Jihadists must die, --- but our real enemy are the Qur’an and Bible.
Jihadists must die, --- but our real enemy are the Qur’an and Bible.
Ridding ourselves of Islam’s extremist jihadists is good. But to allow the Qur’an and other Holy books, --- which create the jihadists, --- to remain unchanged is not good.
The passages that create our problems must be re-interpreted and re-rephrased for modern times. Revisions are quite common to most of the documents at hand. The passages which create the extremist view are the real enemy. Those passages create the mindset that is plaguing our young. In the long term, we are better served to kill what creates the jihadists of the future, and not the future Jihadists, by removing the Jihadist creating parts of their theologies and ideologies. It is a much more humane way to end that destructive type of extremist behavior.
To have real peace, we must do the same to the immoral parts of the Bible.
The Qur’an and the Bible are both creating misogynous and homophobic religions that deny many of us equality. World/Male domination of a few over the many of us is the goal of both of the two largest of the mainstream religions. Those who fly the cross and those who fly the star and crescent. Both groups are idol worshipers and not the God seekers that Jesus wanted for mankind. Shame on both the cross and those who fly the star and crescent.
Justice demands that both the Qur’an and the Bible be revised and thus force the mainstream religions to upgrade, modernize and join us in the present instead of living with ancient Gods. Governments should force the policies of the Gods to become more acceptable to mankind. After all, governments created religions to serve us. Not to dominate us.
Secular Governments, who are answerable to you and me, should rule without religions getting in the way of progress. Social control and manipulation is better in government hands than what religions offer. Ask any woman or gay. Those two oppressed groups want social manipulation of the social manipulators and their poor moral and religious attitudes. To give any ruling power to invisible absentee Gods is foolish.
Should secular governments pick up the pace and shed ourselves of the misogynous Qur’an and Bible. Have those cursed books created enough grief for women and gays? Have we allowed the downgrading of women long enough?
Man is God. God needs and wants a Goddess. Secular men are free and equal. Should our women not also be free and equal?
Should we urge our governments to force changes to the violent misogynistic Qur’an and Bible to make those documents more civilized?
Regards
DL
= new reply since forum marked as read
Otherwise I would have used "humans." 
That is fascism pure and simple!
these books to be managed by our secular governments based on your 'beliefs' about their wording.
You call for social control and manipulation by the government. You couch it in terms of peace, justice, and a humane way to eradicate 'extremist behavior'.
Never mind the separation of church and state. Never mind the arrogance and lack of real scholarship on the subject.
Never mind that what you are describing is Communist China and used to be Soviet Russia.
And some wonder why there are those here that actually use the term 'militant' with regards to anti-theistic atheists!
I have studied the Gnostic tradition at a graduate level, both the pagan and Christian varieties.
a different space of your own imagining.
I made no reference to Transgenders in my post.
I am reading words, not minds.
Labels are just that, labels. Some are accurate. Some are not. When things are congruent, then communication can continue.
Because you do not see, does not mean it isn't there.
Self-described 'Gnostic' or 'atheist' is irrelevant. She/he has communicated that they are anti-theistic and anti-religion and interestingly enough they use the rhetoric of the New Atheist movement. These things are not congruent with the label. Period.
I am equally sick of 'internet educated' individuals who really have never studied grammar, logic, and rhetoric in any depth. They attempt to shut down discussions about real topics with maneuvers such as these.
You can say "I am x". But if you do not share any of the beliefs of x, act like y, and are more concerned with z, then it is not a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy to point out that you are not x. That is an incongruency between a label and a reality. You simply are not x no matter how much you wish, believe, hope, or demand it to be so.
But hey thanks for playing.
and I won't go too deeply into this.
The OP in general describes a belief that violence is not only acceptable but necessary in order to establish peace. This is simply your garden variety modern literalistic Christian interpretation of Revelations if you will with a little New Atheism Islamophobia thrown in for good measure.
Gnostics are so opposed to violence in their writings and traditions that they were often nearly destroyed by the Catholic church numerous times through out western history. Modern Gnostics do not teach a new form of social justice where one should seek revenge for the 'supposed evils of the Abrahamic faiths by supporting violence and the use of government force to censor holy books. This is apparent when source material, both ancient and modern, are studied even on a cursory level.
You are correct that there are references to gender balance that have nothing to do with Yeshua as a real flesh and blood man and the Sofia, an archetype of wisdom described mythologically as a feminine fallen angel. Their is no 'goddess' in even pagan forms of Gnosticism let alone Christian ones. That is an addition from likely Neo Pagan and Dianic Wiccan traditions. Again, those are not Gnostic nor is their any historical or philosophical connection between them.
So these are two glaring incongruencies that do not require mind reading or delving deeply into anothers beliefs to view and judge critically with regards to the label of 'gnostic'. I defend this in part because Gnosticism is an interesting, ancient, and rather powerful spiritual tradition here in the west that parallels the rise of Catholicism and Protestantism yet is very distinct. There are bishops, priests, laity, and active dioceses through-out North America and Europe. I did my graduate work with a well-known author and figure in this tradition. She was and is an amazing scholar and few know much about this tradition. Like UU, this tradition allows for even atheistic and agnostic views on the ultimate question of a 'godhead'. It is a tradition built on metaphors and the mythopoetic with no room in its teachings for literalism.
So yes, to see it perverted and presented as it isn't rankles me a bit.
New Atheism is an actual title that describes a particular movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins are 3 out of the 4 'horsemen' of it.
All three are definitely bigoted and Islamophobic. Islam is capitalized so I capitalized the term and New Atheism as espoused by these three and their followers (yes, it is very much an online following!) have some real issues with Islamophobia. The OP mirrors much of that in their writing - kill the jihadists, destroy the holy books, world is better off without these religions, etc.
So to state again, I do not think that atheists in general (I am basically one myself!) have issues with Islamophobia or bigotry. But yes, the New Atheism movement does appear to have that problem.
Just want that cleared up so there is no further misunderstandings and conflict.
The US Constitutional standard of the separation of church and state works both ways.
Much of what you have to say here seems convoluted, disjointed or simply indecipherable to me.
"Governments should force the policies of the Gods to become more acceptable to mankind. After all, governments created religions to serve us. Not to dominate us." ?
"Secular Governments, who are answerable to you and me, should rule without religions getting in the way of progress. Social control and manipulation is better in government hands than what religions offer. Ask any woman or gay. Those two oppressed groups want social manipulation of the social manipulators and their poor moral and religious attitudes. To give any ruling power to invisible absentee Gods is foolish." ?
"Man is God. God needs and wants a Goddess. Secular men are free and equal. Should our women not also be free and equal?" ?
(ed to add) The Constitution also provides some prohibition and recourse in regards faith-based discrimination or unequal application of existing law. See the many recent appellate judicial decisions on sexual orientation cases.
I don't like proselytizing of any kind, and I particularly don't like it when people take the approach that those who see things differently are blind and stupid fools who just haven't figured out the truth yet.
For me it's always a one way conversation, because I don't participate with true (non)believers who feel they have the one way.
Proselytizing door to door or on the internet. It's the same. Why take a road that you find so objectionable in others?
Please provide a single piece of evidence to support your contention that the internet has been shown to be effective in helping bolster a drop in religious belief among the young. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I've never seen it…
and we are data driven, right?
"Utterly destroyed," sure.
Who needs holy books anyway