More From The Religion Of Peace!

[Cerebrum123]

Actually, many Muslim scholars and leaders use the Koran to justify their terroristic actions - a CHRIST follower cannot do the same thing. It's just idiotic to try to say that.

Not only that they have ample support from the Quran, Hadith, Sunna, Sira, and Tafsir.

[Cow Poke]

Not only that they have ample support from the Quran, Hadith, Sunna, Sira, and Tafsir.

Yeah, and if a Christian sawed off somebody's head in the name of Jesus, or walked into a restaurant or daycare center and blew up themselves and others, you can bet there would be UNIVERSAL and SINCERE condemnation from all quarters of Christianity. Plus, exactly what teaching of Christ would they use as justification for their terrorism?

[oxmixmudd]

But this is a theological argument that does not bear witness to historical trends or even current events. Are Christians, on the whole, particularly less violent than Muslims when one accounts for regional politics? I'd think we would be hard pressed to say that was the case. That most of the Christian West's violence is institutionalized does not, I think, give us room to discount it. How many military chaplains are preaching Christ's radical nonviolence?

I disagree. Especially in the case of Christianity. Christianity is not a religion that integrates officially or directly into a government. It's focus is on the individual's relationship and status with God. It's teachings govern the individual's response to personal evil and the individual's motivations and purity of heart. A government simply can not adopt fully Christ's teaching - especially concerning the individual response to evil. A government MUST protect its people from evil, and evil being what it is, that simply can't be done without some exercise of force. And any exercise of force in human hands has a potential for abuse, regardless of the associated religion of the members of the associated society. And while a government can be established based on certain Judeo-Christian principles, neither Christ nor our faith are concerned with being a political force. We are Christians within whatever system of government happens to exist, and one can't equate the actions of that government with the teachings of the faith itself.

Islam, OTOH, has from its inception been a violent physical force concerned with the conquest of what is essentially the world and the establishment of theocracy.

I certainly agree that Christ, as opposed to Mohammed, preached a radical pacifism. That's a valid theological point. But we err (and err greatly, I believe) when we look at the world solely through that lens, discounting the current and historical violence done (and blessed!) by Christians today.

I believe the mistake you are making is the conflation of the actions of a people ostensibly linked to a religion and the religion itself. I am trying to separate the two because the discussion is the source of certain violent acts. The Christian faith as taught in scripture being the source of violent acts is an abherration, a distortion. Not so Islam. One is blind and foolish if one ignores this simple and significant distinction.

As Christians we recognize the fallen nature of man. We should understand that even good things in the hands of evil men can become evil. But what is the effect of these two religious systems on that fallen nature? Does the Christian faith soften that nature and push back against it? Conversely, what does Islam

It is nothing less that ignorance to think these two faiths are equivalent in their overall effect on society. And madness to dismiss the underlying violent methodology and explicit actions of its founder in terms of analyzing why we are seeing what we are seeing today.

Humanity will always have injustice, poverty, and evil within it. That those exist in both Christian and Islamic societies is to be expected. And I am not so foolish and ignorant as to think that just because there are some in Islam that are violent that in and of itself points to a flaw in Islam. But I do not see how anyone can understand what I have outlined above and then still maintain they are somehow equivalent, or that Islam itself does not directly bear responsibility for what we see in ISIS and other radicalized Islamic organizations.

In summary - a 'radicalized' Christian - a Christian that follows Christ literally and to the end of all of His teaching, becomes a peacemaker, and person of no means, giving what he has as much as possible to those in need and serving his community in love. And when faced with a threat on his life for his faith, lays down his life. When faced with an insult to Christ, redoubles his efforts to love and encourage the offender to turn from his ways and find the forgiveness Christ offers.

A 'radicalized' Islamic - a Muslim that seeks follow Mohammed literally the to the end of all his teaching, seeks to follow the actions of its founder, to bring Islamic law and teachings to the world by whatever means necessary. Seeks to destroy evil by force, the eliminate with the sword all who will not bow to Islam and its Prophet.

How can you possibly think the effect of these two systems can be equated? And that Islam itself does not bear direct responsibility for what we see today?

Because when we add that perspective, we don't get very bloody far at all, in the practical sense, declaring Christianity to be a religion of peace or Islam somehow exuberantly violent.

I'm sorry. We simply do not agree.


Jim

PS: It appears the Mu vs Mo in Mohammed's name is a regional/historical difference

From Wikipedia: The name is transliterated as Mohammad (primarily in Iran and Afghanistan), Muhammad (in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and Malaysia), Muhammed (Arab World, primarily in North Africa), Mohamed, Mohammed, Mohamad and Muhammad (Arab World), Muhammed, Muhamed (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Muhammed, Muhamed, Muhammet, or Muhamet (Turkey and Albania).

[fm93]

Yet you pose it as an example.

Look at all the people celebrating Indiana's "religious freedom" bill and standing by pizza makers who refuse to do something as simple and polite as making a few pizzas that gay people wish to consume at weddings.

I posed that as an answer to your request "Show me where whole communities of Christians are celebrating the insulting and demeaning of gay people." Those acts are highly insulting and demeaning to gay people, and whole communities of Christians are celebrating those acts.

Remember, the thread is about the "religion of peace", and you are working like a redheaded stepchild to equate Christianity's "atrocities" with Islamic terrorism.

The thread claims that it is about "the religion of peace" in the sense that "religion of peace" is used sarcastically as a synonym for what seer believes to be genuine Islam. But what I am arguing is that seer's contention that the acts of terror represent some inherent mindset of Islam is logically flawed, and that by the standards he uses, one could be justified in claiming that Christian terrorism and other atrocities represent genuine Christianity. Obviously I don't believe that they actually do, but if we follow seer's reasoning to its conclusion, that's a viable path that could be taken.

And even if we set all that aside, there is still a significant problem--seer is clearly trying to slander Muslims and their association with Islam when his own faith is unfortunately also associated with centuries of evil actions that contradict everything Jesus was about. And I certainly don't see seer frequently condemning or even calling out the disgraceful acts of Christians. It's a hypocritical double standard--he can't paint other religions with such a broad brush while acting like his own faith is completely free of blood on its hands.

Also, I noticed that you put the word atrocities in scare quotes, which possibly disappoints me--can you not acknowledge that those events were, in fact, atrocities?

[Cow Poke]

There's a technical difference, but I don't consider it a "huge" difference.

Yes, it's a HUGE difference.

A Christian who commits an act of terror, even if it wasn't specifically motivated by some thought process like "I am doing this FOR my God," is still somehow capable of doing the mental gymnastics necessary to reconcile such evil with the morals of Christ--which is the foundation for terrorism motivated specifically by religion.

He's not operating with a full deck if he does that. And just because YOU are capable of such convoluted mental gymnastics to come up with this cockeyed scenario does NOT mean that other Christians are.

Besides, as I already mentioned, there are examples of terrorists who specifically saw themselves as upholding Christian morality--the Ku Klux Klan, for instance.

So, the best you can come up with is a bunch of racist people who pervert the Word of God to justify their racial hatred is somehow equivalent to a religion that, from its inception, was based on violence and conquest? Here's the challenge - you keep using "Christian" which, by definition indicates a follower of Christ. Show me the justification from Christ that these racists used for their hatred.

[Cow Poke]

I posed that as an answer to your request "Show me where whole communities of Christians are celebrating the insulting and demeaning of gay people." Those acts are highly insulting and demeaning to gay people, and whole communities of Christians are celebrating those acts.

Again, NO WHERE NEAR the comparison of whole communities of Muslims rejoicing over the terrorism of their fellow believers. Incredibly inept of you.

The thread claims that it is about "the religion of peace" in the sense that "religion of peace" is used sarcastically as a synonym for what seer believes to be genuine Islam.

Do you believe that the ultimate goal of Islam is peace and harmony with Christians and Jews?

But what I am arguing is that seer's contention that the acts of terror represent some inherent mindset of Islam is logically flawed, and that by the standards he uses, one could be justified in claiming that Christian terrorism and other atrocities represent genuine Christianity. Obviously I don't believe that they actually do, but if we follow seer's reasoning to its conclusion, that's a viable path that could be taken.

Nope.

And even if we set all that aside, there is still a significant problem--seer is clearly trying to slander Muslims and their association with Islam

Um... look up the definition of slander.

when his own faith is unfortunately also associated with centuries of evil actions that contradict everything Jesus was about.

I don't think anybody is disputing that Christianity has had some dark days. Show me TODAY where Christians are acting on any par whatsoever with the atrocities committed in the name of Allah.

And I certainly don't see seer frequently condemning or even calling out the disgraceful acts of Christians.

What current Christian acts would you like condemned?

It's a hypocritical double standard--he can't paint other religions with such a broad brush while acting like his own faith is completely free of blood on its hands.

Again, show me where Christians ARE committing such violent acts in the name of Jesus, with approval from the Christian community.

Also, I noticed that you put the word atrocities in scare quotes, which possibly disappoints me--can you not acknowledge that those events were, in fact, atrocities?

"scare quotes"? The current day example you give is Christians "insulting" gays.... in your twisted mental gymnastics this somehow equates to the sawing off of heads and murder and rape of Christians, Jews and nonbelievers by Muslims. I put "atrocities" in quotes because "insulting" isn't even on the same plane as sawing off of heads. Now, you PROBABLY are referring, again, to the atrocities committed in the name of God centuries ago, in some pathetic effort to equate the "peace" of Islam with some dark days of Christianity.

[Cow Poke]

But this is a theological argument that does not bear witness to historical trends or even current events. Are Christians, on the whole, particularly less violent than Muslims when one accounts for regional politics? I'd think we would be hard pressed to say that was the case. That most of the Christian West's violence is institutionalized does not, I think, give us room to discount it. How many military chaplains are preaching Christ's radical nonviolence?

That last phrase just seems so wrong, Sam.

First of all, a military chaplain is, first and foremost, a member of the military, and subject to the chain of command. Can you even fathom a man or woman who believes in "Christ's radical nonviolence" enlisting in the military in the first place? And even if they did, they are specifically prohibited from causing dissension in the ranks. I'm sure you didn't intend it, but that's kind of an unfair insult to our men and women who serve in our military's chaplaincy.

Again, I'm sure that was not your intent.

(on a side note, this reminds me of Patton's order to his company chaplain to come up with a prayer for good weather so we could more effectively kill the enemy, and the challenge that gave to the chaplain. )

[Adrift]

That last phrase just seems so wrong, Sam.

First of all, a military chaplain is, first and foremost, a member of the military, and subject to the chain of command. Can you even fathom a man or woman who believes in "Christ's radical nonviolence" enlisting in the military in the first place? And even if they did, they are specifically prohibited from causing dissension in the ranks.

I believe that's exactly his point. He's attempting to demonstrate that the concept of a military chaplain is in some sense antithetical to the example of Jesus.

[Sam]

My initial point was that using the much broader sample set "Muslims" for a specific purpose, ie. to use the paucity to disprove the assumption, was inappropriate. That is hardly to rule out the proper use of the sample set for other purposes.

If that other purpose is to support the assumption then, yes, ruling out the sample set "Muslims" as an appropriate rebuttal is inappropriate. If you allow seer the broader set to support his accusation, you allow the larger set to rebut his accusation.

[Cow Poke]

I believe that's exactly his point. He's attempting to demonstrate that the concept of a military chaplain is in some sense antithetical to the example of Jesus.

Meh -- I read the posts to which he was responding, and... maybe so. Military chaplains are there, however, not to set or pronounce policy, but to comfort the wounded and minister to the spiritual needs of the troops in spite of (or even because of) the hostilities.

[lilpixieofterror]

Meh -- I read the posts to which he was responding, and... maybe so. Military chaplains are there, however, not to set or pronounce policy, but to comfort the wounded and minister to the spiritual needs of the troops in spite of (or even because of) the hostilities.

Sam just like making stupid comments about the military (that he clearly doesn't understand, as always).

[Cow Poke]

Sam just like making stupid comments about the military (that he clearly doesn't understand, as always).

Well, it's kinda like trying to make the case that military medics or corpsmen are in some sense antithetical to the example of Jesus. They're not there to prosecute the war, but to care for the wounded.

But -- oh well.

[fm93]

Again, NO WHERE NEAR the comparison of whole communities of Muslims rejoicing over the terrorism of their fellow believers. Incredibly inept of you.

And I explicitly agreed that they are not on the same level.

Do you believe that the ultimate goal of Islam is peace and harmony with Christians and Jews?

No, but what's the relevance of that to what I said?

Nope.

Why not? I've pointed out that the vast majority of Muslims do not engage in terroristic acts, and that there are many, many Muslims around the world, including leaders, who specifically condemn such acts, and can at least try to make an argument on the basis of their scriptures that such acts are forbidden. This certainly seems to refute seer's contention that such terroristic acts are actually "inherent to the mindset" of Islam.

Um... look up the definition of slander.

Alright. "Libelous," then.

I don't think anybody is disputing that Christianity has had some dark days. Show me TODAY where Christians are acting on any par whatsoever with the atrocities committed in the name of Allah.

I did, actually. The Lord's Resistance Army, as I mentioned, is still active in Africa. The National Liberation Front of Tripura appears to still be active in India. You can try to argue that those aren't technically being done in the name of Christianity specifically, but I find it hard-pressed to believe that when the first group has "Lord's" in his name and the second group (at least at one point) was known for forcibly converting villagers to Christianity.

What current Christian acts would you like condemned?

Well, in that specific part I was referring to seer's tendency to fill up the Civics section with his rantings about liberals doing things that he dislikes. Perhaps I forgot, but I have this impression that when Todd Akin made those horrendously false statements about women and "legitimate rape" back in 2012, seer was noticeably silent about the incident. Sure, Akin wasn't specifically saying such things "in the name of Christianity," but he is a Christian nevertheless, and his statements reflected horribly on the church and his faith.

Again, show me where Christians ARE committing such violent acts in the name of Jesus, with approval from the Christian community.

I've answered this, but I have to ask: why is it so important to you whether those acts are met with approval from a community or not? At best, you can argue that there are more Muslims who support terroristic acts than Christians who support such acts, but there are still a great many Muslims who condemn such acts, which is good evidence that (as I've been saying to seer from the beginning) terrorism isn't inherent to the mindset of Islam.

"scare quotes"? The current day example you give is Christians "insulting" gays.... in your twisted mental gymnastics this somehow equates to the sawing off of heads and murder and rape of Christians, Jews and nonbelievers by Muslims. I put "atrocities" in quotes because "insulting" isn't even on the same plane as sawing off of heads. Now, you PROBABLY are referring, again, to the atrocities committed in the name of God centuries ago, in some pathetic effort to equate the "peace" of Islam with some dark days of Christianity.

For the last time, I specifically said that they are not equivalent.

[Paprika]

If that other purpose is to support the assumption then, yes, ruling out the sample set "Muslims" as an appropriate rebuttal is inappropriate. If you allow seer the broader set to support his accusation, you allow the larger set to rebut his accusation.

Hardly. The symmetry does not hold.

[lilpixieofterror]

Well, it's kinda like trying to make the case that military medics or corpsmen are in some sense antithetical to the example of Jesus. They're not there to prosecute the war, but to care for the wounded.

But -- oh well.

Even than, Jesus and the disciples ran into members of the Roman military. Where did they say that these guys needed to quit the military?