe in it. With that, what conveys upon you the authority to decide for other people what does or does not make them Christian excepting a glaring and obvious logical inconsistency (such as saying they do not believe in Christ) on their part?

Another thing that you fail to consider, I think we could agree, is that the Old Testament can easily be interpreted as a call to arms against non-believers and, by your definition, evil. While that may not apply to Christians in your view (which now you are splitting hairs on what is a Christian v. a pseudo-Christian) it certainly applies to many religions to include Judaism, as well as quite a few others. Do you denounce those religions themselves as evil, or is it what they do with it that matters?

Overriding how? Because you declare it to be so? Are you suggesting that we interpret this differently? Are you just trying to win a debate?

Tell you what, if you get to decide the qualities of what is or is not a Christian as well as what in the New Testament, “Overrides,” what else, I concede the debate, because there’s no way to win. The debate having been conceded, now we can just have a conversation about it without a focus on winning so that we can determine what is real.

Anyway, my position would be that nothing overrides anything else. Generally speaking, when one makes a deliberate exception to a general principle, it’s not because he wants the general principle to override the exception. If that were the goal, then you would only have the general principle.

Their acts are justified automatically because the rulers are a vessel of God himself (according to the scripture) and the rulers are ordering them to do it. I didn’t make leaders of men the direct instruments of their Divine God, The Bible did. I’m not trying to create any rules outside of what it says.

I appreciate you supporting my position. If this is a, “Debate,” we are both trying to, “Win,” I withdraw my concession. If not, let’s just go on talking. Mein Kampf itself does nothing. An individual by himself or herself (generally) can do comparatively little compared to a large group.

Now, just replace Mein Kampf in the above sentence with Quran.

There is no need to suppress Quran because Quran itself does nothing. There is arguably a need to suppress evil-doers. There is a difference between the two.

The gist is that these are the words and instructions given to Muhammad, the supposed divine prophet and instrument of Allah himself. It’s kind of similar to Jesus, except Allah did not impregnate any of his own creations (why would you need to anyway when you have already demonstrated the ability to create people without pregnancy?) and Muhammad is not the son of Allah.

I don’t want to get into the weeds on 6:106, but suffice it to say, I don’t think the supposed, “Strawman,” is completely unfounded. Also, since I consider BOTH works of fiction, I really don’t care if it’s founded or not.

First thing, some branches of Christianity are stipulated such that you have the Holy Trinity, Father (God), Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit. We arrive at another split. There are many denominations (though smaller in combined number of adherents to their counterparts) who reject the Holy Trinity.

Then you have the question of Jesus Christ, was Jesus Christ the Son of God as the Son of God and a totally separate entity, or was Jesus Christ literally also God? There is some room for disagreement on this point, but that disagreement usually involves the same Christian sects who disbelieve in the Holy Trinity.

When the Quran references, “Three Gods,” it is the Holy Trinity to which they refer. One of the arguments against the Holy Trinity, from their view, is what I said above: Why would Allah need to impregnate a woman? Why would Allah need to have a son? If Allah wanted to personally appear, he could do that anytime he wants to and could manifest in any way that he chooses, he doesn’t need a separate entity or perceived separate entity for anything.

And, we still get back to words in a book, taken by themselves, do nothing.

So, they are relevant to the argument, but our lone wolf reader of Mein Kampf is not? Inconsistent. Pick one.

If there were no people at all, then no people could commit evil. Do you deny it? Maybe we should stop having people altogether so evil can finally be brought to an end.

And, again, words on a page. If I kill my mother while quoting The Cat in the Hat, should we then get rid of the Dr. Seuss book so no future such killers are inspired?

Social contract. And, yeah, I mean I’m perfectly fine with that proposition. If we wanted to propose that The Bible get some sort of, “PG,” rating officially attached to it, I’m completely cool with that. Same with the Quran.