|
|
|
|
slablizard
Oct 24, 2006, 4:25 PM
Post #1 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 5558
|
In The God Delusion, the scientist Richard Dawkins sets out to attack God "in all his forms".
He argues that the rise of religious fundamentalism is dividing people around the world, while the dispute between "intelligent design" and Darwinism "is seriously undermining and restricting the teaching of science".
THE GOD DELUSION
by Richard Dawkins
FROM CHAPTER 7: The "Good" Book and the changing moral Zeitgeist
There are two ways in which scripture might be a source of morals or rules for living. One is by direct instruction, for example through the Ten Commandments, which are the subject of such bitter contention in the culture wars of America's boondocks. The other is by example: God, or some other biblical character, might serve as - to use the contemporary jargon - a role model. Both scriptural routes, if followed through religiously (the adverb is used in its metaphoric sense but with an eye to its origin), encourage a system of morals which any civilized modern person, whether religious or not, would find - I can put it no more gently - obnoxious.
To be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries. This may explain some of the sheer strangeness of the Bible. But unfortunately it is this same weird volume that religious zealots hold up to us as the inerrant source of our morals and rules for living. Those who wish to base their morality literally on the Bible have either not read it or not understood it, as Bishop John Shelby Spong, in The Sins of Scripture, rightly observed. Bishop Spong, by the way, is a nice example of a liberal bishop whose beliefs are so advanced as to be almost unrecognizable to the majority of those who call themselves Christians. A British counterpart is Richard Holloway, recently retired as Bishop of Edinburgh. Bishop Holloway even describes himself as a 'recovering Christian'. I had a public discussion with him in Edinburgh, which was one of the most stimulating and interesting encounters I have had.
THE OLD TESTAMENT
Begin in Genesis with the well-loved story of Noah, derived from the Babylonian myth of Uta-Napisthim and known from the older mythologies of several cultures. The legend of the animals going into the ark two by two is charming, but the moral of the story of Noah is appalling. God took a dim view of humans, so he (with the exception of one family) drowned the lot of them including children and also, for good measure, the rest of the (presumably blameless) animals as well.
Of course, irritated theologians will protest that we don't take the book of Genesis literally any more. But that is my whole point! We pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories. Such picking and choosing is a matter of personal decision, just as much, or as little, as the atheist's decision to follow this moral precept or that was a personal decision, without an absolute foundation. If one of these is 'morality flying by the seat of its pants', so is the other. In any case, despite the good intentions of the sophisticated theologian, a frighteningly large number of people still do take their scriptures, including the story of Noah, literallyAccording to Gallup, they include approximately 50 per cent of the US electorate.. Also, no doubt, many of those Asian holy men who blamed the 2004 tsunami not on a plate tectonic shift but on human sins, ranging from drinking and dancing in bars to breaking some footling sabbath rule. Steeped in the story of Noah, and ignorant of all except biblical learning, who can blame them? Their whole education has led them to view natural disasters as bound up with human affairs, paybacks for human misdemeanours rather than anything so impersonal as plate tectonics. By the way, what presumptuous egocentricity to believe that earth-shaking events, on the scale at which a god (or a tectonic plate) might operate, must always have a human connection. Why should a divine being, with creation and eternity on his mind, care a fig for petty human malefactions? We humans give ourselves such airs, even aggrandizing our poky little 'sins' to the level of cosmic significance!
When I interviewed for television the Reverend Michael Bray, a prominent American anti-abortion activist, I asked him why evangelical Christians were so obsessed with private sexual inclinations such as homosexuality, which didn't interfere with anybody else's life. His reply invoked something like self-defence. Innocent citizens are at risk of becoming collateral damage when God chooses to strike a town with a natural disaster because it houses sinners. In 2005, the fine city of New Orleans was catastrophically flooded in the aftermath of a hurricane, Katrina. The Reverend Pat Robertson, one of America's best-known televangelists and a former presidential candidate, was reported as blaming the hurricane on a lesbian comedian who happened to live in New Orleans.* You'd think an omnipotent God would adopt a slightly more targeted approach to zapping sinners: a judicious heart attack, perhaps, rather than the wholesale destruction of an entire city just because it happened to be the domicile of one lesbian comedian.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
In November 2005, the citizens of Dover, Pennsylvania voted off their local school board the entire slate of fundamentalists who had brought the town notoriety, not to say ridicule, by attempting to enforce the teaching of 'intelligent design'. When Pat Robertson heard that the fundamentalists had been democratically defeated at the ballot, he offered a stern warning to Dover:
I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover, if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city, and don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin, and I'm not saying they will. But if they do, just remember you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, then don't ask for his help, because he might not be there. :roll:
Pat Robertson would be harmless comedy, were he less typical of those who today hold power and influence in the United States. In the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Noah equivalent, chosen to be spared with his family because he was uniquely righteous, was Abraham's nephew Lot. Two male angels were sent to Sodom to warn Lot to leave the city before the brimstone arrived. Lot hospitably welcomed the angels into his house, whereupon all the men of Sodom gathered around and demanded that Lot should hand the angels over so that they could (what else?) sodomize them: 'Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them' (Genesis 19: 5).
Yes, 'know' has the Authorized Version's usual euphemistic meaning, which is very funny in the context. Lot's gallantry in refusing the demand suggests that God might have been onto something when he singled him out as the only good man in Sodom. But Lot's halo is tarnished by the terms of his refusal: 'I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof' (Genesis 19: 7-8).
Whatever else this strange story might mean, it surely tells us something about the respect accorded to women in this intensely religious culture. As it happened, Lot's bargaining away of his daughters' virginity proved unnecessary, for the angels succeeded in repelling the marauders by miraculously striking them blind. They then warned Lot to decamp immediately with his family and his animals, because the city was about to be destroyed. The whole household escaped, with the exception of Lot's unfortunate wife, whom the Lord turned into a pillar of salt because she committed the offence - comparatively mild, one might have thought - of looking over her shoulder at the fireworks display.
Lot's two daughters make a brief reappearance in the story. After their mother was turned into a pillar of salt, they lived with their father in a cave up a mountain. Starved of male company, they decided to make their father drunk and copulate with him. Lot was beyond noticing when his elder daughter arrived in his bed or when she left, but he was not too drunk to impregnate her. The next night the two daughters agreed it was the younger one's turn. Again Lot was too drunk to notice, and he impregnated her too (Genesis 19: 31-6). If this dysfunctional family was the best Sodom had to offer by way of morals, some might begin to feel a certain sympathy with God and his judicial brimstone.
*It is unclear whether the story... is true. Whether true or not, it is widely believed, no doubt because it is entirely typical of utterances by evangelical clergy, including Robertson, on disasters such as Katrina. ... The website that says the Katrina story is untrue... also quotes Robertson as saying, of an earlier Gay Pride march in Orlando, Florida, 'I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM CHAPTER EIGHT: What's wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?
In July 2005, London was the victim of a concerted suicide bomb attack: three bombs in the subway and one in a bus. Not as bad as the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, and certainly not as unexpected (indeed, London had been braced for just such an event ever since Blair volunteered us as unwilling side-kicks in Bush's invasion of Iraq), nevertheless the London explosions horrified Britain. The newspapers were filled with agonized appraisals of what drove four young men to blow themselves up and take a lot of innocent people with them. The murderers were British citizens, cricket-loving, well-mannered, just the sort of young men whose company one might have enjoyed.
Why did these cricket-loving young men do it? Unlike their Palestinian counterparts, or their kamikaze counterparts in Japan, or their Tamil Tiger counterparts in Sri Lanka, these human bombs had no expectation that their bereaved families would be lionized, looked after or supported on martyrs' pensions. On the contrary, their relatives in some cases had to go into hiding. One of the men wantonly widowed his pregnant wife and orphaned his toddler. The action of these four young men has been nothing short of a disaster not just for themselves and their victims, but for their families and for the whole Muslim community in Britain, which now faces a backlash. Only religious faith is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise sane and decent people. Once again, Sam Harris put the point with percipient bluntness, taking the example of the Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden (who had nothing to do with the London bombings, by the way). Why would anyone want to destroy the World Trade Center and everybody in it? To call bin Laden 'evil' is to evade our responsibility to give a proper answer to such an important question.
The answer to this question is obvious - if only because it has been patiently articulated ad nauseam by bin Laden himself. The answer is that men like bin Laden actually believe what they say they believe. They believe in the literal truth of the Koran. Why did nineteen well-educated middle-class men trade their lives in this world for the privilege of killing thousands of our neighbors? Because they believed that they would go straight to paradise for doing so. It is rare to find the behavior of humans so fully and satisfactorily explained. Why have we been so reluctant to accept this explanation?"
The respected journalist Muriel Gray, writing in the (Glasgow) Herald on 24 July 2005, made a similar point, in this case with reference to the London bombings.
Everyone is being blamed, from the obvious villainous duo of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, to the inaction of Muslim 'communities'. But it has never been clearer that there is only one place to lay the blame and it has ever been thus. The cause of all this misery, mayhem, violence, terror and ignorance is of course religion itself, and if it seems ludicrous to have to state such an obvious reality, the fact is that the government and the media are doing a pretty good job of pretending that it isn't so.
Our Western politicians avoid mentioning the R word (religion), and instead characterize their battle as a war against 'terror', as though terror were a kind of spirit or force, with a will and a mind of its own. Or they characterize terrorists as motivated by pure 'evil'. But they are not motivated by evil. However misguided we may think them, they are motivated, like the Christian murderers of abortion doctors, by what they perceive to be righteousness, faithfully pursuing what their religion tells them. They are not psychotic; they are religious idealists who, by their own lights, are rational. They perceive their acts to be good, not because of some warped personal idiosyncrasy, and not because they have been possessed by Satan, but because they have been brought up, from the cradle, to have total and unquestioning faith.
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Oct 24, 2006, 4:41 PM
Post #2 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
Wasn't Richard Dawkins the host of Family Feud back in the day? He was always trying to kiss all the women (even the ugly ones). Feckin' pervert.
|
|
|
|
|
iwannaclimb
Oct 24, 2006, 4:57 PM
Post #3 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: 34
|
It's true, people believe what they are told by the people they know and trust. It's how most of us live our lives. We relate to people that are important to us and adopt their beliefs and then modify them to meet our own. Most religion is based on this sharing of faith. Isn't it inevitable that the truth be skewed?
As for the war against religion. If we all have our own religion, then we will base our decisions on those beliefs and so at the root, our disagreements stem from our beliefs.
Just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
|
slablizard
Oct 24, 2006, 5:14 PM
Post #4 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 5558
|
In reply to: It's true, people believe what they are told by the people they know and trust. It's how most of us live our lives. We relate to people that are important to us and adopt their beliefs and then modify them to meet our own. Most religion is based on this sharing of faith. Isn't it inevitable that the truth be skewed? As for the war against religion. If we all have our own religion, then we will base our decisions on those beliefs and so at the root, our disagreements stem from our beliefs. Just my two cents.
"IF"?
ANd I don't think it is a matter of "truth": is a matter of "power" and control of it.
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Oct 24, 2006, 6:12 PM
Post #5 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
Frankly, it's interesting to see science catching up with God...take the latest Nobel prize awarded for physics. Its evidence makes the strongest argument yet for this universe being coming spontaneously into existence from nothing. Gee, I wonder how that could happen??? Yep, that's right, in the beginning God...
|
|
|
|
|
jumpingrock
Oct 24, 2006, 7:33 PM
Post #6 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 5692
|
Suspendisse erat. Cras malesuada. Curabitur vitae mauris. Proin risus lorem, porta quis, tristique in, mollis vitae, tellus. Sed neque. Praesent posuere dui in neque. Sed hendrerit libero sed justo. Etiam sagittis, risus at pellentesque placerat, dolor turpis lobortis nulla, id vehicula augue dolor quis sapien. Nam nonummy, dolor eget fermentum mattis, massa justo malesuada est, et lobortis ante ante eu arcu. Mauris arcu nibh, cursus vitae, ullamcorper at, feugiat at, neque. Quisque pretium molestie risus. Cras blandit. Nunc ultricies convallis nunc. Vestibulum imperdiet luctus orci. Donec imperdiet neque.
|
|
|
|
|
arrettinator
Oct 24, 2006, 7:41 PM
Post #7 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Posts: 8522
|
In reply to: Frankly, it's interesting to see science catching up with God...take the latest Nobel prize awarded for physics. Its evidence makes the strongest argument yet for this universe being coming spontaneously into existence from nothing. Gee, I wonder how that could happen??? Yep, that's right, in the beginning God... |
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Oct 24, 2006, 9:26 PM
Post #8 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
:shock:
Dood! Don't ruin it for me - that book's waiting for me, right after I finish the second Sam Harris book.
I'm looking forward to it.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Oct 25, 2006, 2:19 AM
Post #9 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
In reply to: It's true, people believe what they are told by the people they know and trust. It's how most of us live our lives. We relate to people that are important to us and adopt their beliefs and then modify them to meet our own. Most religion is based on this sharing of faith. Isn't it inevitable that the truth be skewed?
Yep.
Example... If you were to ask the majority of 6-8 year old children in the US, "Who do you believe in more, Santa or Jesus?" The vast majority of them would say "Santa", as they would see proof in the presents he brings, he's at the mall, on TV, and the cookies he eats X-Mas eve (all tangible things). See, the parents teach this belief, and it is reinforced by the parents every year, and even other kids act to reinforce the belief.
This same manner of indoctrination and reinforcement happens all over the world, with all belief systems... Generally, parents teach the belief system, and it is reinforced by those around the person throughout their life. It is only when people "think outside the box", instead of reflexively (is that a word?) discounting anything that challenges their views, that they can see the nature of their belief system, and thus question the validity of those beliefs, like the existense of Santa. :wink:
But then this brings up a dilema, as "faith" requires defending from the believer, not questioning... Hence the term, "Defenders of the faith." Its a catch-22 regardless of the particular belief system, excluding Budism for the most part.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Oct 25, 2006, 9:18 AM
Post #10 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
That's a good passage from the dawkins book, lots that I agree with in there.
However, i find myself disagreeing with the same fundamental problem he's always had: he tries to make everyone to whom he applies a particular label guilty by association.
I've never bombed a bus or even flown a plane. But I'm religious, and as such I'm guilty of 7/7 and 9/11 according to Dawkins.
Of course that's ridiculous, and hypocritical to boot; I don't see Dawkins holding himself responsible for the crimes of mass murderer Harold Shipman, despite that fact that they are both british.
I guess that for crusading atheists looking for more out-of-context bible quotes and anti-religion venom to parrot in place of thinking about it for themselves, this will prove a rich seam.
However, I really hope that most of them will be able to see that more hatred and bigotry is not the answer to these problems.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Oct 25, 2006, 9:24 AM
Post #11 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: This same manner of indoctrination and reinforcement happens all over the world, with all belief systems
Interesting. So how do you account for the many people who, like me, become religious as adults, of their own free will?
Likewise, why would people remain religious once they became adults and nobody was indoctrinating them any more?
There are over 30,000 version of christianity alone, all of which blieve different things about the bible and God. If people didn't question their faith, there would only be one version, wouldn't there?
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Oct 25, 2006, 10:23 AM
Post #12 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Ah... A "Defender of the Faith"...
If you look closely, you will see I use words like "generally", yet you chose to overlook this, and simply discount me in the quote above since you do not lie in that "generalization"... I am sure that those in your circle of friends "generally" share your belief systems, and thus reinforce your beliefs, right ??? :wink: Or are you a lone believer amongst an athiest group of friends and aquaintances ??? :roll:
And of all the Christian sects, how many of them believe that their particular sect is the correct one, and the others are incorrect or flawed ??? How many of those sects are "man-made" revisions of a "man-made" (particularly Saul, aka Paul) faith, Christianity ??? :
What evidence leads you to believe that you are correct ??? Just 1 scrap of evidence please. It doesn't have to be compelling, but just actual verifiable evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Oct 25, 2006, 11:09 AM
Post #13 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: Or are you a lone believer amongst an athiest group of friends and aquaintances ???
No, I have friends of all kinds. Atheists, buddhists, hindus, agnostics, a couple of pagans and a very nice wiccan, amongst others. I have a few christian friends, but they don't discuss religion nearly as much as the atheists and agnostics.
I don't go to church at the moment, because I haven't found one here that suits me. Doesn't bother me a great deal really.
I don't know if other denominations think they're "right" and I'm "wrong", the two I've been part of certainly never said that, but you'd have to ask the others for yourself, I can't speak for them.
In reply to: What evidence leads you to believe that you are correct ???
Correct about what?
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Oct 25, 2006, 4:50 PM
Post #14 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: This same manner of indoctrination and reinforcement happens all over the world, with all belief systems Interesting. So how do you account for the many people who, like me, become religious as adults, of their own free will?
If someone's been indoctrinated since they were a child, at least they have something vaguely resembling a valid excuse.... ;)
But in seriousness, I think the answer to your question is probably the same as the answer to questions like "Why do people become Scientologists?". It's no secret that many types of religious organizations take an active interest in recruiting---should we really be surprised that it sometimes works?
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Oct 26, 2006, 7:25 AM
Post #15 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
In reply to: I don't know if other denominations think they're "right" and I'm "wrong", the two I've been part of certainly never said that, but you'd have to ask the others for yourself, I can't speak for them. In reply to: ]What evidence leads you to believe that you are correct ??? Correct about what?
Assuming that you are a Christian...
The main premise is (simplifying) that one is only "saved" from damnation by the belief that Jesus died for your sins. Accepting this as true, faith, rewards one with entery into the kingdom of heaven.
This belief directly implies that those who have beliefs other than this are "damned"... Thus only Christians have the "correct" belief.
Now... Even most of the other faiths have belief systems similar to this, in that if one does not believe what the particular faith teaches, then one will suffer the result, but if one believes, then they are rewarded.
If you think about it... What ever the belief, when one gets to Heaven, they will only be surrounded by those who had the same faith as them (the right), as the rest (the wrong) will be the "misguided" multitudes who went to Hell. :roll:
So again I ask anyone of faith...
What evidence leads you to believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong ???
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Oct 26, 2006, 8:34 AM
Post #16 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: So again I ask anyone of faith... What evidence leads you to believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong ???
None that you would accept I'm afraid.
What evidence to I have that I love my woman? That I dislike Tony Blair? None that I could present to you in writing. Faith isn't something you can learn about by reading, it's something you do, like love.
God, genesis, the resurrection, all that? No evidence that would convince you, and I'm not 100% sure myself. I could be completely wrong.
But loving my neighbour? Having compassion for all people, without judging them? Helping the poor and the needy? I don't need "evidence" to know that those are the right things to do, and from what little I know of you, you're a good enough man not to need it either.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Oct 26, 2006, 8:47 AM
Post #17 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
In reply to: But loving my neighbour? Having compassion for all people, without judging them? Helping the poor and the needy? I don't need "evidence" to know that those are the right things to do, and from what little I know of you, you're a good enough man not to need it either.
^^^
Three things that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Oct 26, 2006, 9:22 AM
Post #19 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
They are also what philosophers and thinkers throughout the ages have taught.
They are what I'll teach my kids.
They are what I taught my students, when I was a private martial arts instructor.
They are what I teach fellow drug addicts I sponsor in their recovery.
Values and morals are not only taught in religious doctrines.
Of those great morals and values you stated, many who claim to be religious do the exact opposite to people, and often in the name of their God.
I have also seen many judge others in the name of a man who taught "not to judge"... That is ironic.
Do you disagree with any of the above ???
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Oct 26, 2006, 9:38 AM
Post #20 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
No, that all seems true enough.
Religious people do it because it's the right thing to do. Non-religious people do it because it's the right thing to do.
Many religious people do the opposite, as do many non-religious people.
I'm not seeing much to argue about here.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Oct 26, 2006, 9:43 AM
Post #21 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
^^^ what rrradam said.
In reply to: Actually they're what Jesus taught, and mohammed and bodhidarma too, so yes they are part of religion.
So Mohammed taught compassion for all people, did he? You sure about that?
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Oct 26, 2006, 10:28 AM
Post #23 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
In reply to: In reply to: So Mohammed taught compassion for all people, did he? You sure about that? I'm not an islamic scholar, but yeah, I'm pretty sure. Care for the poor and needy and for strangers is in the koran as far as I know. Am I wrong?
Only if by "all people" you mean "all people except infidel scum".
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Oct 26, 2006, 11:27 AM
Post #25 of 87
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
In reply to: In reply to: Only if by "all people" you mean "all people except infidel scum". My my, the prophet must have had a tongue on him to speak like that. Whereabouts in the koran does that come from?
How about 3:12:
In reply to: Say to the unbelievers, "You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell - an evil resting place!"
or 3:118:
In reply to: Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal.
or 4:50:
In reply to: God will not forgive those who serve other gods besides Him; but he will forgive whom He will for other sins. He that serves other gods besides God is guilty of a heinous sin.
Or maybe 5:57 (he repeated himself a lot):
In reply to: Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels and those who were given the Book before you, who have made of your religion a jest and a pastime...
... or are these "out of context"? :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
