ISIS

Lord Skimper wrote:
As for SISI (ISIS backwards, which they are) I think we need a new crusade, need to take out their backers, in Saudi

That will be problematic due to USA being the Saudis loverboy.

Lord Skimper wrote:and need to introduce a new version of Islam that follows more closely to Christianity has less divisions than the other two and educate the masses equal rights etc...

Next Boko Haram.

And christianity is supposed to be, somehow better?

I think you just won this months "most stupid statement" award.

Just a thought.

Society can be thought of as a dynamic system that can and does change in response to both internal and external pressures.
Religion is more of a static equilibrium which is bound and, to a degree, limited by the documents that it is based on (Bible, Koran etc)
Since society changes and religion is almost static, there will eventually be a gap between them.
Either religion must accede to change to stay with society, or it must take full control of society to prevent the change that'll reduce/remove its power.
Boko Haram and ISIS/Daesh are both examples of the latter.
Christianity (most of the sub-sects, anyway) is but one example of the former.

Life is change. To live is to adapt.
Does this mean that some religions are metaphorical zombies?

Christianity (most of the sub-sects, anyway) is but one example of the former.

And how much is christian zealots TRYING to influence the world around them?

No, the big difference is that most christian zealots nowaday are using politics instead of weapons as their tools.

They still want to force the world to live according to THEIR scriptures.

Does this mean that some religions are metaphorical zombies?

Yes.

Saint Paul teaches tolerance of others' beliefs while the Koran teaches subjugation and ridicule and murder of those of other faiths. The Koran is the dogma of a conquering army, exterminate all those not of your faith, with the exception of Christians and Jews who become second class citizens.

Killing those not of your faith is wrong. Protesting abortion or Gay marriage pales against genocide those not seeing the difference are delusional IMHO.

Poker

pokermind wrote:Saint Paul teaches tolerance of others' beliefs while the Koran teaches subjugation and ridicule and murder of those of other faiths. The Koran is the dogma of a conquering army, exterminate all those not of your faith, with the exception of Christians and Jews who become second class citizens.

Christianity also has Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate, two declarations to my knowledge without equivalent in the Islamic world, as is the institution of an ecumenical council. They enshrine freedom of religion and equality and are pretty much accepted across mainstream christianity

aairfccha wrote:
Christianity also has Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate, two declarations to my knowledge without equivalent in the Islamic world, as is the institution of an ecumenical council. They enshrine freedom of religion and equality and are pretty much accepted across mainstream christianity

And if all supposed "christians" actually adhered to those, my previous point would be severely reduced.

You do however indirectly also showcase the problem Islam has, the fact that later additions or changes isn´t allowed.
So it becomes up to how strict and specific interpretation various groups use or enforce, which combined with the positive sides in especially empoverished areas becomes a strong draw for the worst of zealotry.

pokermind wrote:Saint Paul teaches tolerance of others' beliefs while the Koran teaches subjugation and ridicule and murder of those of other faiths. The Koran is the dogma of a conquering army, exterminate all those not of your faith, with the exception of Christians and Jews who become second class citizens.

Killing those not of your faith is wrong. Protesting abortion or Gay marriage pales against genocide those not seeing the difference are delusional IMHO.

Poker

The methods are worse, an obvious difference, but the desire to enforce "your" control or belief on others remain the same.

And the methods are mostly worse due to location and local culture. Islamic fanatics in USA do not behave anything like their supposed alikes in Nigeria or Iraq for example.

Extremeist Islam have its best growing grounds in places where everyone are already killing each other zealously.

Tenshinai wrote:

Christianity (most of the sub-sects, anyway) is but one example of the former.

And how much is christian zealots TRYING to influence the world around them?

No, the big difference is that most christian zealots nowaday are using politics instead of weapons as their tools.

They still want to force the world to live according to THEIR scriptures.

Does this mean that some religions are metaphorical zombies?

Yes.

Using politics to try and enact change is one thing, if they fail they fail. however the Christians in the west are NOT using force and violence when political action fails, and for the most part, among the mainstream christians, there is an acceptance of tolerance of religion and NOT a desire to see their personal view of religion rammed down everyones throats. It's unfortunate that the extremists now get in the public eye and seem to be painted as the mainstream when that isn't true. ISIS and extremist muslims, turn to force first to enact their views, and they have the backing of the Koran which, even as many muslims argue otherwise, support that violent viewpoint.

Zakharra wrote:Using politics to try and enact change is one thing, if they fail they fail. however the Christians in the west are NOT using force and violence when political action fails

Some most definitely are using force, and fewer but still some use violence as well.

Zakharra wrote:and for the most part, among the mainstream christians, there is an acceptance of tolerance of religion and NOT a desire to see their personal view of religion rammed down everyones throats.

If you look at it, you will find that this is usually society as a whole influencing christians, not christians having a "nice and progressive mindset".

Yes there is a fair bit less zealotry, but the big difference is cultural background.

Zakharra wrote:It's unfortunate that the extremists now get in the public eye and seem to be painted as the mainstream when that isn't true. ISIS and extremist muslims, turn to force first to enact their views, and they have the backing of the Koran which, even as many muslims argue otherwise, support that violent viewpoint.

Plenty of that support in the bible as well, even if the koran goes a bit further in some ways, and not quite so far in others.

The real problem is as commonly, that a few people uses religion to control and influence others. And in regions where poverty is extreme, religious fanaticism can be a very easy way out.

Tenshinai wrote:

Zakharra wrote:Using politics to try and enact change is one thing, if they fail they fail. however the Christians in the west are NOT using force and violence when political action fails

Some most definitely are using force, and fewer but still some use violence as well.

In the West? I don't think so. Certainly not in the US

Tenshinai wrote:

Zakharra wrote:and for the most part, among the mainstream christians, there is an acceptance of tolerance of religion and NOT a desire to see their personal view of religion rammed down everyones throats.

If you look at it, you will find that this is usually society as a whole influencing christians, not christians having a "nice and progressive mindset".

Yes there is a fair bit less zealotry, but the big difference is cultural background.

It still changes the mindset of the believers. Even the average extremist fundamentalist Christian is far less likely to use violence to try and get his/her way. It's certainly not the way the mainstream does things.

Tenshinai wrote:

Zakharra wrote:It's unfortunate that the extremists now get in the public eye and seem to be painted as the mainstream when that isn't true. ISIS and extremist muslims, turn to force first to enact their views, and they have the backing of the Koran which, even as many muslims argue otherwise, support that violent viewpoint.

Plenty of that support in the bible as well, even if the koran goes a bit further in some ways, and not quite so far in others.

The real problem is as commonly, that a few people uses religion to control and influence others. And in regions where poverty is extreme, religious fanaticism can be a very easy way out.

The New Testament is much less violent and more 'love your neighbor as yourself. Be peaceful', and as I understand it, that is what Christians are supposed to follow. Not the bloody and barbaric OT. The koran though has never had a NT. It remains in its OT version, which allows believers to pick and choose what they want to apply.