Originally posted by Cow Poke
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
More From The Religion Of Peace!
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostNot only that they have ample support from the Quran, Hadith, Sunna, Sira, and Tafsir.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostBut 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?
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.
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.
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).Last edited by oxmixmudd; 04-18-2015, 08:06 AM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYet you pose it as an example.Originally posted by fm93 View PostLook 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.
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.
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?Last edited by fm93; 04-18-2015, 08:07 AM.Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17
I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer
Comment
-
Originally posted by fm93 View PostThere's a technical difference, but I don't consider it 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.
Besides, as I already mentioned, there are examples of terrorists who specifically saw themselves as upholding Christian morality--the Ku Klux Klan, for instance.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by fm93 View PostI 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.
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?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostBut 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?
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. )The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThat 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostMy 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."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI 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.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostMeh -- 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."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostSam just like making stupid comments about the military (that he clearly doesn't understand, as always).
But -- oh well.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostAgain, NO WHERE NEAR the comparison of whole communities of Muslims rejoicing over the terrorism of their fellow believers. Incredibly inept of you.
Do you believe that the ultimate goal of Islam is peace and harmony with Christians and Jews?
Nope.
Um... look up the definition of slander.
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.
What current Christian acts would you like condemned?
Again, show me where Christians ARE committing such violent acts in the name of Jesus, with approval from the Christian community.
"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.Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17
I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostIf 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostWell, 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."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 01:19 PM
|
9 responses
61 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 11:58 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 12:23 PM
|
11 responses
59 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 06:36 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:46 AM
|
16 responses
106 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Stoic
Yesterday, 04:44 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 04:37 AM
|
23 responses
109 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 02:49 PM
|
||
Started by seanD, 05-02-2024, 04:10 AM
|
27 responses
156 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 01:37 PM
|
Comment