Peaceful Religion of Islam? Not.

[Kulindahr]

Be careful there babe. That sounds a lot like "picking and choosing" and according to absolutists in this thread, that's not OK. Unless they just mean, "It's not OK unless Christians do it."

Once again you change the meaning of terms within a single sentence.
Do you even see the flaw here?

One is like picking and choosing whether to travel by train or plane, which is fine. The other is like picking and choosing which safety precautions and which equipment on the place you're going to pay attention to and/or activate once you've chosen the plane -- which is not okay.

 

[TX-Beau]

I'm not sure of what you're referring to as hypocrisy here. As far as being a Christian, though, I believe because I found it be be the only realistic option for a communication from a Creator.
And one of the reasons I found it so is that He doesn't shove it down anyone's throats; He invites. Unfortunately most Christians throughout the ages didn't quite get that...

Of course you're not sure, you're way is the correct one and everyone else is wrong.

How do you know there's even a creator in the first place, you don't, you take it on faith, which was the point of the post.

Perhaps it should occur to you that other religions and other Christians feel about your Christianity exactly like you feel about theirs. You're interpretation is wrong, you don't read the bible in the correct fashion.

You are not the arbiter of what is and isn't correct about Christianity, a thousand other Christians have differing opinions. Your opinion is just that, your opinion, and therein lies the hypocrisy.

For what it's worth, I don't think you're deliberately being hypocritical, I don't think you see the point at all to be honest.

 

[Kulindahr]

If we may head back to the thread's topic, I am bewildered a little.

I've found the discussion in the past few pages interesting, but EXTREMELY convoluted. My summary:

Criticism - Side 1: Islam based on a book which seems to preach violence in some sections.

Rebuttal 1: Quotes are taken out of context and without historical perspective.

Criticism - Side 2: Christianity based on a book which seems to preach violence in some sections.

Rebuttal 2: Quotes are taken out of context and without historical perspective.

The difference is ... what?

The difference is that one is a book assembled over the course of more than a millennium, which shows progression and ever-raising standards, while the other is a single corpus from a single person so that all its parts have to be taken as on a par.
The Bible itself provides the "corrective"; that's part of the historical progression. The Koran cannot provide a corrective in the same way, since there is no historical progression, no unfolding revelation -- and especially, no New Testament with a Prince of Peace.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is fascinating and I'd love to hear more. Would you mind answering two questions (and I'm genuinely curious, this isn't snark. My father is Christian and I have great respect for the religion and the place that Jesus holds in many peoples' lives):

1. I could be missing something, but I don't follow your train of thought where Jesus condones "if it's a threat to life and limb, you can strike back." Were you referring to the scene in the Temple? Or was there another example/quote that you just forgot to include?

2. You say, "And indeed if it's someone else's life and limb, you're obligated to so strike" which is a noble concept in terms of loving thy neighbor, but again, how does this fit with the Temple scene? Jesus' wrath (as you identified it) in the Temple wasn't about defending another life was it? Again I'm asking because I could be misremembering this passage. Did the Temple scene included an act of violence that Jesus reacted to that I'm not recalling?

Thanks in advance.

The Temple matter was Jesus dealing with what we would call "home invasion": as it was His Dad's house, He had the authority, probably the responsibility, to drive out invaders. Traditionally the location the merchants were in has been translated as "porch" or "outer courtyard", but what it really was, was a place for non-Jews to come and pray, the "Court(yard) of the Gentiles". So He was quite rightly pissed that the family property had not only been invaded, but that a part of it set aside for a specific reason had been made unsuitable for that function.

The "threat to life and limb" part is indicated by the command to purchase swords; the implication is a need to defend, presumably themselves. That fits with the ancient principle of defending one's family, friends, neighbors, and that failure to do so makes you as guilty as the attacker, so apparently Jesus is quite in line with that (or, if you want to get deep about it, it was in line with Him).

So Jesus gives a direct example of a response to a home invasion (whip the bastards out!), and an indirect directive to be prepared to defend yourself and others... and the self part is arguable.

Of course today's equivalent of a sword is a sidearm, so we should understand, "If any of you lack a sidearm, go buy one"... knowing that it's not just an option, but a duty to come to the aid of those under attack, risking life and limb just as Jesus did.

 

[TX-Beau]

But you also said that Jesus permits "violence" under very specific circumstances (namely, defending another person). You also said "if it's property. let it go." Wouldn't his "Dad's House" -- in fact as you call it a "home invasion" -- count as property? Certainly he was not defending a threat to another life here, and yet a violent reaction was allowed. For property.

That argument is not gonna fly, Christ wasn’t defending property, he was defending sanctity, it was the sanctity of his father’s house that was defiled, not the physical structure itself. At least that’s how I remember it. Distinction without a difference, perhaps; but usually most religious arguments are like that.

 

[HenryReardon]

This thread has now grown to over 200 posts, only a bare handful of which have been on topic.

To get things back on track here is a link to a blog that tracks Muslim violence:


http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/

 

[naked gent]

Sorry, but I don't particularly care what the Roman church says.

Exactly what do you think is the source of all the information you're using here?

There isn't a word in the New Testament which wasn't approved by the church whose words don't concern you. I find that somewhat contradictory.

"Abolish" and "fulfill" are two concepts that both spell and end to what has gone before: the first, because it is tossed out; the second, because it has been completed. Jesus is saying He isn't tossing out the Law -- He's doing all that it asked, and thus its demands are satisfied.

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

No that is your particular interpretation. As soon as you start telling me the words have a different meaning than the obvious one I'm afraid you are making an interpretation.

The Temple matter was Jesus dealing with what we would call "home invasion": as it was His Dad's house, He had the authority, probably the responsibility, to drive out invaders. Traditionally the location the merchants were in has been translated as "porch" or "outer courtyard", but what it really was, was a place for non-Jews to come and pray, the "Court(yard) of the Gentiles". So He was quite rightly pissed that the family property had not only been invaded, but that a part of it set aside for a specific reason had been made unsuitable for that function.

And this is an interpretation which I think is totally and completely wrong. The Temple story had nothing to do with Jesus driving out invaders of the family property because he objected to them being there but because he objected to the reason they were there.

Lets remember that Jesus said that God was everywhere as opposed to the predominant jewish belief that God was only in the Temple. Jesus was firmly in the camp of jewish thinkers who saw the Temple as an obstacle to holiness and to the common man's relationship with God.

That didn't go down too well with the jewish high priests who guarded the Temple and their privileges which they usually inherited from their fathers. The purpose of these moneychangers was to exchange roman coin for the appropriate coin which then could be offered to God inside the Temple.

Jesus objected to the idea that money had to be offered to gain admittance to the Temple and he objected to the barrier that the Temple and its priests represented between pious jews and God.

In your parlance Kul he objected to priests charging money to allow jews to talk to his father.

He didn't like the priests anymore than he liked the "invaders" and those priests didn't like him or the threat he represented to their authority which is why they plotted to remove him from the scene.

In your "interpretation" of the story one might think Jesus had no problem with the Temple or the priests who ran it and had that been the case they wouldn't have bothered with him at all.

 

[Kulindahr]

LMAO!! You are something else, you know that?

It's still picking and choosing, despite the distinctions you're trying to make with your analogy. A distinction you're only making so you can gerrymander one religion into "acceptable." But any sensible person can see it's the same thing.

I repeat: keep moving that goalpost.

If you enjoy imagining a goalpost, have fun -- but it's only in your imagination, as shown by the two attempts you made with "substantiation" of the fantasy.

If you seriously think that picking and choosing on the two levels are the same, go choose and major at a university, and then YOU tell THEM what the requirements are for getting that degree -- I'm sure it will work wonderfully.




Oh -- enjoy your fantasies about my motivations, too. At this point what they really show is that you're not actually reading the thread, just looking for a reason to attack me.

 

[Kulindahr]

But you also said that Jesus permits "violence" under very specific circumstances (namely, defending another person). You also said "if it's property. let it go." Wouldn't his "Dad's House" -- in fact as you call it a "home invasion" -- count as property? Certainly he was not defending a threat to another life here, and yet a violent reaction was allowed. For property.

This is answered fairly well here:

That argument is not gonna fly, Christ wasn’t defending property, he was defending sanctity, it was the sanctity of his father’s house that was defiled, not the physical structure itself. At least that’s how I remember it. Distinction without a difference, perhaps; but usually most religious arguments are like that.

I wasn't really thinking of home as property, though; I was thinking of the sort of things Jesus said give away or let them take -- coat, cloak, etc., i.e. things that are portable. It's an interesting issue, but in a way TX is right: it's the sanctity of it, the fact that His Dad's place was a refuge, a place of hospitality, a home in which all were supposed to be welcome. By violating that, they were engaged in more than just home invasion, they were showing extreme bigotry by considering Gentile access to prayer as not even worth thinking about; they just moved in and set up shop.

The Old Testament principle behind Jesus' instructions to get swords suggests that not just His Dad's place, but all homes have a sanctity to them -- but now you've got me wondering about places of business. Anyway, it's a distinction that makes a difference; if an armed guy tells me give him my coat, or he's gonna shoot, I guess he gets my coat, but if he comes armed into my home, my place of refuge, my place of hospitality and intimacy... he gets what he asks for, followed by a double-tap to his center of mass, and another higher if that doesn't do the trick.

OTOH it could be interpreted that any initiation of violence against me is sufficient to return violence; that's been common law in most places for three thousand years and more. Then you have to deal with defining "violence"....


At any rate, the discussion is supposed to be about Islamic violence, which at least some Muslims are saying is commanded, but we've now seen that there are rather forceful statements to the contrary, so that the perpetrators of 9/11 are now presumably in Islamic Hell, wondering why they're being attended by forty disgusting demons instead of forty voluptuous virgins.

 

[Kulindahr]

This thread has now grown to over 200 posts, only a bare handful of which have been on topic.

To get things back on track here is a link to a blog that tracks Muslim violence:


http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/

Nice victory for common sense: if you're going to attend a school where you learn to cook traditional dishes, you do the training.

Well she was a "godless atheist".


From a 1964 interview in Playboy magazine:

Playboy:
Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?

Rand:
Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy.

She was a blind godless atheist, as well; she failed to see what psychologists do, that faith is essential to human life.

But she said enough of such things on her own that it isn't really necessary to quote her villains -- she just doesn't look quite as stark raving mad when it's only her own words.

I haven't read any Rand in a long time, but from my vague recollections, both her heroes and her villains were extensions of her own persona.



Now, if she'd been a Muslim...

 

[Kulindahr]

Exactly what do you think is the source of all the information you're using here?

There isn't a word in the New Testament which wasn't approved by the church whose words don't concern you. I find that somewhat contradictory.

The Roman church per se didn't come into existence until several centuries after the canon was already set. Further, no one went about changing any words; they took what was received (handed down), as it was. If Rome had been interesting in editing the scriptures, they'd look a lot different than they do.

And now, as then, what the Roman church has had to say often has little to do with what's in the Bible; it has a lot more to do with political situations and expedients taken to meet them.

No that is your particular interpretation. As soon as you start telling me the words have a different meaning than the obvious one I'm afraid you are making an interpretation.

You're reading from the Greek, and checking the Aramaic background, then?
"Fulfill", even in English, has the concept of "fill full", to complete so a thing is finished. So by the plain meaning of the English word alone, Jesus is saying that the day of the Law is finished.

And this is an interpretation which I think is totally and completely wrong. The Temple story had nothing to do with Jesus driving out invaders of the family property because he objected to them being there but because he objected to the reason they were there.

It says both -- remember He said it was "My Father's House". Merely by being where they were, and being Jews, they were interfering with the reason that part of the family House existed, so the reason boils down to the fact that they were thre at all -- the purpose for which they were there only made the offense more egregious.

Lets remember that Jesus said that God was everywhere as opposed to the predominant jewish belief that God was only in the Temple. Jesus was firmly in the camp of jewish thinkers who saw the Temple as an obstacle to holiness and to the common man's relationship with God.

God's 'locus' wasn't at question, but the identity of the building.
Jesus wasn't in anybody's "camp" -- and I doubt you can find anything to back up the rest of that statement.

That didn't go down too well with the jewish high priests who guarded the Temple and their privileges which they usually inherited from their fathers. The purpose of these moneychangers was to exchange roman coin for the appropriate coin which then could be offered to God inside the Temple.

I know their purpose, but it was just fuel to the fire: by being where they were, even had they been doing nothing, they would have been invading.

Jesus objected to the idea that money had to be offered to gain admittance to the Temple and he objected to the barrier that the Temple and its priests represented between pious jews and God.

In your parlance Kul he objected to priests charging money to allow jews to talk to his father.

That, too -- although money was not required to gain admittance, only to purchase any offerings/sacrifices to be made, or for certain offerings.

He didn't like the priests anymore than he liked the "invaders" and those priests didn't like him or the threat he represented to their authority which is why they plotted to remove him from the scene.

In your "interpretation" of the story one might think Jesus had no problem with the Temple or the priests who ran it and had that been the case they wouldn't have bothered with him at all.

Jesus had what we today don't understand at all, the concept of "office" (Latin officium). He had great respect for the office the priests held, as He had great respect for the function the Temple was for -- He just didn't think much of what either had been turned into. That may have infuriated them more than anything; on the one hand, he told people to pay them respect "because they sit in Moses' seat", and then He turned around and showed just how much those particular fundaments defiled that seat. I think perhaps the closest we get to an understanding of "office" is with the office of the president, whom we treat with respect even though he may be an unwitting puppet of others, trampling the Constitution and not even realizing he's in essence a traitor to his own country's heart.

BTW, until Jesus' death, the Temple remained a locus for God, because it still had a function. Once Jesus fulfilled the function for which it had only been a fill-in, it became nothing more than a building where people gathered.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's a facile analogy -- like most of your analogies -- and anyway Brown University more or less does just that.

My point was that it's still a process of selection and that you are clearly ONLY making a distinction so you don't have to hold one religion to the ridiculous standard you are applying to another.

Brown will give me a degree in chemical engineering, and let me take all dance and recreational courses?
Kool!

I'm applying the same standard to both: you can't pick and choose internally once you've selected your package. You, OTOH, are jumping around grasping at straws by making generalizations which can't be sustained.

BTW, I hope that if you ever choose to fly, you don't get a pilot who believes, as you seem to, that he's allowed to decide whether or not to use the radar, the proximity warning, the hydraulic backup to the electronic flap controls, and all that -- if you're allowed to pick a plane, he's allowed to fly it however he pleases, right?

 

[Kulindahr]

Since you've admitted that Jesus is not a pacifist and that violence is permitted under certain circumstances -- including kicking someone out of daddy's home -- then he's really only the Prince of Some Peace.

Heh.

No, He's the Prince of Peace in that He says to never strike first, and so long as they're not actually harming you bodily, turn the other cheek.

It's when others violate the peace that you're supposed to defend yourself -- which is how peace is maintained.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is a perfect example of goal-post shifting. First you said violence was not allowed with regards to property issues, and now...oh shit! Jesus whipped them out of the Temple. Uh...how do I get around that one? Oh I know! A "home" or a "temple" isn't property. No, no! It's the sanctity of it that counts. Yeah..let's go with that!

But OK, I'll allow it just for the sake of argument. However, you didn't state before that "bigotry" or "violating sanctity" was cause for violence either. You pretty much said only in the case of defending someone else.

But I'm sure you can find a new place to move the goalpost (although at this point, you might have to buy a whole new field).

I begin to wonder how you ever finished high school. When a teacher tried a new approach to explaining something, or worked at helping pin down a concept, did you yell, "You're moving the goalpost!"?

Your lies here don't help -- and they are lies, or indications that you aren't actually reading, only skimming: I didn't say a home or temple wasn't property, I didn't switch from "home invasion" to "sanctity", I didn't say bigotry or sanctity were cause for violence.

I can see where you find it easy to imagine I'm moving the goal post, when you're only imagining you're even on the playing field!

 

[HenryReardon]

Translation: "Yeah yeah yeah, but back to my Muslim bashing!"

Another poster provided evidence that parts of the Qu'ran actually condemn this kind of violence --
(*,)

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.

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.

 

[Kulindahr]

Another poster provided evidence that parts of the Qu'ran actually condemn this kind of violence -- which even Kulindahr acknowledged, and demoted his outright denunciation to "Islam is schizoid", a huge step for him -- and you count that as off-topic and therefore cause to return to your bigotry? Kulindahr may have made a distinction between his criticism of Islam based on its text, and his view of Muslims in general, but you certainly have no problem conflating the two.

OK Kulindahr. I see it now. This is what you said you haven't been doing in this thread. Fair enough.



Aaaaand then you go and undo it all with this endorsement.

Not at all: if a school is teaching cooking and the curriculum uses pork, and requires tasting of it as well, then that's what it does, and it has every freedom to do so.

If the Muslims want a school which does it differently, they have every right to make their own requirements, and if students want to go there to learn whatever cooking is taught, they'd have to abide by those requirements, whether it be not to even shop for ingredients at a store which sells pork, or to bring a prayer rug and at least kneel during the prayers if you're not a Muslim, to wear a head scarf if you're a woman, or anything else.

The point is freedom: you aren't allowed to force anyone else to abide by your rules, especially when it's their property. If I went to study cooking (or anything else) in a Muslim country, I certainly wouldn't demand that they allow me to show up for class a little sloshed, or to let me make a dish with bacon, I'd go by what their school wanted.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

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.

If we're talking about the religion, the text is extremely relevant, because it defines the religion -- especially with a religion "of the Book".

As I've been laboring at, it's essential to distinguish between the religion itself and the followers. Maybe a new thread is in order -- "Malignant Muslims and Their Malice", perhaps.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm really not trying to "attack" you. I know it's hard to tell online because you can't read inflections and such, but I'm very calm when I post here. Even amused.

I'm just debating with you, taking issue with what I see as problematic in your discourse, and at times half-teasing you.

I suppose I'm mostly annoyed and patient... and frustrated at cheap analysis.

 

[HenryReardon]

If we're talking about the religion, the text is extremely relevant, because it defines the religion -- especially with a religion "of the Book".

As I've been laboring at, it's essential to distinguish between the religion itself and the followers. Maybe a new thread is in order -- "Malignant Muslims and Their Malice", perhaps.

He posted that textual reference in a foolish attempt to have us believe that it negated the violent verses, or at the very least nullified any effort to condemn the violent verses, and in that sense it is hardly relevant to what is happening.


Post a new thread with that proposed title and the ankle-biters will start once again throwing the "R" word around with gleeful abandon.

 

[naked gent]

The Roman church per se didn't come into existence until several centuries after the canon was already set.

I'm dating the church from the time of Christ's consecration of Peter who was the first Pope. When do you think it came into existence?

This is a point of history so if you have another date to offer be sure you can back it up.

And now, as then, what the Roman church has had to say often has little to do with what's in the Bible; it has a lot more to do with political situations and expedients taken to meet them.

That I agree with and its also true of the Koran. Its the mixing of politics with religion which is the real cause of trouble and not what is contained in either book.

God's 'locus' wasn't at question, but the identity of the building.
Jesus wasn't in anybody's "camp" -- and I doubt you can find anything to back up the rest of that statement.

Why do you think the jewish high priests schemed to get rid of Christ if he was no threat to them?


And God's 'locus' was most certainly a point of contention and to back it up I'd point you to the Hakamic movement which, like Jesus, didn't believe in the centrality of the Temple or the barrier the high priests presented to poor jews.

I'd also say that Jesus was a follower of Hillel and placed the spirit of the Torah above the rigorous observance of laws which was the bread and butter of the high priests trade.

These were the movements of his time and that is the context he must be placed in.

And they were aimed at the supremacy of the priest sect which responded by involving the romans when it came to Christ.

If that isn't the reason they saw him as a threat do tell what was?