Peaceful Religion of Islam? Not.

[naked gent]

Whether parts of the Koran actually condemn violence is hardly relevant.
What is relevant is the fact that there are Muslim leaders who preach to and/or indoctrinate a significant portion of the Muslim population the belief that violence is not only a good thing, it is a thing that all Muslims - good Muslims that is - are required to be engaged in.

Henry how could you think the Iraq war was a good idea when its aim was to give the vote to the very people who you say are being instructed to engage in violence?

Why sacrifice american lives and waste american money in order to allow these muslims to voice their opinions in elections if you think those voting have been indoctrinated?

If Iraq goes the way of Hamas won't you feel a bit silly?

 

[HenryReardon]

Henry how could you think the Iraq war was a good idea when its aim was to give the vote to the very people who you say are being instructed to engage in violence?

The war in Iraq is kind of off topic in the context of this thread. There was, also, a qualifier in my statement - which you have, oh so carefully, ignored.

Why sacrifice american lives and waste american money in order to allow these muslims to voice their opinions in elections if you think those voting have been indoctrinated?

Some of them may well be indoctrinated, some may not.

 

[naked gent]

The war in Iraq is kind of off topic in the context of this thread. There was, also, a qualifier in my statement - which you have, oh so carefully, ignored.

I know its off topic but you referring to others here as "ankle biters" is not exactly on point either.

In the context of this thread you say Islam is not a peaceful religion yet you're willing to spend money and lives to give its followers freedom to do as they wish which they did not have prior to the invasion.

Say this for the ankle biters at least they're coherent.

 

[EwanSF]

Pointing out the fact that there is a huge and highly malignant cancer growing on a body (or a group) hardly amounts to bashing the group. Only fools, juveniles, and lefties of the liberal persuasion would think in those terms.

Don't give us that shite. A couple of weeks ago I saw you reffer to european muslims as "the invaders," so don't pretend that it's just muslims of the backward, wife-beating, jihadi persuasion that ye can't stick.

 

[HenryReardon]

I know its off topic but you referring to others here as "ankle biters" is not exactly on point either.

In the context of this thread you say Islam is not a peaceful religion yet you're willing to spend money and lives to give its followers freedom to do as they wish which they did not have prior to the invasion.

Say this for the ankle biters at least they're coherent.

Actually, I wasn't the first person to use the term ankle-biters, but I liked it and adopted its use.

They are anything but coherent - perhaps you meant to write consistent, and that they are - consistently wrong.

 

[EwanSF]

It's not my particular interpretation, it's what the book says.

The OT laws weren't really draconian by the standards of the day -- for example, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" was a movement toward justice and mercy, because in the culture if someone put out your eye, you could generally take his life. Then there's the directive that a wife can be divorced but there has to be a written statement; that actually gave women a legal status they didn't have.

Why did it have to be a gradual process? Well, why does getting to democracy, and -- more importantly -- to human rights have to be a gradual process for peoples? The answer to both is that human societies can only be changed so much, so fast.

Now the laws weren't arbitrary, they were an expression of who God is, to those people at that time, an expression of the reality He'd made. Their mere existence reflected a flaw in creation, put there by humans, a flaw that needed to be repaired. The (f)law demanded death, demanded not just in the sense of justice and retribution, but in the sense of what was needed to bridge the hole and mend it. But God could have killed humans for all eternity and what was needed/owed wouldn't have been satisfied -- and He didn't particularly care to do that, since it would have been a waste of the prime point of Creation in the first place. Further, since God was the one who'd left the door open to the possibility of that flaw (when He gave his creatures called humans free will), it was rather His job to fix it.

So what Jesus did was "take the rap" for all us offending law-breakers/flaw-makers, repaired the flaw (as evidenced by the Resurrection), and did it by taking the brunt of the damage (called "sin" in the general sense of Creation being fucked up) on Himself, God.

It wasn't a matter of "I made up laws, you broke them... oh, heck, I forgive you", but of a deep alteration in the nature of reality, it was a matter of needing... well, a sacrifice, in the old, old sense of something appropriate to fill a need, which as a living being loses its/his life in the process. So He wasn't trying to impress anybody; he was doing what needed to be done -- needed if God wanted to keep Creation, and not toss mankind on the garbage heap of non-reality (if that was even an option; I'm not certain God could have just scratched it all off and said, "Back to the drawing board", without failing to be God... but that gets deep and hairy).

Mate, your obviously quite an intelegent, well-read guy...which is why it makes it so much harder for me to comprahend you believing this crap. Ye stick a couple of ray guns in there and it's just some mediocre sci-fi novel. If god is all knowing, surely he would have designed creation so that he wouldn't need to instigate "a deep alteration in the nature of reality." Why the need for all the thousands of years of human suffering, just to satisfy his grand scheme? It makes absolutely no sense to me and it never will.

Again, it baffels me how you could possibly follow this...but fair enough, if that's what makes ye happy or gets ye through the day.

 

[naked gent]

They are anything but coherent - perhaps you meant to write consistent, and that they are - consistently wrong.

Well those who are willing to spend money and lives to give the vote to those they consider violent are not particularly coherent either now are they?

You don't like them and tell us to beware of them yet you'll fight for their freedom to kill you in the name of their prophet.

Don't be offended if I don't follow you.

 

[Lostlover]

I doubt that. He's not unintelligent, but his arguments on this issue are pretty absolutist and -- as I pointed out in my previous posts -- hypocritical given the fact that he urges a non-simplistic approach on other topics (like slavery).

And there's something very interesting about the fact that a person is willing to neutralize the horrors of slavery on African Americans, but perfectly willing to put the entire Muslim faith in one group. If arguments by the same person against black oppression and the Muslim faith don't strike you at all as uneasily formed from a kind of white, Christian privilege (and bigotry) -- especially when the mode of debate changes each time -- then I don't know what else to tell you.

And I don't even think he's a "bad" person, whatever that means. Believe it or not, I actually find myself agreeing with him in other threads in completely unrelated topics. I just think it's clear his prejudices -- on this topic -- are formed from a particular social context and lack of certain experiences (which is also why he doesn't see them as important).

But once again, I've said my piece and will move on. Y'all have a good time in here. If I don't reply to anyone else's post, it's not because I'm ignoring you, it's because -- as with all these exhaustive anti-Muslim threads -- one has to make a choice at some point when to retreat because it seems you can never convince these people to see past their own prejudices. And I don't wanna be mired in this debate (yet again) for days and weeks on end. Not in the middle of a grueling final semester anyway. So ciao.

That's why I didn't even touch this thread until now.

It never ceases to amaze me that people in the gay community strive to see other minorities as enemies when they're in a similar struggle (for acceptance).

I got news for them, gays ain't so liked by a good portion of the population.

In all seriousness, I do think some gays jump at the chance in being the majority (white and males-forgetting lesbians for a second) some of time instead of being seen entirely as a minority (gay/bisexual). It gives them some power.

But for those gay blacks or latino transgendereds that are double minorities, you're screwed once again (or more accurately doubly screwed).

 

[HenryReardon]

You don't like them and tell us to beware of them yet you'll fight for their freedom to kill you in the name of their prophet.

Don't be offended if I don't follow you.

I think you understand full well, but choose to go off on your own little tangent because you are incapable of seeing the world as it really is, warts and all.

You'll outgrow that youthful idealism eventually once you've spent a few years in the real world.

 

[TX-Beau]

...damn kids, get off my lawn...

The word crotchety comes to mind.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

You'll outgrow that youthful idealism eventually once you've spent a few years in the real world.

Wait a minute, somebody acting like Muslim terrorists are more of a threat than their American neighbors is talking about the real world? In the real world how much of a threat is terrorism to me and you?

Not that it shouldn't be cause for concern, but is all this hype really a mirror for reality? Are Muslim terrorists droppin' more bodies than people on our own soil?

 

[andysayshi]

^Note that in the past 10 years, more Americans have been hit by lightning than those killed by terrorists on US soil.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Peaceful atmospheric dicharge of electricity? Not!

 

[andysayshi]

_________

 

[HenryReardon]

Wait a minute, somebody acting like Muslim terrorists are more of a threat than their American neighbors is talking about the real world? In the real world how much of a threat is terrorism to me and you?

Not that it shouldn't be cause for concern, but is all this hype really a mirror for reality? Are Muslim terrorists droppin' more bodies than people on our own soil?

There you go on yet another tangent.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

There you go on yet another tangent.

Anything that applies reality to this thread title is a tangent huh? It poses the question "Islam, peaceful?" By your own statistics a sweeping majority of the followers ARE peaceful. The confusion here is that you follow that with "not."

 

[Kulindahr]

Mate, your obviously quite an intelegent, well-read guy...which is why it makes it so much harder for me to comprahend you believing this crap. Ye stick a couple of ray guns in there and it's just some mediocre sci-fi novel. If god is all knowing, surely he would have designed creation so that he wouldn't need to instigate "a deep alteration in the nature of reality." Why the need for all the thousands of years of human suffering, just to satisfy his grand scheme? It makes absolutely no sense to me and it never will.

Again, it baffels me how you could possibly follow this...but fair enough, if that's what makes ye happy or gets ye through the day.

Freedom requires the possibility of failure, or it isn't freedom.
There was no "need" for any years of human suffering, but it had to be a possibility for us to be much more than fancifully programmed toys.

 

[EwanSF]

There you go on yet another tangent.

Do you just struggle at making sense, or is there some concerted effort not to do so?

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, please know that what I am about to post is done in good nature and not as an attack on you. I do think there are contradictions in your argument that arose from you shifting the terms of your argument, and I will delineate the particulars now. But again, this is not an attack (and at this point, it's even slightly amusing).

First, you made a point that Jesus was not a pacifist. In your own words "the Prince of Peace isn't about pacifism" and you support this with the story of the Temple, and specifically with your emphasis on Jesus fashioning the whip and whipping the "miscreants." Your words:


By your implication then, the concerted effort in creating a whip, the invocation of "wrath", and the denouement that this proves he wasn't a pacifist, indicates that you are tying the whip (no pun intended) to permissive violence. Further proving that point is that your post continues with, "Now look at the verses where He counsels non-violence: they're ones where the threat is more in the fashion of insult, not of danger to life and limb." The logical argument then is that Jesus is not against ALL violence (i.e. not a pacifist) and that there are extenuating circumstances where a reactive violence is allowed. In your eyes then, the Temple scene -- whipping the miscreants -- is an act of violence, but an allowable one.

And in fact -- just so there's no confusion-- these are your closing remarks in that post about the kind of violence Jesus permits:


And you even make a point of saying that self defense isn't Jesus' strongest argument for reactive violence (since he urges you to turn the other cheek) but rather that defending another person's life is the strongest argument for reactive violence.

So that argument seemed clear. Good. However, when the inherent contradiction in your argument was pointed out (that the Temple miscreants do not constitute a "danger to life and limb" and certainly not a defense of another life), you then shifted your argument for the first time:


See the shift? Now you're adding another caveat where reactive violence is allowed and not one that fits with your original thesis. In your initial argument, the Temple scene is both capably and clumsily woven in. First you use it -- capably -- to illustrate that Jesus is not a complete pacifist and not always against reactive violence (this part of your argument is solid and unassailable) as evidenced by his use of the whip. Good. But then you incorrectly go on to qualify reactive violence as only allowed when life and limb is threatened, and in fact you go even further to say it's mostly when another life and limb is threatened, other than your own.

So basically the conclusion of your initial argument (the particulars for reactive violence) did not match the situation you first described as evidence (the Temple scene).

And instead of acknowledging that contradiction when it was pointed out to you, you changed your argument and claimed that "the family property had been invaded" (your words) and so reactive violence was justified. Which is fine except that it contradicts the conclusion of your original argument that reactive violence is only allowed if it is self-defense and especially defense of another (life and limb).

To confuse matters even further, you elucidate by changing another part of your argument by now making the home "not property." You wrote:


So now you've clarified that "invasion" of "sanctity" and "bigotry" (your words) are grounds for reactive violence. Which again is fine, but can you see now that this was not your original argument at all? Neither invading a sacred space nor bigotry -- horrible as they are -- constitute a threat to life, and even less a threat to another life. Also, you've changed part of the terms from your first clarification, by stating that "I wasn't really thinking of home as property" even though in your prior post, you outright called the Temple "the family property!"

You've made alterations, dear. And not just slight alterations, but completely contradicting what you originally said. Which is not a grave sin but it is something you tend to do, and then you accuse me of lying when I rib you about "shifting the goal post." Well, it's right there.

There's no contradiction -- you're reading in exclusivity where I didn't put it. In the first argument I merely showed that Jesus isn't a pacifist, and went on to point out that He plainly had no problem with employing violence in cases of threat against life and limb. Since these were responses to particular questions, they weren't ever meant to be an exhaustive treatment of the matter, and I never so much as suggested they were.

So there was no "change of argument" when it came to defending the Temple, there was only expansion on a point already made, in using the illustration of the Temple to show that Jesus wasn't a pacifist. Of course He wasn't defending against an attack on life and limb, so there has to be something besides an attack on life and limb that justifies violence, so I delved into that.

Nor did I change my mind about the Temple; I merely noted that when I originally used the word property as something that should be given up and not cause for violence, I wasn't thinking of real estate, but only portable items.

I didn't advance bigotry as sufficient cause for violence, either -- I was commenting on additional factors which fed His anger.

So I haven't made any "shifts", or changed my terms, or any such thing -- those are in your imagination, or in some weird way you have of reading things. If you want a statement in the form of systematic theology on the issue, that's one thing -- but when that's not what I'm offering, don't impose artificial absolutes on things.

 

[Kulindahr]

LOL. It's clear you shifted your argument and it's right there if anyone wants to read it in my post. And now you're eluding that charge by adding qualifiers that weren't there in your original argument (and this isn't the first time you've done this either). But we're never gonna agree on this so we can just leave both arguments there for anyone who wants to read them.

I'm not "adding" anything, I'm pointing out the plain flow of the discussion, and indicating things you claimed were there weren't. Your argument consists of imposing artificial absolutes, i.e. insisting that every answer I give to anything has to be a full, complete, systematic treatise covering every possible aspect.

Oh, heaven forbid. I wouldn't wanna use your tactic.

It's not mine -- but you're quite good at it; it's all over your long post about my remarks concerning Jesus and violence.