Maajid Nawaz on Bill Maher

The idea that all religions are equally bad is an ignorant one.
It is a bullshit grand lie that keeps getting peddled because our intelligensia and academia do not want to be accused of being racist or biased so they trot out this bullshit to temper their criticsm of Islamic fundementalism or to defend Islam .
 
Jesus doesn't, but you ask this question this way, because you know the bible does.

See you ignore the parts of the bible, that contradict the good parts. That is a good thing, Christians should be applauded for that.

This also means that religious text is completely malleable. If the organized part of Christianity wanted people to start stoning women for adultery, because the bible says so, it would happen.

The problem with Islam is the gate keepers telling people to go kill infidels, instead of focusing on the passages that say love, and hug a tree and shit.

It's not that simple. The teachings of Jesus Christ and, to an even larger extent, Paul changed forever how Christians had to conduct themselves in the world. Jesus and Paul challenged Christians to look inward at our own faults instead of condemning others and throwing stones. Jesus and Paul taught about humility, patience and love (agape). Islam and Christianity are completely different. Love, peace, humility and reflection are the roots of Christianity. These ideas cannot just be cherry-picked like they can in Islam because unlike Islam the aforementioned values are the essence of Christianity.

Islam may have a couple of nice sounding verses in the Koran, but the essence of Islam is war and violence. The founder of Islam is a pedophile warlord who gave instructions regarding killing of infidels and beating women. It is extremely naive to believe Islam and Christianity are merely the same religion with a few minor differences. The essence of both religions are completely different.
 
It's not that simple. The teachings of Jesus Christ and, to an even larger extent, Paul changed forever how Christians had to conduct themselves in the world. Jesus and Paul challenged Christians to look inward at our own faults instead of condemning others and throwing stones. Jesus and Paul taught about humility, patience and love (agape). Islam and Christianity are completely different. Love, peace, humility and reflection are the roots of Christianity. These ideas cannot just be cherry-picked like they can in Islam because unlike Islam the aforementioned values are the essence of Christianity.

Islam may have a couple of nice sounding verses in the Koran, but the essence of Islam is war and violence. The founder of Islam is a pedophile warlord who gave instructions regarding killing of infidels and beating women. It is extremely naive to believe Islam and Christianity are merely the same religion with a few minor differences. The essence of both religions are completely different.


But i can show you Christians in the world today, that are psychopaths based on religious teachings. Their are Christian Tribes in Africa, or Christian communities in the Balkans, that rape and murder in the name Christ every day.

Their are many here that laugh when you bring up the crusades. Fuck the crusades. let's talk about the 40,000 Muslim women raped in Bosnia by so called Christians.
 
But i can show you Christians in the world today, that are psychopaths based on religious teachings. Their are Christian Tribes in Africa, of Christian communities in the Balkans, that rape and murder in the name Christ every day.

If they are raping and murdering, then they are not true Christians. If you want to consider them Christians, then they are risking eternal punishment. It is quite clear that Christians are supposed to abstain from sex until marriage and marriage must be between a consenting man and woman. I will ask again: where does Jesus or Paul call for the murder, rape or even physical violence against others?
 
If they are raping and murdering, then they are not true Christians. It is quite clear that Christians are supposed to abstain from sex until marriage and marriage must be between a consenting man and woman. I will ask again: where does Jesus or Paul call for the murder or even physical violence against others?


I'm pretty sure the definition of a Christian is that you have accepted Jesus Christ as your savoir, and that he died for all man's sins, not that you can't commit grotesque sins.

So I would argue that they are indeed Christians.
 
I'm pretty sure the definition of a Christian is that you have accepted Jesus Christ as your savoir, and that he died for all man's sins, not that if you can't commit grotesque sins.

So I would argue that they are indeed Christians.

Yes, I will concede that you are correct. By definition, they are Christians, but they are terrible Christians for deliberately going against Christian teachings and will likely face severe punishment in the afterlife. In Christianity, there is no martyrdom that will gain you virgins in paradise for giving up your life to kill others in the name of God.
 
Christianity has a lot of teachings that go against killing including the commandment Thou Shalt not Kill and many non-violent teachings from Jesus like, "Love thy enemy" and "when someone strikes you, then turn the other cheek." It is quite reasonable to argue that someone who kills is not a true Christian.

It seems like Christianity cannot win. People piss on it for turning people into pacifist cowards while others piss on it for making people violent. How can Christianity be guilty of both making people too passive and making them violent?

The Bible is extremely muddled and self contradictory. Jesus tells you he is here only for Jews, later tells you he's here for all. Prince of Peace, or am come with a sword?

There are violent passages in the old and new, but christians have been able to safely discard most of these violent promptings. Christians have had to succumb to secularity and modernity though. Islam has largely not done that.

Before the founding of our nation, christians of all stripes were able to persecute and kill each other. Then comes the secular constitution, and their beliefs were forced into the marketplace of ideas. This was a huge development. Islam has largely avoided it, even in places where it is supposed to be in that marketplace.

All of that being said, look at Jesus. He makes a few allegories to violence, but christians largely take this in stride. Jesus is never telling christians to behead, or take off fingers, explicitly. The bible has a lot of stories, like Elisha and the two bears, but it is taken as a story by christians, the story is allegorical, about respecting elders, not a direct command to kill children via bear for disobedience.

There are direct calls for violence in the old testament, but christians dont follow it, despite Jesus telling them to do so, and not even jews follow it either.
 
Yes, I will concede that you are correct. By definition, they are Christians, but they are terrible Christians for deliberately going against Christian teachings and will likely face severe punishment in the afterlife. In Christianity, there is no martyrdom that will gain you virgins in paradise for giving up your life to kill others in the name of God.

I agree to a point. The culture of martyrdom plays a large roll in the terror issue. I would point out that this culture is Arab, and not a Muslim culture thing.
 
The Bible is extremely muddled and self contradictory. Jesus tells you he is here only for Jews, later tells you he's here for all. Prince of Peace, or am come with a sword?

There are violent passages in the old and new, but christians have been able to safely discard most of these violent promptings. Christians have had to succumb to secularity and modernity though. Islam has largely not done that.

Before the founding of our nation, christians of all stripes were able to persecute and kill each other. Then comes the secular constitution, and their beliefs were forced into the marketplace of ideas. This was a huge development. Islam has largely avoided it, even in places where it is supposed to be in that marketplace.

All of that being said, look at Jesus. He makes a few allegories to violence, but christians largely take this in stride. Jesus is never telling christians to behead, or take off fingers, explicitly. The bible has a lot of stories, like Elisha and the two bears, but it is taken as a story by christians, the story is allegorical, about respecting elders, not a direct command to kill children via bear for disobedience.

There are direct calls for violence in the old testament, but christians dont follow it, despite Jesus telling them to do so, and not even jews follow it either.

Jesus is for the Jews? Then why do people call the New Testament Anti-Semitic? Jesus is quite hostile towards the Jews in The Gospel of John. He is rather antagonistic towards the Jewish Rabbis whom he refers to as hypocrites. Matthew 23:1-40 is a lengthy chapter where Jesus calls out the Rabbis for being hypocrites.

Jesus makes allegories, not literal commands for violence like Muhammed does. You are also missing how much Paul has influenced Christianity. The majority of the New Testament is comprised of Paul's letters. Many Christians probably fail to realize that they are following Paul's teaching even more than the teachings of Jesus.

It was Christianity that has led to the secular culture in the west due to the emphasis on the individual, human rights, the importance of church and state separation. One cannot underestimate how much Christianity has influenced what we think and believe today. Even the deranged social justice movements of today are basically perverted Christian movements. Many of the elements are there including original sin (white males), dedicating ones life to the oppressed, forgiving the prostitute (Slut-Walk) and so on.

I would like to see the evidence that Jesus is literally calling for violence. You must be able to find a passage in the bible and then quote it.
 
Jesus is for the Jews? Then why do people call the New Testament Anti-Semitic? Jesus is quite hostile towards the Jews in The Gospel of John. He is rather antagonistic towards the Jewish Rabbis whom he refers to as hypocrites. Matthew 23:1-40 is a lengthy chapter where Jesus calls out the Rabbis for being hypocrites.

Jesus makes allegories, not literal commands for violence like Muhammed does. You are also missing how much Paul has influenced Christianity. The majority of the New Testament is comprised of Paul's letters. Many Christians probably fail to realize that they are following Paul's teaching even more than the teachings of Jesus.

It was Christianity that has led to the secular culture in the west due to the emphasis on the individual, human rights, the importance of church and state separation. One cannot underestimate how much Christianity has influenced what we think and believe today. Even the deranged social justice movements of today are basically perverted Christian movements. Many of the elements are there including original sin (white males), dedicating ones life to the oppressed, forgiving the prostitute (Slut-Walk) and so on.

I would like to see the evidence that Jesus is literally calling for violence. You must be able to find a passage in the bible and then quote it.

Well, you have two Jesus'. You have the Jesus presented from his apostles, then you have the Jesus of Paul. Jesus and his movement, preserved by his brother James, was for the Jews only. Paul comes along, says Jesus "in the flesh" is superceded by Jesus in the spirit. Jesus then tells Paul he is the first apostle, and contradicts all the in the flesh teachings. Again, muddled.

It is also important to note that Jesus was not against the Jews, or the old law, his problem was with the priestly class, who were essentially rulers, who were rich, and preyed upon the poor people. That is what was so revolutionary about Jesus, he was going to heal you for free, while the priests were going to essentially bankrupt you, forcing you to buy large amounts of sacrificial items, which was essentially a pay to play system. He just heals you, and that's that, so you can see the priestly class having a problem with him.

Christian anti semitism started the moment Christianity was adopted for Romans, and non Jews. The Old testament works strictly maintain that the Messiah is to be here for Jews, and Jews alone. Big point of contention.

Christianity did not lead to secular culture. That is false. Even Christians like James Madison realized the need for secularity, and that is why they strictly seperated them. The idea of a secular society is heterodox to the Bible, Talmud, Quran etc. I mean, the idea that a religion that insists upon it's supremacy being a principle cause for it's own privileged position being removed, it does not cohere. Spinoza, Paine, Hume, etc etc were all opposed by Christians, and their churches. To say the enlightenment and secularity came as a result of the thing it was directly opposed to, does not cohere.

Maybe I miswrote, but I was referring to the fact that while Jesus can technically be read as being for violence in certain passages, Christians have created hand holds that allow them to not listen to this. But here are some, attributed to Jesus.

“I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence” (Luke 19:26-27)

“Do not think that I have come to send peace on Earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law” (Matthew 10:34-35)

The difference here, is that Jesus is not directing people to kill on his behalf until there is nobody but christians on Earth. HUGE difference. Jesus also does a good job contradicting these passages in his other statements as well.
 
Well, you have two Jesus'. You have the Jesus presented from his apostles, then you have the Jesus of Paul. Jesus and his movement, preserved by his brother James, was for the Jews only. Paul comes along, says Jesus "in the flesh" is superceded by Jesus in the spirit. Jesus then tells Paul he is the first apostle, and contradicts all the in the flesh teachings. Again, muddled.

It is also important to note that Jesus was not against the Jews, or the old law, his problem was with the priestly class, who were essentially rulers, who were rich, and preyed upon the poor people. That is what was so revolutionary about Jesus, he was going to heal you for free, while the priests were going to essentially bankrupt you, forcing you to buy large amounts of sacrificial items, which was essentially a pay to play system. He just heals you, and that's that, so you can see the priestly class having a problem with him.

Christian anti semitism started the moment Christianity was adopted for Romans, and non Jews. The Old testament works strictly maintain that the Messiah is to be here for Jews, and Jews alone. Big point of contention.

Christianity did not lead to secular culture. That is false. Even Christians like James Madison realized the need for secularity, and that is why they strictly seperated them. The idea of a secular society is heterodox to the Bible, Talmud, Quran etc. I mean, the idea that a religion that insists upon it's supremacy being a principle cause for it's own privileged position being removed, it does not cohere. Spinoza, Paine, Hume, etc etc were all opposed by Christians, and their churches. To say the enlightenment and secularity came as a result of the thing it was directly opposed to, does not cohere.

Maybe I miswrote, but I was referring to the fact that while Jesus can technically be read as being for violence in certain passages, Christians have created hand holds that allow them to not listen to this. But here are some, attributed to Jesus.

“I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence” (Luke 19:26-27)

“Do not think that I have come to send peace on Earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law” (Matthew 10:34-35)

The difference here, is that Jesus is not directing people to kill on his behalf until there is nobody but christians on Earth. HUGE difference. Jesus also does a good job contradicting these passages in his other statements as well.

You have written a lot that I have to sort through. I am going to need some time to respond.

<{1-13}>
 
He's suing the SPLC for defamation. Did he talk about that?
Yep.

BTW, for those who didn't know, if you're not familiar with Nawaz, as they also mention in the interview, he is the man generally credited with coining the term "regressive left." I suspect that about 5% of Sherdoggers who have deployed that term are aware of this.
 
Maher has some dumb opinions, but he is a comedian. When you combine him being funny sometimes, and making a good point sometimes, his show is OK, for his part.

The problem is his guests. He has the dumbest fucking people on the left, on his show every week, and the fucking clapping seals in his audience, cheering these idiots, is absolutely ruining his show.

I really wish he would keep his guests limited to 2 quality intellectuals instead of agenda driven talking heads. His show has the stature at this point to demand it, but hasn't leveraged it. Disappointing.
 
I really wish he would keep his guests limited to 2 quality intellectuals instead of agenda driven talking heads. His show has the stature at this point to demand it, but hasn't leveraged it. Disappointing.
I was particularly disappointed in the invitation he extended to that racist cunt Simone Sanders. That was sometime this month, IIRC.
 
I really wish he would keep his guests limited to 2 quality intellectuals instead of agenda driven talking heads. His show has the stature at this point to demand it, but hasn't leveraged it. Disappointing.

100% agree.

I don't get it. Wreaks of corporate interference.
 
I was particularly disappointed in the invitation he extended to that racist cunt Simone Sanders. That was sometime this month, IIRC.
that was the last episode I watched, might be a few weeks before I go back after that, tbh.
 
Such a hit and miss with this guy. Sometimes I completely agree with some of his points, other times I'm just like 'what the fuck, guy'.
 
This is a wholly reasonable assertion. And I just wish Christians understood they do the same thing when every time a christian kills someone in the name of God and they say "Oh he's not a real Christian".

He really isn't though. He's an anomaly.

I'm not religious at all either, that's just a fact.
 
I was particularly disappointed in the invitation he extended to that racist cunt Simone Sanders. That was sometime this month, IIRC.

Three weeks ago. It was his "apologies for being a white guy, who used the N-word in a joke" show.

Professor Ice Cube also gave a lecture.
 
Back
Top