SHOCK! MUSLIMs OUTRAGED!

[/dev/null]

To play Devil's advocate on solely this example, Osama Bin Laden could give a speech on how the concept of a "Holy War" is a moral and reasonable thing to do, and Christians around the world would call for him to be killed.

 

While I get what you're saying, I'm not sure that its a great example. 

775081[/snapback]

Yours isn't that great of an example either

Osama calls for a holy war to kill Christians. Its understandable that Christians would rather kill him before they are killed

 

Here is my example

Tony Soprano orders his soldiers to go out and kill Corleone's. It's understandable that Michael would give the order to go out and whack the Soprano's first

[yall]

SEeing how Jesus was JEwish it seems to make sense that he would like the Old Testament. So Yall, half the Bible is a crock of Sh*t?

775030[/snapback]

 

All of it might be for all I know..

 

But the point that Jesus rejected parts of the old testament is at least a partial truism according to some of his apostles, which were the people that helped create the new testament to begin with (after all, Jesus didn't write a bit of it...).

 

But that's still getting away from the important point that if you look at what is attributed to Jesus in the manner of moral teachings and actions, it's hard to argue that he was not a peaceful man.

 

Mohammed on the other hand was a violent conquerer. To say a religion based upon him as a being, is peaceful, is a pretty dubious argument. To avoid godwin's rule, I'd say it would be like modeling your life on the teachings and actions of Stalin, and trying to say that the ideology is a peaceful one. Just beacause you love Stalin, and you are peaceful, doesn't mean the system of beliefs is a peaceful one.

 

It's just like I said before, the existance of !@#$ Christains don't mean it's a violent or extremist religion. The reverse can be said for peaceful, caring, moderate muslims. Just because they are good, it doesn't by default make their religion or prophet peaceful.

[Chilly]

Yours isn't that great of an example either

Osama calls for a holy war to kill Christians.  Its understandable that Christians would rather kill him before they are killed

 

Here is my example

Tony Soprano orders his soldiers to go out and kill Corleone's.  It's understandable that Michael would give the order to go out and whack the Soprano's first

775090[/snapback]

 

Mmkay, I could see where you could say that, so let me explain what I'm saying in different terms.

 

When a worldview is threatened, typically it is resisted as much as possible. Part of the process of resisting it is actually to eliminate the opposing worldview as much as it is found acceptable.

 

Some Christians would find it reasonable to kill the opposition in this instance because they are trying to kill him, while other Christians wouldn't as its in direct opposition to the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

 

Its the same thing with Muslins, except that it goes even further in some groups of people who share the same worldviews that Osama Bin Laden does. With the Muslim sect being 1.2 billion people, in parts of the world that aren't as well developed socially or economically, its easy to explain why more extreme worldviews are held.

 

One summary of the pope's speech is recounted here:

 

"The noble race of Franks must come to the aid their fellow Christians in the East. The infidel Turks are advancing into the heart of Eastern Christendom; Christians are being oppressed and attacked; churches and holy places are being defiled. Jerusalem is groaning under the Saracen yoke. The Holy Sepulchre is in Moslem hands and has been turned into a mosque. Pilgrims are harassed and even prevented from access to the Holy Land.

 

"The West must march to the defense of the East. All should go, rich and poor alike. The Franks must stop their internal wars and squabbles. Let them go instead against the infidel and fight a righteous war.

 

"God himself will lead them, for they will be doing His work. There will be absolution and remission of sins for all who die in the service of Christ. Here they are poor and miserable sinners; there they will be rich and happy. Let none hesitate; they must march next summer. God wills it!

 

Today I would expect that a lot of Christians would abhor this and find it repulsive, and I would think that a lot of it has to do with the society that we live in. Worldviews are developed by elites, and the elites in the West find the crusades and holy wars inherently wrong, which isn't exactly the case in the middle east.

 

So, yeah, there are differences in the religions. There are lots of differences elsewhere too, and they're all interrelated, is what I'm trying to say.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Unitarian?    

 

775068[/snapback]

We pretty much do our part to be democratic for better or worse. It certainly hasn't really advanced the religion as an institution in the American religious sphere, but then again I think most of the people who subscribe to it would be pissed if it became one, and drop it.

 

To our credit, we're probably less violent than the lot of you.

[SilverNRed]

In which case, is it the religion -- or the people running it -- that is the problem / source of benefit?

775047[/snapback]

You'd have to determine that on a case by case basis. And also keep in mind that maybe there isn't one religion that would work for everyone. People can distort any religion.

 

Also consider substituting the word "government" for "religion" as what they really are, both of them, are organizations of people deciding what's right for the group and/or a bunch of others -- well meaning though they may or may not be.?

775047[/snapback]

Funny you should mention that. I considered making my original post much longer and bringing up the government and some other stuff. I decided to go with brevity.

 

I really don't want to make any long posts about religion here. Nothing I could post will change any minds.

[SilverNRed]

Precisely! They were having a rational, theological discussion and islam, true to form and right on cue, reacts violently and irrationally. How totally ignorant can they be that they cannot grasp that they are PROVING THE POINT OF THE QUOTE IN QUESTION?

775077[/snapback]

They're pretty ignorant. I almost mean that as a compliment because I think if they had some better information they might act more rational. I wonder how all these people got their information about what the Pope said. Some of their yelling on TV about why what he said was offensive doesn't match what he said. Someone is riling them up or maybe they just enjoy being outraged. Either way, it's a little disturbing how they're ready to burn someone in effigy at the drop of a hat.

 

Also in the ignorant vein, there's a report that they fire-bombed a Greek Orthodox chuch in the West Bank. Those Christians don't answer to the Pope.

[Chilly]

They're pretty ignorant.  I almost mean that as a compliment because I think if they had some better information they might act more rational.  I wonder how all these people got their information about what the Pope said.  Some of their yelling on TV about why what he said was offensive doesn't match what he said.  Someone is riling them up or maybe they just enjoy being outraged.  Either way, it's a little disturbing how they're ready to burn someone in effigy at the drop of a hat.

 

Also in the ignorant vein, there's a report that they fire-bombed a Greek Orthodox chuch in the West Bank.  Those Christians don't answer to the Pope.

775177[/snapback]

 

Most likely, I think you're right, that someone is riling them up.

 

They, like everyone else, get their news from a group of elites. The elites, in their case, would find it beneficial to maintain the status quo by doing so. By keeping the focus off of themselves, and on the west, its a good way to maintain attention on someone else.

[slothrop]

We pretty much do our part to be democratic for better or worse.   It certainly hasn't really advanced the religion as an institution in the American religious sphere, but then again I think most of the people who subscribe to it would be pissed if it became one, and drop it.

 

To our credit, we're probably less violent than the lot of you.   

775125[/snapback]

 

Speak for yourself! I am one bad-ass U.U. I make Channing look like a wus!

[UConn James]

Someone is riling them up or maybe they just enjoy being outraged.

775177[/snapback]

 

Half from Column A, half from Column B.

 

The self-flagellation, men openly sobbing, shouting, gunfire, etc. at their funerals is all one needs to see that these are cultures rooted in over-exaggeration so they can outdo everyone else's grief, anger, whatever.... 'No one loved Ahmed as much as I did! I'll whip and martyr myself to prove it!'

 

The pope should not apologize, but he probably will. He should recite a list of all the death and destruction, since he mentioned the *quotation* and say, "You proved the point!"

[pdh1]

Here is this . . .

 

and this . . . .

 

and this . . .

 

and this . . .

 

and then there is this gem.

774822[/snapback]

 

 

So "Religious Conservatives Gather to Discuss 'War Against Christians" is the same as:

Palestinians attacked five churches in the West Bank and Gaza over the pope's remarks Tuesday in a speech to university professors in his native Germany.

 

By jump up and down and make a fuss, I mean BLOW STUFF AND BURN STUFF DOWN.

 

How funny, they think they Pope is saying islamic holy war (jihad) is violent, and they get mad at that perception, and burn down churches.

 

Sorry Wang CHung, don't need to look in a mirror to see the irony it that.

[Moose]

The Religion of Shooting Nuns in the Back strikes again.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Speak for yourself! I am one bad-ass U.U. I make Channing look like a wus!

775208[/snapback]

 

Was it Emerson who said, "recognize, biiaatch?"

[RkFast]

The Religion of Shooting Nuns in the Back strikes again.

775492[/snapback]

 

Dont worry...SOMEone will come up with the "moral equivalent" to excuse it.

[BoondckCL]

Hey, did you know that at one point, the Christian God also said it's OK for His people to kill enemies and take their children for love slaves?

 

Numbers 31.15-18 --

But let's pretend no other religion has any violent texts or tendencies.  Islam bad!

774422[/snapback]

 

There is nothing in any holy text that can be truly genuine and proved to be so. Much like the Quran, the bible was edited as well. Over the centuries, christian kings edited the words and passages in the bible, as well as excluded other passages that did not befit their own personal belief.

 

This is not about holy texts, because they were all edited for political or personal belief at one point or another. If you want an example, look at the "anti-christ". Originally it was supposed to be a force of evil that did not take a humanly figure. But then the church and kings became enemies with certain people, and over time the story of the apocalypse and the anti-christ were changed into coming at the hand of an evil human being that would be of another religion, would challenge authority, and would not want to share his wealth. You don't think this may have come into play in the Crusades for example. You don't think that people have manipulated the story of the anti-christ to gain power. Over the years, many different people have been called the anti-christ and it is mainly to religiously fulfill the sins of greed and hatred for the people with power. They tell people that a rival of theirs is the anti-christ, and suddenly people are committing sin for a religious cause that will ultiamtely unite the people for the one and against his nemisis.

 

In the past, people have said that Napolean Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, and now Osama Bin Laden could all be the anti-christ.

 

This is about people like yourself and Muslims not understanding that you cannot take religious texts seriously and follow them to a T (Let alone use them to prove a point). This is about people not understanding that what was said in things like the bible do not necessarily stand today. For example, many people back then had slaves and it was considered cooth to have them. I certainly don't see how in modern days this could be considered ethical, or stood for at that. Reaching into the Bible to counter peoples realistic feelings towards Muslims in the modern world is cheap and rather amatuer. You have done nothing but reduce yourself to the standing and have proved that you have the same comprehension of this matter as and Islamic Fundamentalist.

 

Religious texts are nothing now but a road map that you can glance at every now and again to try and live your life to a certain standard that some believe will lead to a happy life.

 

 

 

 

*Sigh* Here we go again, let me have it if you guys are going to give it. But I ask that this thime before you comment you actually think about what i have said, and then post after you let it soak in.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

There is nothing in any holy text that can be truly genuine and proved to be so. Much like the Quran, the bible was edited as well. Over the centuries, christian kings edited the words and passages in the bible, as well as excluded other passages that did not befit their own personal belief.

 

This is not about holy texts, because they were all edited for political or personal belief at one point or another. If you want an example, look at the "anti-christ". Originally it was supposed to be a force of evil that did not take a humanly figure. But then the church and kings became enemies with certain people, and over time the story of the apocalypse and the anti-christ were changed into coming at the hand of an evil human being that would be of another religion, would challenge authority, and would not want to share his wealth. You don't think this may have come into play in the Crusades for example. You don't think that people have manipulated the story of the anti-christ to gain power. Over the years, many different people have been called the anti-christ and it is mainly to religiously fulfill the sins of greed and hatred for the people with power. They tell people that a rival of theirs is the anti-christ, and suddenly people are committing sin for a religious cause that will ultiamtely unite the people for the one and against his nemisis.

 

In the past, people have said that Napolean Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, and now Osama Bin Laden could all be the anti-christ.

 

This is about people like yourself and Muslims not understanding that you cannot take religious texts seriously and follow them to a T (Let alone use them to prove a point). This is about people not understanding that what was said in things like the bible do not necessarily stand today. For example, many people back then had slaves and it was considered cooth to have them. I certainly don't see how in modern days this could be considered ethical, or stood for at that. Reaching into the Bible to counter peoples realistic feelings towards Muslims in the modern world is cheap and rather amatuer. You have done nothing but reduce yourself to the standing and have proved that you have the same comprehension of this matter as and Islamic Fundamentalist.

 

Religious texts are nothing now but a road map that you can glance at every now and again to try and live your life to a certain standard that some believe will lead to a happy life.

*Sigh* Here we go again, let me have it if you guys are going to give it. But I ask that this thime before you comment you actually think about what i have said, and then post after you let it soak in.

777402[/snapback]

 

bull sh--.

 

You never see christians crashing planes into civilian buildings. You never see christians hiding weaponry among women and children. You never see christians beheading people on video. You never see christians mutilating women or forcing people into conversion.

 

I'm an agnostic/atheist, but even I can see there's ONE religion in this world thats a a bigger threat to civilization and rationality than any other.

[RuntheDamnBall]

bull sh--.

 

You never see christians crashing planes into civilian buildings. You never see christians hiding weaponry among women and children. You never see christians beheading people on video. You never see christians mutilating women or forcing people into conversion.

 

I'm an agnostic/atheist, but even I can see there's ONE religion in this world thats a a bigger threat to civilization and rationality than any other.

777490[/snapback]

You might not have said that centuries ago. History moves slowly.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

You never see christians crashing planes into civilian buildings. You never see christians hiding weaponry among women and children. You never see christians beheading people on video. You never see christians mutilating women or forcing people into conversion.

777490[/snapback]

 

That has less to do with Christianity than it does with a notable lack of planes and video during the Crusades...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

That has less to do with Christianity than it does with a notable lack of planes and video during the Crusades...

777604[/snapback]

 

That was the 11th century. This is NOW, in a civilized and technologically advanced world.

[pdh1]

That has less to do with Christianity than it does with a notable lack of planes and video during the Crusades...

777604[/snapback]

 

 

""We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. ... God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," said the statement."

 

 

nope, no over-reaction there.

[yall]

""We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. ... God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," said the statement."

nope, no over-reaction there.

777609[/snapback]

 

Well, it really isn't an over-reaction. They are merely following their precious holy text.