PDA

View Full Version : Burning books in the US...'Burn Quran Day'


Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5]

FriarTed
09-23-2010, 08:21 AM
I believe all but one of the Apostles got to meet Jesus a little earlier then they planned. The first years, decades and centuries were pretty brutal. The first decades? Possibly. The first years? No.

Aside from the mob action against Stephen, it would be twenty+ years before Nero riled up the Romans to take murderous action against the Christians, something that lasted a year or two only in the city of Rome, and then another 25-30 years before Domitian's henchmen got them going in Asia Minor.

Were individual Christians martyred, from time to time, for irritating local authorities? Yes. Were there massacres in the early years? No.

Massacres? Probably not. Persecution? Oh heck, yeah.

Herod (Antipas or Agrippa) having James the Apostle beheaded.
Saul of Tarsus persecuting the Jerusalem Church & environs.
Various mob actions instigated by vested interests, whether Jewish or Pagan, threatened by Paul & the Apostles.
The murder of James the Lord's Brother on the Temple grounds at the instigation of the High Priest Ananus.

Monty
09-23-2010, 08:35 AM
Mormons no longer resist non-white members.

You mean "no longer resist ordaining Blacks to the Priesthood.

The rest of that post and your other posts in this thread, along with Der Trihs' posts in this thread, are spot on.

Mozart1220
09-23-2010, 10:38 AM
You seemed to me like one of the sincerely good ones.. my apologies, and also for bad wording.

No apologies necessary. I know lots of people that are good and of high moral fiber... I've noticed a remarkable lack of what we term "religiosity" in all of them.

Some self-identify as Christian.... others don't.

I fully agree that "morality" does not require religious affiliation. In fact, these days it almost means there is none, which is sad.

Mozart1220
09-23-2010, 10:46 AM
:rolleyes: No, it just means that many people don't do what they claim to be doing. You'd have a hard time finding many people who actually try to imitate the founder of their religion instead of mouthing the words and doing something completely different. I don't have a hard time finding people emulating their religious leader of preference.

Then explain how political conservatives have taken ownership of Jesus, when Jesus, by today's political standards was clearly liberal.

I know there are good Christians out there, but the ones "praying the loudest" seem to have taken over.

Uzi
09-23-2010, 10:57 AM
I know there are good Christians out there, but the ones "praying the loudest" seem to have taken over.

"seem to have taken over". You answered your own question. Are they following Jesus's teachings? If not, then that isn't the fault of Jesus (well, actually it is, him supposedly being god and all).
If Muslim's murder in order to promote or defend their religion, are they 'taking over' their religion? Certainly not, as Muhammad was a great fan of such things.

elucidator
09-23-2010, 11:55 AM
Well, then, that simplifies things for you marvelously! All you need do is point out the many, many occasions when Muhamed demanded that Muslims attack harmless and non-hostile neighbors for no purpose other than to impose the hegemony of Islamic power. Since, as you say, Muhamed was a "great fan of such things", that should be very easy.

And, as well, you might take a moment to explain why themes of mercy and forgiveness are so fundamental to this thinking, if a determined and relentless pursuit of power was central to his agenda. Seems a rather odd set of values to promote if one is bent on world conquest.

And, keep in mind, we Americans are firmly convinced of the practical and pragmatic value of the pre-emptive attack. We are hardly in a position to condemn Mohamed for practices we ourselves exemplify. Nor is it peculiarly American, the principles of realpolitik have any number of ardent proponents, throughout the world and throughout history. All you need to is prove that Muslims were extraordinary and exceptional in their zeal for war.

If things are as you say they are, you won't have the least problem. And if you do have such a problem, perhaps things aren't as you say.

Aside to Monty: quite right, good catch.

Uzi
09-23-2010, 12:17 PM
Well, then, that simplifies things for you marvelously! All you need do is point out the many, many occasions when Muhamed demanded that Muslims attack harmless and non-hostile neighbors for no purpose other than to impose the hegemony of Islamic power. Since, as you say, Muhamed was a "great fan of such things", that should be very easy.

I already have. The Hindus in Pakistan. The Armenians butchered because they didn't want to live as second class citizens in Turkey anymore.

The argument we are having here is what affect does religion have on people.
You are essentially saying there is none because all the things you can point to Muslims doing has been done by others. You are correct. Who is arguing that they don't?
I am saying that religion does have an impact because why have it if you have no intention to follow it? I have worked in the ME and can tell you it does have an impact. Example: I have seen the local media talking about what is the proper way to beat your wife as determined by Muhammad. Qur'an (4:34) Qur'an (38:44). People are following the dictates of their religion. Would they do the same actions if there wasn't any religion? Maybe. But if the religion gives you license and the Imam's are repeating this message, then it is likely that you will at least listen to what they are saying.

elucidator
09-23-2010, 12:49 PM
....I already have. The Hindus in Pakistan. The Armenians butchered because they didn't want to live as second class citizens in Turkey anymore....

Trouble is, he wasn't there, being, more or less, dead. He was no more, he had ceased to be, expired, and gone to meet his Maker. Run down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible, he was an ex-Prophet.

This is all you got? I was expecting more, frankly, given your encyclopedic knowledge of the origins and early history of Islam, that you would have the incidents right at your very fingertips. But instead you bring up things from thirteen hundred years later.

Rather thin gruel. Kinda like the chicken soup you get from a machine, a cup of clear broth with a cubic millimeter of petrified chicken floating in it. I was hoping for something a bit more substantial, or at least in the appropriate time frame. After about 570 AD to 632 AD. If that helps any.

Magiver
09-23-2010, 01:40 PM
Well, then, that simplifies things for you marvelously! All you need do is point out the many, many occasions when Muhamed demanded that Muslims attack harmless and non-hostile neighbors for no purpose other than to impose the hegemony of Islamic power. Since, as you say, Muhamed was a "great fan of such things", that should be very easy.
Uzi never made that statement. He is certainly referring to the Qurayzn Jews were were accused of conspiring with the Meccans. They were attacked and all the men who did not convert were executed. The women and children were enslaved. While this was probably the fun thing for a warrior to do it sets a bad example for prophets.

elucidator
09-23-2010, 01:59 PM
So, was the treatement of the Qurayzi exceptional for its cruelty? My reading to the history inclines to the view that such was standard practice amonst the Arabs of the time, with the distinction that there was no offer of clemency for conversion.

You have more authoritative sources that say otherwise? Bring.

And how can you complain about setting a bad example for prophets when you deny that he was a prophet in the first place? Kind of playing both ends against the middle, aren't you?

Uzi
09-23-2010, 02:14 PM
Trouble is, he wasn't there, being, more or less, dead. He was no more, he had ceased to be, expired, and gone to meet his Maker. Run down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible, he was an ex-Prophet.

It was written down so that all could benefit from his wisdom. Muhammad himself had many killed to promote his religion. Read the Quran and Hadiths. Or here (http://www.peacewithrealism.org/jihad/jihad05.htm).

Uzi
09-23-2010, 02:40 PM
So, was the treatement of the Qurayzi exceptional for its cruelty?

The point of that story is not its cruelty, but how it goes against Muhammad's saying to only fighting in self defense. The Qurayzi were not a threat to the Muslims at the time they were attacked. Directly counter to the Quran which says if the enemy stops fighting then you should, too. Unless you use a far more rational interpretation based upon what Muhammad actually did, that by killing, converting or enslaving them, then you no longer have to defend yourself.
Or an even more logical, and most likely, interpretation that he made the whole thing up as he went along to justify his actions.

elucidator
09-23-2010, 03:50 PM
So, the link you offer is your source of straight, unbiased candor? And you're not kidding?

Uzi
09-23-2010, 04:47 PM
So, the link you offer is your source of straight, unbiased candor? And you're not kidding?

Ah, so you have a different interpretation based upon what? They weren't being attacked, the Quran says you should only defend yourself until they other party stops fighting, the Jews surrendered. Muhammad then slaughtered the men.
So, the prophet of god, this paragon of virtue, shows us the infinite mercy of Allah and what to do when the enemy stops fighting. You take their property, kill the men, rape the women, and enslave anyone left over. This is the person that Muslim's try to emulate.

elucidator
09-23-2010, 06:36 PM
No, that much is clear, the adherents of a religious tradition can be fairly judged by the actions of its founding figures. Anyone who reveres a prophet that urges his followers to commit such horrors upon innocent children confesses an acceptance and approval of unqualified evil.

Any such leader who orders massacre and genocide leaves a stain that cannot be erased by time, and those who follow such prophets are not to be trusted. No, that is quite clear, it is a rule that allows for no exceptions. And certainly a nation founded by such religious congregants cannot be trusted, should be shunned by all civilized people as unworthy of respect, or tolerance. They must be regarded with suspicion, as they are tainted by a brutal and belligerent heritage. Unless, of course, they repent of such religious affiliation, as a first step towards a probationary admittance to the company of civilized men.

I remain grateful for your link, the clear-eyed, balanced, and unbiased view of your sources is apparent even to a casual reader. I urge any reader who is uncertain about the possible biases in your opinions to go straight to your sources, so that any uncertainty can be laid to rest.

Uzi
09-23-2010, 06:48 PM
Well, I'm glad you finally agree.

tomndebb
09-23-2010, 09:23 PM
Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh!

cosmosdan
09-23-2010, 10:06 PM
Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh!

MAn, You got that right.

Doxy
09-23-2010, 10:13 PM
wow

Mozart1220
09-23-2010, 10:32 PM
Trouble is, he wasn't there, being, more or less, dead. He was no more, he had ceased to be, expired, and gone to meet his Maker. Run down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible, he was an ex-Prophet.

It was written down so that all could benefit from his wisdom. Muhammad himself had many killed to promote his religion. Read the Quran and Hadiths. Or here (http://www.peacewithrealism.org/jihad/jihad05.htm).
Didn't the Judeo-Christian God wipe out everyone on the planet (except Noah's family of course)?

And then there was Sodamm and Gomorrah. Not to mention all the victims of Katrina and 9-11 (because of America's wickedness)

Monty
09-23-2010, 10:53 PM
Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh!

Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRSxrhXE2PQ&feature=related)

Fixed it for you. :D

Uzi
09-23-2010, 10:54 PM
Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh!

Double Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh!

And adding an Bazinga!

Magiver
09-24-2010, 03:08 AM
So, was the treatement of the Qurayzi exceptional for its cruelty? Only if you're trying to sell peace from high atop a stack of bodies. Otherwise, it's just super.

Magiver
09-24-2010, 03:13 AM
Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh!

You want to splain why a sarcastic remark to a sarcastic remark is a woosh?.

elucidator
09-24-2010, 03:51 AM
Nah, thats too easy. Why don't you explain why a massacre ordered by Muhammed is an evil that must never be forgotten, but a massacre ordered by Moses isn't worth mentioning?

Uzi
09-24-2010, 10:33 AM
Nah, thats too easy. Why don't you explain why a massacre ordered by Muhammed is an evil that must never be forgotten, but a massacre ordered by Moses isn't worth mentioning?

Lesssee, you can mention it in both cases because Islam reveres all those old time religiousy types in the OT, too. Muhammad was following in their footsteps. Jesus took his own path. I wish they would all be forgotten.

And, again, I'm not claiming that Muhammad was any more or less evil than anyone else at the time. But his contemporaries are not the head of a major religion that others try to emulate today.

elucidator
09-24-2010, 01:27 PM
So, then, according to Uzi's Theory of Eternal Emulation, the root of the problem is Moses, and the Hebrew/ Jewish religion? Because Mohammed was "following in their footsteps". Then, it necessarily follows, does it not, that any suspicion and disapproval that we show for Muslims, we should show with equal contempt for Jews? Or even more so, since they are the originators of this train of massacre and genocide.

Can't you come up with a sweeping historical theory that blames Canada? A daunting challenge, to be sure, but one with your talent for rationalization might well be up to the task. I have every confidence in you, and wait with bated breath.

Uzi
09-24-2010, 01:38 PM
Do you think that a religion's followers will attempt to emulate their prophet?
Are you denying you have never heard the saying, "What would Jesus do?"? What would they base their idea of what Jesus would do from? Their ass? Of course, some do. Some will actually read the book about him. The same holds true with Muhammad.
You really are pushing the credibility* envelope when you think people only follow their religion because granddad did and that their beliefs don't influence their actions.

*Credulous?

Fear Itself
09-24-2010, 02:24 PM
Do you think that a religion's followers will attempt to emulate their prophet?Only to the extent that it is convenient for them. When scripture imposes commandments that cramp their lifestyle, those parts get minimized or ignored.
Are you denying you have never heard the saying, "What would Jesus do?"? What would they base their idea of what Jesus would do from? Their ass? Yes. Straight out of their ass, mostly. They interpret what the prophet says in terms of their own expediency. There is not a word in the Gospels that has not been turned around 180° to reach two mutually exclusive conclusions.

Uzi
09-24-2010, 02:40 PM
Only to the extent that it is convenient for them. When scripture imposes commandments that cramp their lifestyle, those parts get minimized or ignored.

You don't live in a collectivist culture. The typical Muslim does. That same Muslim that will drink in the west won't even think of doing so in the ME. As I said earlier, if you look through your own cultural filter it is real easy to say things like this and assume they are true for everyone.

Magiver
09-24-2010, 02:45 PM
Only to the extent that it is convenient for them. When scripture imposes commandments that cramp their lifestyle, those parts get minimized or ignored. The concept of WWJD transcends the bible which, as has been pointed out in this thread, was a book compiled by men at a later date. Jesus never wrote down his teachings. What he taught didn't require interpretation nor were his actions ambiguous in any way. He did not kill, he did not promote killing.

This is in stark contrast to Mohammad who killed people and promoted the concept of killing those who did not convert. As Uzi pointed out The Qurayzi were not a threat to the Muslims at the time they were attacked. They were slaughtered and enslaved without mercy. We see this in the 9/11 attacks as well and are continually reminded that radical Muslims wish to to inflict great harm on those who they disagree with.

That you choose to ignore the religious connection of people who will slaughter others over a cartoon makes no sense.

elucidator
09-24-2010, 03:10 PM
...As Uzi pointed out The Qurayzi were not a threat to the Muslims at the time they were attacked.....

And your authority for this is, what, exactly? The Koran says they were plotting against Mohammed, you say they weren't? OK. Bring it.

And I'll ask you the same question that Uzi is so ineptly dodging: by your reasoning, should we hold modern Jews accountable for the actions of the ancient Hebrews? And if we do not, shouldn't the same rationale apply to Muslims as well?

magellan01
09-24-2010, 03:21 PM
...As Uzi pointed out The Qurayzi were not a threat to the Muslims at the time they were attacked.....

And your authority for this is, what, exactly? The Koran says they were plotting against Mohammed, you say they weren't? OK. Bring it.

And I'll ask you the same question that Uzi is so ineptly dodging: by your reasoning, should we hold modern Jews accountable for the actions of the ancient Hebrews? And if we do not, shouldn't the same rationale apply to Muslims as well?

No. But if they perpetrate the same ignorant and barbaric crimes against people that their ancestors did, then it's fair to throw them in the same pit and heap the same scorn upon them. In fact, I'd say that today's perpetrators are considerably worse, given that they can look around them and see how civilized people behave.

Do you disagree with those two points?

elucidator
09-24-2010, 03:43 PM
Those aren't points, those are truisms masquerading as points. Tim McVeigh and Osama bin Laden are more alike than they are different. Hitler and Stalin were the same monster wearing different skin, their ideological differences mean next to nothing.

Osama preaches a doctrine of hatred and violence, the Sufi imam at the center of the mosque controversy preaches a doctrine of peace and forgiveness. It doesn't matter what the Prophet really said, what matters is what we hear.

Monty
09-24-2010, 04:34 PM
You don't live in a collectivist culture. The typical Muslim does.

Define "typical Muslim," with cites please.

That same Muslim that will drink in the west won't even think of doing so in the ME.

The Muslims I know personally do not drink either in the Mideast nor in the west.

As I said earlier, if you look through your own cultural filter it is real easy to say things like this and assume they are true for everyone.

Maybe you need to sit down and reflect on this comment a bit. Consider how it applies to your sweeping comments about Islam and Muslims. Feel free to change the word cultural to xenophobic or even pejudiced.

magellan01
09-24-2010, 05:06 PM
Those aren't points, those are truisms masquerading as points. Tim McVeigh and Osama bin Laden are more alike than they are different. Hitler and Stalin were the same monster wearing different skin, their ideological differences mean next to nothing.

Osama preaches a doctrine of hatred and violence, the Sufi imam at the center of the mosque controversy preaches a doctrine of peace and forgiveness. It doesn't matter what the Prophet really said, what matters is what we hear.

Oh, please. You're evading the question and responding with platitude. There are two distinct points made in my reply to your post. Now why don't you try commenting on them specifically.

elucidator
09-24-2010, 05:22 PM
OK, but you won't like it any better.

...if they perpetrate the same ignorant and barbaric crimes against people that their ancestors did, then it's fair to throw them in the same pit and heap the same scorn upon them...

OK, but that only includes the actual perpetrators of such crimes. If you have evidence that the entire Islamic world were co-conspirators, active in furthering those plans, then you are invited to bring such evidence. In its absence, you are invited to stop furthering hatred for the innocent.

...I'd say that today's perpetrators are considerably worse, given that they can look around them and see how civilized people behave....

So long as your remarks are confined to actual perpetrators, I can hardly care what you think of them. Even if I were to disagree, I wouldn't bother to say so. Again, you are offering a truism as if it actually means something to our discussion, it does not. I don't care what you think, what you say, about the guilty. I stand for the innocent.

If the Muslim world held you guilty for the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis, would you fling yourself at their feet, blubbering for forgiveness? Somehow, I think not.

magellan01
09-24-2010, 05:30 PM
OK, but you won't like it any better.

...if they perpetrate the same ignorant and barbaric crimes against people that their ancestors did, then it's fair to throw them in the same pit and heap the same scorn upon them...

OK, but that only includes the actual perpetrators of such crimes. If you have evidence that the entire Islamic world were co-conspirators, active in furthering those plans, then you are invited to bring such evidence. In its absence, you are invited to stop furthering hatred for the innocent.

Wait a minute. Why are you painting all their ancestors with such a broad brush. Are you of a mind that 100% of these ancestors perpetrated such crimes? How do you know it was everyone? Or even a majority? Or even a large number? Why do you cast them all into the same pit?

elucidator
09-24-2010, 05:52 PM
When you say things like that, do people start talking in a soothing tone of voice as they back out of the room?

magellan01
09-24-2010, 05:59 PM
When you say things like that, do people start talking in a soothing tone of voice as they back out of the room?

Never mind. It appeared for a second that you were actually going to deign to have a real discussion with content. But I see that you prefer to resort to your inane content-free humor-free zingers. :rolleyes: Must have been the fact that you were asked questions that required thought and answers with content. Sorry about that.

You may carry on with your usual schtick now.

Uzi
09-24-2010, 06:16 PM
Define "typical Muslim," with cites please.

The ones who live in the ME where collectivist cultures prevail.

The Muslims I know personally do not drink either in the Mideast nor in the west.

Then I'd suggest that you know very few Muslims.

Maybe you need to sit down and reflect on this comment a bit. Consider how it applies to your sweeping comments about Islam and Muslims. Feel free to change the word cultural to xenophobic or even pejudiced.

And this is exactly what I mean. You can't see past your cultural filter of where individual rights are paramount vs need for inclusion within the group, so you label a person a racist because you don't understand it.

Siam Sam
09-24-2010, 07:55 PM
The Muslims I know personally do not drink either in the Mideast nor in the west.

Then I'd suggest that you know very few Muslims.

Indeed. The area around lower Sukhumvit Road in Bangkok is filled with small bars catering to the many Muslims who step out for a drink as soon as they land here. And I still have fond memories of a fellow student in Hawaii, a Muslim from Afghanistan who loved him his tipple and was constantly bemoaning his relationship with his Muslim girlfriend who didn't like his drinking; he was unable to choose between the two.

Uzi
09-24-2010, 08:26 PM
My point wasn't to say that they are hypocrites, but that the pressure of living in their culture doesn't allow much deviation from the 'norm'.
I think it also explains places where people stone adulterers, etc. You have to wonder why essentially the whole village turns out for the event when you know there have to be people appalled by what is happening. I'd be shocked if it wasn't the majority, or I'd like to think it was.

Monty
09-24-2010, 08:35 PM
Define "typical Muslim," with cites please.

The ones who live in the ME where collectivist cultures prevail.

How is it that a minority of a group constitutes a typical example of that group?

elucidator
09-24-2010, 08:53 PM
Its because they are a collectivist culture, see, that puts so much pressure to conform. Not like here, where individuality and deviance is prized. Why, I can't tell you how many times I've seen a mother and small child, and the mother will point to me and say "See that man, dear? That man is a weirdo. When you grow up, I want you to be just like him!"

Warms the heart, let me tell you.

Uzi
09-24-2010, 09:06 PM
How is it that a minority of a group constitutes a typical example of that group?

Muslims who live in largely collectivist cultures = the majority of muslims.
List of countries by Muslim population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population)
How many of those are an individualist culture? How many are collectivist? I can easily count almost 800 million in collectivist type cultures from the top 4-5.
A wiki on collectivist/individualist (http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Collectivist_and_individualist_cultures) societies for those who are wondering what the hell I'm talking about.

Monty
09-24-2010, 09:14 PM
You said that the typical Muslim is one who lives in the ME. Quite a few of the countries in your list are not in the ME. Now you're saying that the typical Muslim lives in a collectivist culture. Care to try again? Oh, and you might want to keep in mind something about a Scotsman, a True Scotsman.

Fear Itself
09-24-2010, 09:23 PM
Muslims who live in largely collectivist cultures = the majority of muslims.Christians who live in largely collectivist cultures = the majority of Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country#By_country

Revenant Threshold
09-24-2010, 09:30 PM
OK, but you won't like it any better.



OK, but that only includes the actual perpetrators of such crimes. If you have evidence that the entire Islamic world were co-conspirators, active in furthering those plans, then you are invited to bring such evidence. In its absence, you are invited to stop furthering hatred for the innocent.

Wait a minute. Why are you painting all their ancestors with such a broad brush. Are you of a mind that 100% of these ancestors perpetrated such crimes? How do you know it was everyone? Or even a majority? Or even a large number? Why do you cast them all into the same pit? No offense, but I have no idea what you mean by this post. It's possible that elucidator had the same issue - though badly stated - rather than simply a rejection of an understood point. I honestly don't follow your idea. Could you rephrase it?

Uzi
09-24-2010, 09:51 PM
You said that the typical Muslim is one who lives in the ME. Quite a few of the countries in your list are not in the ME. Now you're saying that the typical Muslim lives in a collectivist culture.

Okay, scrap the ME then. Happy? My point is changed somehow?

Christians who live in largely collectivist cultures = the majority of Christians.

Yes, and culture affects how they perceive and relate to their religion, too.
You can't use the argument that because you, in an individualist society, decides that religion is modified, ignored or followed at your whim, that other cultures work the same way.

Fear Itself
09-24-2010, 09:58 PM
Christians who live in largely collectivist cultures = the majority of Christians.

Yes, and culture affects how they perceive and relate to their religion, too.
You can't use the argument that because you, in an individualist society, decides that religion is modified, ignored or followed at your whim, that other cultures work the same way.What does that mean?

Uzi
09-24-2010, 10:31 PM
What does that mean?

It means it is easy for someone here to reject and change their religion to suit their particular needs, but not so much in collectivist societies. A small minority of influential people can control society, however large or small that is, within certain bounds.

elucidator
09-24-2010, 11:24 PM
....A small minority of influential people can control society, however large or small that is, within certain bounds.

Indeed there is, here we call those people "rich". And the only thing uncertain about their bounds is whether or not they exist.

What the heck is this "collectivist" stuff, anyway? You couldn't make the case that Muslimls sitink because of their religion, now you want to try a new tack? Now, its because they're collectivist?

Uzi
09-25-2010, 12:44 AM
What the heck is this "collectivist" stuff, anyway? You couldn't make the case that Muslimls sitink because of their religion, now you want to try a new tack? Now, its because they're collectivist?

Hey, I can't help it if you don't understand it. You still can't get past the fact that people might actually follow their religion as written in their books.

Fear Itself
09-25-2010, 12:47 AM
You still can't get past the fact that people might actually follow their religion as written in their books.Some do; some don't. I am just not so presumptuous as to believe I can tell the difference by looking at them.

Magiver
09-25-2010, 01:22 AM
When you say things like that, do people start talking in a soothing tone of voice as they back out of the room?

Never mind. It appeared for a second that you were actually going to deign to have a real discussion with content. But I see that you prefer to resort to your inane content-free humor-free zingers. :rolleyes: Must have been the fact that you were asked questions that required thought and answers with content. Sorry about that.

You may carry on with your usual schtick now. Consider it an indication that something landed.

Monty
09-25-2010, 02:54 AM
You said that the typical Muslim is one who lives in the ME. Quite a few of the countries in your list are not in the ME. Now you're saying that the typical Muslim lives in a collectivist culture.

Okay, scrap the ME then. Happy? My point is changed somehow?

Why, yes, it is. Your premise was wrong then and it's wrong now. Actually, your premise is prejudice. Why you fail to understand that is reaching the point of ludicracy.

Magiver
09-25-2010, 03:20 AM
Okay, scrap the ME then. Happy? My point is changed somehow?

Why, yes, it is. Your premise was wrong then and it's wrong now. Actually, your premise is prejudice. Why you fail to understand that is reaching the point of ludicracy. What premise was wrong exactly? Uzi posted a list of Muslim populations by nation and percentage. It was color coded for easier dissemination. Are you arguing that predominately Muslim countries not specifically in the geographic mid-East are not highly structured around the religion?

Monty
09-25-2010, 03:58 AM
What premise was wrong? Why, the premise that the majority of Muslims live in the Mideast.

Look, it's been beyond obvious for far too long that both you and Uzi are prejudiced against Islam and Muslims and also that neither of you knows what you're talking about. I'm not going to entertain you two any longer in this forum. If someone else decides to start a pit thread for you, I might participate there.

elucidator
09-25-2010, 04:08 AM
That's a lot of work on spec. Why don't you supply us with an argument that "predominately Muslim countries not specifically in the geographic mid-East are highly structured around the religion"? Give us your metric, while you're about it, what specific facts we can measure to reach such a conclusion.

Are there any predominately Muslim countries that are not so "highly structured"? Or are all predominately Muslim countries "highly structured around the religion"? Does a country become "highly structured around the religion" when the Muslim population reaches fifty percent, or does it require seventy-five?

I know what "doo-wah-diddy" means. Not so sure about "highly structured around the religion". Got a creepy feeling its going to turn out to be something like a "collectivist culture", being something someone can say without defining what the hell it is, and dare me to prove it isn't.

elucidator
09-25-2010, 04:14 AM
Monty, really, its pretty simple. Your typical Muslilm lives in the Middle East, except for those typical Muslims who live elsewhere. Nonetheless, your typical Midlle Eastern Muslim is entirely the same as your typical, say, Indonesian Muslim, except for minor differences in culture, language, geography, climate and sexual mores. Other than that, virtually identical. And cuisine. Almost forgot cuisine.

Kobal2
09-25-2010, 09:04 AM
Monty, really, its pretty simple. Your typical Muslilm lives in the Middle East, except for those typical Muslims who live elsewhere. Nonetheless, your typical Midlle Eastern Muslim is entirely the same as your typical, say, Indonesian Muslim, except for minor differences in culture, language, geography, climate and sexual mores. Other than that, virtually identical. And cuisine. Almost forgot cuisine.

Whelp, they don't talk like us, dress like us, they live somewhere else, they all eat funny foreign stuff and we don't know much of anything about their history, culture, religion or art. But we do know this : they're all Muslim, except for the ones that aren't.

See ? Completely identical.

(In case it wasn't abundantly clear : Sarcasm was here.)

Sandwich
09-25-2010, 09:10 AM
Monty, really, its pretty simple. Your typical Muslilm lives in the Middle East, except for those typical Muslims who live elsewhere. Nonetheless, your typical Midlle Eastern Muslim is entirely the same as your typical, say, Indonesian Muslim, except for minor differences in culture, language, geography, climate and sexual mores. Other than that, virtually identical. And cuisine. Almost forgot cuisine.

Good points. About the only things I can think of that are common to Indonesia and the middle east are Islam and Islamic terrorism. Hey, wait a minute!

Ludovic
09-25-2010, 09:29 AM
Monty, really, its pretty simple. Your typical Muslilm lives in the Middle East, except for those typical Muslims who live elsewhere. Nonetheless, your typical Midlle Eastern Muslim is entirely the same as your typical, say, Indonesian Muslim, except for minor differences in culture, language, geography, climate and sexual mores. Other than that, virtually identical. And cuisine. Almost forgot cuisine.

Good points. About the only things I can think of that are common to Indonesia and the middle east are Islam and Islamic terrorism. Hey, wait a minute!And an almost fanatical devotion to the pope.

Uzi
09-25-2010, 10:10 AM
What premise was wrong? Why, the premise that the majority of Muslims live in the Mideast.

I see. I misspoke one sentence in this discussion and suddenly I'm wrong about everything. I've posted quite a bit of evidence to my contention that the Quran is a worse book than the Bible. It is. No debate. Well actually, there seems to be a lot of debate. That by saying it I intend to say that Muslims are evil or that I am prejudiced against them. Muslims are like any other person on the planet (wait, I've said that probably a number of times in this thread) within the limits of their cultures. The same as we are.
Am I prejudiced against religion and it telling me that say I should be dead? No, I am postjudiced against it. I've looked at it and and found much to dislike.

Look, it's been beyond obvious for far too long that both you and Uzi are prejudiced against Islam and Muslims and also that neither of you knows what you're talking about.

As opposed to you? I've already proven that if you are of a different religion than Islam today, your more likely to be better off living somewhere else than under Muslim rule.
When combined with the dynamics of a collectivist culture where the group is the priority and those outside the group can be perceived as a threat, religion is a way to bind people together and allows individuals to demonstrate their devotion to the group. And if that religion gives permission to persecute outsiders, it isn't surprising that it is done.

If you think that is prejudice, then I guess I have no more responses to you, either. It appears your letting your particular prejudices block your reason.

Magiver
09-25-2010, 12:30 PM
What premise was wrong? Why, the premise that the majority of Muslims live in the Mideast.

I think it's pretty obvious that countries with heavy Muslim populations are located in the same part of the world. I don't know what point you're making regarding the exact boundary of the mid-East. That you have to try to argue this point shows you have no interest in actually debating the subject and are desperate to land any points for the sake of argument.

The reality of the situation is that 6 Christian women and children were burned to death because someone on the other side of the planet threatened to burn a book. The fuse of Islam is an extremely short one and it's in the news on a regular basis. To you, it's a intellectual exercise to explain away this behavior. To the people getting killed it's a harsh reality.

Look, it's been beyond obvious for far too long that both you and Uzi are prejudiced against Islam and Muslims and also that neither of you knows what you're talking about. I'm not going to entertain you two any longer in this forum. If someone else decides to start a pit thread for you, I might participate there. It's beyond obvious that you and some others responding to this thread are so politically correct that you cannot admit a correlation to a prophet who slaughtered hundreds of people and radical Muslims who follow his example and codified doctrine. Not only have you not honestly engaged in the debate, you are now foot stamping about a pit thread. That's just sad.

elucidator
09-25-2010, 02:53 PM
If the basis for your contempt and hatred of Islam is the actions of their prophet in ordering massacre, where is your contempt and hatred for Jews? Moses ordered massacres of his own, and didn't even offer the opportunity to convert. He gets a pass from Magiver? How come?

We Americans promoted and cheered for the wholesale slaughter of Sioux, Cheyenne, Huron, Iroquios, etc. etc. Of course, we didn't have any particular religious injunction, we just went right ahead and did it. This is an improvement, then? We didn't get a permission slip from God Almighty, so that's better?

And what does "politically correct" have to do with anything? Are you hoping to accomplish by innuendo what you cannot accomplish with fact and reason?

And finally, you suggest we answer hated and intolerance with more hatred and intolerance. Well, hell, what could possibly go wrong? Osama bin Laden wants to convince the Islamic world that America hates Islam, wants war with Muslims everywhere. You urge us to counter this lie by pissing in their Cheerios, bitch-slapping them a few times and telling them to sit down and shut up, this is our planet, you guys just live here because we let you.

Oh, that'll work! Fucking brilliant.

Magiver
09-26-2010, 02:45 AM
And finally, you suggest we answer hated and intolerance with more hatred and intolerance. Well, hell, what could possibly go wrong? Osama bin Laden wants to convince the Islamic world that America hates Islam, wants war with Muslims everywhere. You urge us to counter this lie by pissing in their Cheerios, bitch-slapping them a few times and telling them to sit down and shut up, this is our planet, you guys just live here because we let you.

Oh, that'll work! Fucking brilliant. It doesn't matter what anybody says in response to Bin Laden. He is never going to change his mind. He needs to die. His followers need to die.

Maybe you should concern yourself with how people feel about their friends and loved ones dying over something as innocuous as a cartoon or a book burning. Freedom of speech is probably the most important right we have in the United States. If you're advocating we give that up then say it. I don't think it will affect Bin Laden's efforts one bit.

tomndebb
09-26-2010, 03:16 AM
Not only have you not honestly engaged in the debate, you are now foot stamping about a pit thread. That's just sad.Drat. Another irony meter smashed.

magellan01
09-27-2010, 11:13 AM
If the basis for your contempt and hatred of Islam is the actions of their prophet in ordering massacre, where is your contempt and hatred for Jews? Moses ordered massacres of his own, and didn't even offer the opportunity to convert. He gets a pass from Magiver? How come?

There have been lots of bad guys in history. But there's really no point in railing to the high heavens about Genghis Khan because because he has no attachment to todays world. If his name comes to mind we can heap scorn upon him nan that's the extent of it. Let's say for now that Moses did bad stuff. Can you point to any group who is following Moses in a way that focuses on the veils he did? Any Jews out there wanting to massacre their own? No, there's not. If there were, it would be right to condemn those doing that but to also apportion blame to Moses and his acts ages ago. So, since there are no adherents trying to emulate whatever bad Moses might have done, it's a moot point. Conversely, Muhammed 1) was a murderous mofo PLUS 2) he has a bunch of adherents that toady are murderous mofos, AND 3) the do their murdering in the name of Muhammed, pointing to his words to justify their barbarism.

If you go back 60 years, Islam in the west was viewed as an exotic religion, and that was about the extent of it. Even 25 years ago, it was pretty much the same. It was only when the murdering in the name of Muhammed became part of our experience that most non-Muslims in the U.S gave the religion or its founder any thought. So, it's the action of the Muslims themselves (albeit a minority) that have cast a light on the religion and it's founder. Your apparent dismay as to why Moses isn't similarly painted is dismaying in itself. What group of Jews is performing what atrocities? And in what way do they claim it to be dictated by Moses? No, you need those three criteria mentioned above. And once you have them, the founder of the religion deserves some degree of blame.

Magiver
09-27-2010, 01:46 PM
Not only have you not honestly engaged in the debate, you are now foot stamping about a pit thread. That's just sad.Drat. Another irony meter smashed. I bothered to cite my position about the Bali bombing instead of posting fiction as fact. You have wagged nothing but opinion. Now you drop in for a one-liner pot shot related to my response to a passive aggressive threat of a pit thread. I've got a meter that's pegged and it's because a moderator of a debate thread is flinging cow patties instead of debate.

As far as I can tell, your premise is that all religions are exactly alike and therefore no criticism can be leveled for any reason. Scientology is the same as Buddhism which is the same as Christianity, which is the same as the religion of Islam. There's a term for that kind of thinking.

elucidator
09-27-2010, 04:06 PM
Rational?

magellan01
09-27-2010, 08:40 PM
Rational?

No, "wishful".

elucidator
09-27-2010, 09:47 PM
(sigh) TomnDeb never got within a million miles of saying "that all religions are exactly alike ". And even is he/she/it ever had, he/she/it would not offer it as evidence that "no criticism can be leveled for any reason". Both of those statements are dumber than dirt.

But "Scientology is the same as Buddhism" enters a whole 'nother dimension of dementia, not of space or of time but out of mind, there's the signpost up ahead....

And spare me the posturing of the hard-headed realist, I've known such hard-headed realists all my adult life, and so far they've been wrong, wrong, and catastrophically wrong. While we dewey-eyed peaceniks have been spot on the honey. I know its "spot on the money", but we prefer honey.

tomndebb
09-27-2010, 10:03 PM
Drat. Another irony meter smashed. I bothered to cite my position about the Bali bombing instead of posting fiction as fact. You have wagged nothing but opinion. Now you drop in for a one-liner pot shot related to my response to a passive aggressive threat of a pit thread. I've got a meter that's pegged and it's because a moderator of a debate thread is flinging cow patties instead of debate.

As far as I can tell, your premise is that all religions are exactly alike and therefore no criticism can be leveled for any reason. Scientology is the same as Buddhism which is the same as Christianity, which is the same as the religion of Islam. There's a term for that kind of thinking.Oh, bullshit.

You made a claim that there was no connection between persecution and the Bali bombers and have simply sat back and denied the evidence I presented that they had, indeed, been under persecution for a few decades. I have not denied that their brand of Islam is violent; I have simply noted that you have not made the case that Islam has recently been violent all on its own with no outside factors. I have demonstrated that in every example of violent Islamists, they have been able to find support and new adherents as reactions to persecution, corruption, or social disruption. I have further noted that a number of other examples of inter-religious violence have occurred in the world in the last coule of decades and that they, too, are conected to persecution, corruption, or social disruption.
You have simply ignored my evidence while inventing claims that I have presented none.

At any rate, my quip had nothing to do with that particular line of misstatements from you. I was addressing a different issue in which you falsely accuse me of "excusing" the violence because it was perpetrated by Muslims. In our most recent exchange on the topic, you displayed the playground behavior of a third-grader (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12933175#post12933175) and now you want to claim that some other poster is not behaving in an adult manner. That breaks my irony meter.

I have not excused, justified, or rationalized any of the violence. I have, in fact, been consistent in condemning the violence. Our differences are not over whether the violence is wrong--it is--our differences are over the issue of blaming some imaginary monolithic "Islam" for all Muslim violence, (instead of looking at the facts to note that the violence originates among separate factions), while ignoring every other factor and simultaneously ignoring the part that religion plays in other acts of violence when it does not happen to include Muslim aggressors.

I do not believe that "all religions are the same." That is you ignoring everything I have posted on the topic. What I do believe is that most religions have various sects and factions that hold different and even contradictory beliefs under the umbrella of a single name. Some of those factions promote good and some promote evil, but blaming "Islam" or "Christianity" or "Buddhism" or "Hinduism" for the actions of individual sects is simply intellectually lazy. It is easier to demonize a single name than to expend the energy to discover the facts. I believe that we can and should identify those separate factions and address their actions rather than pretending, as your posts indicate, that any named religion is a monolithic organization in which all the adherents hold indistinguishable beliefs and that when any faction behaves badly, we need to condemn "the religion," even when such condemnation winds up alienating those factions who would generally be on our side of the issue.

Uzi
09-27-2010, 11:19 PM
I have simply noted that you have not made the case that Islam has recently been violent all on its own with no outside factors.

It will never happen. People are more complex than that nor would I ever say there was a single factor that causes someone to do a violent act. All I can say is that all things being equal otherwise, if your god condones violent actions then it is easier to reach that point because 'fewer' brakes are applied to stop you.
You have to admit that one of your 'factors' is the religion itself. It can't stand alone outside how people act/react.

Revenant Threshold
09-28-2010, 01:12 AM
I have simply noted that you have not made the case that Islam has recently been violent all on its own with no outside factors.

It will never happen. People are more complex than that nor would I ever say there was a single factor that causes someone to do a violent act. All I can say is that all things being equal otherwise, if your god condones violent actions then it is easier to reach that point because 'fewer' brakes are applied to stop you.
You have to admit that one of your 'factors' is the religion itself. It can't stand alone outside how people act/react. It depends on interpretation, not actions, given that we can't escape interpretation. And beyond that, it's certainly not reasonable to say that there are "fewer" brakes; it's an unproven assumption. I have no doubt that, for you, it is an incredibly obvious idea, but hell, there are people for whom murdering others via suicide attacks is an incredibly obvious idea. People tend to disagree on what's incredibly obvious.

tomndebb
09-28-2010, 01:49 AM
All I can say is that all things being equal otherwise, if your god condones violent actions then it is easier to reach that point because 'fewer' brakes are applied to stop you.
You have to admit that one of your 'factors' is the religion itself. It can't stand alone outside how people act/react.You're trying to argue as though we can just study a group's scripture and figure out whether it will be more or less violent than another.

I am noting that we can look at the scriptures in conjunction with actual history and note that your hypothesis is bunk. Christianity has a long and inglorious tradition of violence that is clearly the equal of anything committed by Muslims. Conquest? Forced conversions? Persecutions? Massacres? Genocide? Christians have it all--often to a more advanced degree than the Muslims.

If you could point to 1900+ years of Christianity and find substantially less violence than one found in 1300+ years of Islam, (or if you could find substantially less Christian violence in any 1300 years of its history), you would have a chance of making your argument. Since that is clearly false, your argument is simply based on wishful thinking. (It is rather like many of Aristotle's notions of physics that work out quite well when applying a bit of logic to a poorly understood phenomenon, but which are utterly trashed when put up against evidence: heavier objects do not fall more quickly than lighter objects; the air displaced by a thrown object does not rush around the object to propel it forward; etc.)

I certainly do agree that "religion" is a factor in much of the violence in the world. Where I differ is that I recognize that while Wahhabism and Aryans Nations share the titles of "Islam" and "Christianity" with Sufism and Quakers, the beliefs held by these groups are so different that simplisticly attributing actions of adherents to any of those beliefs under the heading "Islam" or "Christianity" are fatally flawed.

Uzi
09-28-2010, 02:03 AM
You're trying to argue as though we can just study a group's scripture and figure out whether it will be more or less violent than another.

Yes. Your trying to argue that scriptures have no bearing on how a person acts. If that is the case then why have them at all? Obviously, someone follows them, do they not?

Magiver
09-28-2010, 02:13 AM
I do not believe that "all religions are the same."

Yes you do and the next sentence you wrote spells it out.


What I do believe is that most religions have various sects and factions that hold different and even contradictory beliefs under the umbrella of a single name.

And there it is, every religion is the same.

Some of those factions promote good and some promote evil, but blaming "Islam" or "Christianity" or "Buddhism" or "Hinduism" for the actions of individual sects is simply intellectually lazy. It is easier to demonize a single name than to expend the energy to discover the facts.

Logic associates the actions and writings of the progenitor of any religion to the actions of those who follow. You simply ignore the connection. It's like saying Charles Manson had no influence on Sqeeky Fromme.

I believe that we can and should identify those separate factions and address their actions rather than pretending, as your posts indicate, that any named religion is a monolithic organization in which all the adherents hold indistinguishable beliefs and that when any faction behaves badly, we need to condemn "the religion," even when such condemnation winds up alienating those factions who would generally be on our side of the issue. If they're all different why would criticism of the religion matter. Do you see Christians or Hindus coming unwound because of Southpark Cartoons? They all have their bad side according to you. Why is Islam the only religion that can't handle a little urine in their cheerios?

On one hand you say it is isolated factions that need to be identified but you then turn around and talk as if they are of one mind.

elucidator
09-28-2010, 03:02 AM
I do not believe that "all religions are the same."

Yes you do and the next sentence you wrote spells it out.




And there it is, every religion is the same. ....

Astonishing. Its like you took a reading comprehension test, they give you a paragraph all about the marvelous diversity of fish, how they come in all shapes and sizes, colors and forms, truly wondrous variety, etc. And in the course of this, he mentions that all fish have scales.

And they ask you what the paragraph was about, what is the author trying to say and you answer:

"He's saying all fish are the same."

tomndebb
09-28-2010, 03:06 AM
And there it is, every religion is the same. Are you really going to try to make this argument? Do you really want to tell everyone reading this thread just how poor your logic is?

Noting that large supergroups all have factions of smaller groups hardly equates to all the groups are the same. The various smaller groups may, (actually, do), have widely differing beliefs, liteugies, mythologies, etc.

By your logic, all animals are "the same" because they are not plants.



Logic associates the actions and writings of the progenitor of any religion to the actions of those who follow. You simply ignore the connection. It's like saying Charles Manson had no influence on Sqeeky Fromme.And, as I have noted, applying simplistic logic to poorly understood phenomema tends to lead to errors. Charles Manson had a direct influence on the person of Squeeky Fromme. You will note that the effects of Jesus on Pope John XXIII and on Ian Paisely or Jack Chick are quite different.
I don't ignore the connection; I pay attention to how each connection is actually handled by the actual people involved rather than blithely assigning a belief to people about whom I know nothing.

If they're all different why would criticism of the religion matter. Do you see Christians or Hindus coming unwound because of Southpark Cartoons? They all have their bad side according to you. Why is Islam the only religion that can't handle a little urine in their cheerios?Christians and Hindus have both demonstrated just as much unreasoning fury over things that are equally silly. You don't see it so much in public, in the U.S., because people in developed countries tend to stifle their impulses to riot. The Catholics murdered by Protestants for simply wanting to use a Douai bible instead of a KJV in the 1840s and 1850s would have found your claim ludicrous and Hindus have massacred Muslims over similar nonsense within just the last few years. (I know, to you 1840 was so very long ago. The only difference, however, is that the rioters of that time knew that they could get away with it and they had less to lose if it went bad. There is no "advancement" of Christianity that has changed those attitudes, just more property and better law enforcement that tends to dampen the ardor of those offended.)

On one hand you say it is isolated factions that need to be identified but you then turn around and talk as if they are of one mind.You're mischaracterizing my comments again. Saying that all the people that you insult are insulted when you insult them is not the same as saying that they all think alike--only that when humans are insulted, they tend to respond with anger, regardless of their beliefs.

For that matter, you are asserting nonsense. There are a billion Muslims, but those who actually rioted in response to the Mohammed cartoons number in the tens of thousands (at the greatest), and many of them were organized by anti-Western governments as political,m propaganda efforts. Millions of Muslims made no protests and a number of them opposed the rioters. You are again trying to lump different people under a "they're all the same" umbrella and you are wrong.

elucidator
09-28-2010, 11:58 AM
More than anything, this brings to mind Kurt Vonnegut's marvelous book Cats Cradle, and his concept of a granfalloon.

A granfalloon is a false collection of people, presumed to have some mutual identity, but really not. Like his character, the lady who was from Indiana, and always wanted to know if other people were "Hoosiers", as if Hoosiers had some distinct identity that unified them as a group. When, of course, people from Indiana no more fit into a distinct group than say, Christians, or Muslim.

TomnDeb has illustrated this point with all the insight and eloquence we expect from the Luminous Ones (slobber, grovel, kissy kissy...). Muslims have no actual identity, the group has grown and diversified into a massive collection of human beings whose only mutual connection, their only point of common identity, is so abstract as to be meaningless.

Only an ignorant person could refer to Christianity as if it were a huge block of like-minded persons without being aware of the vast diversity therein.

A Jew was walking through Dublin one night, and confronted with a drunken lout who demanded to know if he were Catholic or Protestant. He answered truthfully, expecting but accepting a whole different variety of ignorant prejudice:

"Neither, actually, I'm a Jew."

The lout pondered this for a moment.

"Well, are you a Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew?"

And so it goes.

Magiver
09-29-2010, 12:57 AM
You're mischaracterizing my comments again. Saying that all the people that you insult are insulted when you insult them is not the same as saying that they all think alike--only that when humans are insulted, they tend to respond with anger, regardless of their beliefs.
And yet you can't seem to grasp that followers of all the other cool religions don't assplode into street riots over a cartoon. It's not like they aren't routinely lampooned on a daily basis all over the world.

Could it be that the most radical followers of the other religions don't have a prophet who codified his ability to make people less alive?

elucidator
09-29-2010, 01:55 AM
Why, yes, that certainly "could be", it is within the realm of possibility. But you aren't offering "could be", you are peddling "damn sure". And the only evidence you have to offer is your firm insistance that it is so.

Magiver
09-29-2010, 02:02 AM
Why, yes, that certainly "could be", it is within the realm of possibility. But you aren't offering "could be", you are peddling "damn sure". And the only evidence you have to offer is your firm insistance that it is so. It's logical that the more someone adheres to a religion, the greater the likelihood they will emulate the prophet.

elucidator
09-29-2010, 03:07 AM
Sure, its logical, just doesn't happen to be true. Jews don't go around "emulating" Moses by slaughtering a bunch of folks and selling their kids into slavery. More Christians went around emulating Jesus, be a damned sight better world, but they don't and that's that.

Its also perfeclty logical that a five pound ball will drop faster than a one pound ball. Logical as hell, just ain't so.

Do they "adhere" to their religion? Well, thats a sticky question, they certainly say they do. And if you are going to define their loyalty to the religion by how much they emulate the prophet thereof, you are buggering the question, you aren't allowed to use your conclusion as evidence of itself.

Uzi
09-29-2010, 10:52 AM
Sure, its logical, just doesn't happen to be true. Jews don't go around "emulating" Moses by slaughtering a bunch of folks and selling their kids into slavery. More Christians went around emulating Jesus, be a damned sight better world, but they don't and that's that.

How do you know this? If all those people who were Christians were instead Muslims, what type of world would we have today? How long would a separation of church and state endure? Would we even be able to have this conversation involving Muhammad?

Gyrate
09-29-2010, 10:58 AM
How do you know this? If all those people who were Christians were instead Muslims, what type of world would we have today? How long would a separation of church and state endure? Would we even be able to have this conversation involving Muhammad?I don't know and neither do you. All else is wild speculation.

tagos
09-29-2010, 11:10 AM
It's logical that the more someone adheres to a religion, the greater the likelihood they will emulate the prophet.

Judging by the amount of Christians who haven't given the shirt off their back to the poor, or can't indeed bring themselves to behave in any way whatsoever like Jesus, I'd say - NO.

tomndebb
09-29-2010, 11:25 AM
You're mischaracterizing my comments again. Saying that all the people that you insult are insulted when you insult them is not the same as saying that they all think alike--only that when humans are insulted, they tend to respond with anger, regardless of their beliefs.
And yet you can't seem to grasp that followers of all the other cool religions don't assplode into street riots over a cartoon. It's not like they aren't routinely lampooned on a daily basis all over the world.

Could it be that the most radical followers of the other religions don't have a prophet who codified his ability to make people less alive?Right. Riots over insulting cartoons organized for political purposes to demonstrate anger at "the West" are simply an expression of the violence inherent in one system while riots over the mere choice of a separate translation of scripture are a demonstration of the inherently peaceful nature of that system. Got it.

I doubt that I am the one whose grasp is failing.

Magiver
09-29-2010, 01:29 PM
It's logical that the more someone adheres to a religion, the greater the likelihood they will emulate the prophet.

Judging by the amount of Christians who haven't given the shirt off their back to the poor, or can't indeed bring themselves to behave in any way whatsoever like Jesus, I'd say - NO.
Given the number of Christians who DO give the shirt off their backs that is keeping with my statement. Ever heard of missionaries? Do you remember the 10 doctors who were killed in Afghanistan recently for their religion? Remember who killed them and why?

Magiver
09-29-2010, 01:33 PM
And yet you can't seem to grasp that followers of all the other cool religions don't assplode into street riots over a cartoon. It's not like they aren't routinely lampooned on a daily basis all over the world.

Could it be that the most radical followers of the other religions don't have a prophet who codified his ability to make people less alive?Right. Riots over insulting cartoons organized for political purposes to demonstrate anger at "the West" are simply an expression of the violence inherent in one system while riots over the mere choice of a separate translation of scripture are a demonstration of the inherently peaceful nature of that system. Got it.

I doubt that I am the one whose grasp is failing.

Wow, You actually think 6 women/children burned alive is a political protest? You think a fatwa to kill authors and writers is a political protest? Really? Seriously?

This is the part where you run back to focusing on Wahhabism and pretend Mosques that the Ft Hood Shooter went to don't exist in Western Countries.

Magiver
09-29-2010, 01:42 PM
How do you know this? If all those people who were Christians were instead Muslims, what type of world would we have today? How long would a separation of church and state endure? Would we even be able to have this conversation involving Muhammad?I don't know and neither do you. All else is wild speculation. Statistically, the world would look like countries which are predominately Muslim today.

tomndebb
09-29-2010, 01:56 PM
Wow, You actually think 6 women/children burned alive is a political protest? You think a fatwa to kill authors and writers is a political protest? Really? Seriously?

This is the part where you run back to focusing on Wahhabism and pretend Mosques that the Ft Hood Shooter went to don't exist in Western Countries.Actually, burning people alive is frequently a form of political violence, but I will note that you have completely changed what I actually said. I noted that many of the riots were organized for political purposes. I have also never claimed that there are not mosques in which pro-Muslim violence is not promoted; that is simply a new invention on your part.

Beyond that, your point is just nonsense. I have never claimed that Major Hasan did not exist or even that extremist versions of religions do not exist. Your point regarding Wahhabism is closer, but that simply indicates that you enjoy blaming Islam for Wahhabist actions while giving Christianity and other religions a pass when the most extreme members of their groups engage in violent actions. You have gone so far as to pretend that there was no religious conflict in Northern Ireland, casting it as an English/Irish conflict while deliberately ignoring all the violence that occurred among Irish and Irish who happened to be Catholic and Protestant.

You seem to circle back, again and again, to the same broad-brush complaints any time you encounter an inconvenient fact against your screed or you cherry-pick an event involving Muslims while carefully ignoring events involving other groups--when, of course, you are not simply mischaracterizing what I have said or attributing things to me that I have never posted.

Mozart1220
09-29-2010, 02:13 PM
How do you know this? If all those people who were Christians were instead Muslims, what type of world would we have today? How long would a separation of church and state endure? Would we even be able to have this conversation involving Muhammad?I don't know and neither do you. All else is wild speculation.
Given the track record of Christianity vs. free speech and expression over the course of history, I think we have a pretty good idea.

Uzi
09-29-2010, 05:25 PM
I don't know and neither do you. All else is wild speculation.

Of course we do. Sharia law or a close variant would be the norm. Any criticism of the Muhammad and Allah would be outlawed as it is in many places currently in the Muslim world. The only reason places like Turkey and Indonesia don't have full on Sharia is because of the influence of the west. Without it the 'fundamentalists' would prevail.

Magiver
09-29-2010, 07:25 PM
Actually, burning people alive is frequently a form of political violence, but I will note that you have completely changed what I actually said. I noted that many of the riots were organized for political purposes. I have also never claimed that there are not mosques in which pro-Muslim violence is not promoted; that is simply a new invention on your part.
More broad brush hand waving generic excuses.

Beyond that, your point is just nonsense. I have never claimed that Major Hasan did not exist or even that extremist versions of religions do not exist.

You consistently excuse every act of Islamo-terrorism on some other factor.

Your point regarding Wahhabism is closer, but that simply indicates that you enjoy blaming Islam for Wahhabist actions while giving Christianity and other religions a pass when the most extreme members of their groups engage in violent actions. You have gone so far as to pretend that there was no religious conflict in Northern Ireland, casting it as an English/Irish conflict while deliberately ignoring all the violence that occurred among Irish and Irish who happened to be Catholic and Protestant.

The driving force behind the conflict in Ireland was not religion. To say that it is ignores the mixture of Christian religions in both countries. Ireland is a distinct culture on a landmass that gained it's independence from England (except for the northern portion). It was not an attempt to break away from the Church of England or convert those to Catholicism. There were no religious decrees involved from either side.

You seem to circle back, again and again, to the same broad-brush complaints any time you encounter an inconvenient fact against your screed or you cherry-pick an event involving Muslims while carefully ignoring events involving other groups--when, of course, you are not simply mischaracterizing what I have said or attributing things to me that I have never posted.

The only broad brush stroke is the observation that the religion of Islam itself has a core problem of violence that is directly attributable to Mohammad. The closer it's followers come to this core, the greater the likelihood of violence. That explains the actions of people who riot and kill over criticism of their religion and issue fatwas instructing others to do the same.

Islam is more than a religion, it is a political system complete with it's own laws. Those laws (Sharia) do not suffer criticism of Islam well. It's not a cultural function of Muslims, it's the codification of Islamic law.

Fear Itself
09-29-2010, 08:36 PM
Islam is more than a religion, it is a political system complete with it's own laws. Those laws (Sharia) do not suffer criticism of Islam well. It's not a cultural function of Muslims, it's the codification of Islamic law.What percent of the world's Muslims are governed largely by Sharia law?

tomndebb
09-29-2010, 09:12 PM
More broad brush hand waving generic excuses. Pointing out that you have attributed to me statements I have never made is hardly broad brush handwaving. That is your specialty.

The driving force behind the conflict in Ireland was not religion. To say that it is ignores the mixture of Christian religions in both countries. Ireland is a distinct culture on a landmass that gained it's independence from England (except for the northern portion). It was not an attempt to break away from the Church of England or convert those to Catholicism. There were no religious decrees involved from either side. Which, of course, still resolutely ignores the fact that Irish Protestants and Irish Catholics inflicted a lot of violence on each other as Catholics and Protestants even without English interference. It is also different from what you claimed, earlier, that it was simply a political battle between Irish and English, even going so far as to make the absurd claim that ". . . it was a political conflict between the Irish and the English and did not involve Protestants and Catholics." (You might want to look into the actual causes of the conflict that began in 1968 with the fairly systematized discrimination against Catholics that was embedded in Northen Ireland.)

The only broad brush stroke is the observation that the religion of Islam itself has a core problem of violence that is directly attributable to Mohammad. The closer it's followers come to this core, the greater the likelihood of violence. That explains the actions of people who riot and kill over criticism of their religion and issue fatwas instructing others to do the same.Ahh, the No True Muslim defense. Any Muslim who is not engaged in barbarity is not a true Muslim.

How convenient.

Magiver
09-29-2010, 09:35 PM
More broad brush hand waving generic excuses. Pointing out that you have attributed to me statements I have never made is hardly broad brush handwaving. That is your specialty. You're the one who assigns other factors to events like the Bali bombing.

Which, of course, still resolutely ignores the fact that Irish Protestants and Irish Catholics inflicted a lot of violence on each other as Catholics and Protestants even without English interference. It is also different from what you claimed, earlier, that it was simply a political battle between Irish and English, even going so far as to make the absurd claim that ". . . it was a political conflict between the Irish and the English and did not involve Protestants and Catholics." (You might want to look into the actual causes of the conflict that began in 1968 with the fairly systematized discrimination against Catholics that was embedded in Northen Ireland.) Since most Irish are Catholic and most English are Protestant then they are by default involved in the conflict. Now cite this was driven by religion. Show me a quote from the Pope or the Arch Bishop of Canterbury directing their flock to win one for the gipper (in this case, Jesus).

The only broad brush stroke is the observation that the religion of Islam itself has a core problem of violence that is directly attributable to Mohammad. The closer it's followers come to this core, the greater the likelihood of violence. That explains the actions of people who riot and kill over criticism of their religion and issue fatwas instructing others to do the same.Ahh, the No True Muslim defense. Any Muslim who is not engaged in barbarity is not a true Muslim.

How convenient. No, any Muslim who follows Mohammad's barbaric laws and actions is a barbarian.

elucidator
09-29-2010, 10:42 PM
...Show me a quote from the Pope or the Arch Bishop of Canterbury...

You got it backwards. Its the Pope who's Catholic, and the Archbishop of Canterbury who shits in the woods.

tomndebb
09-30-2010, 12:02 AM
Pointing out that you have attributed to me statements I have never made is hardly broad brush handwaving. That is your specialty. You're the one who assigns other factors to events like the Bali bombing. Yeah. It is shameless the way that I insist on posting facts.

Since most Irish are Catholic and most English are Protestant then they are by default involved in the conflict. Now cite this was driven by religion. Show me a quote from the Pope or the Arch Bishop of Canterbury directing their flock to win one for the gipper (in this case, Jesus).Regardless whether most English are Protestants, the Protestants who live in Northern Ireland are Irish. Neither the pope nor the Archbishop of Canterbury ever supported the violence, but the Reverend Ian Paisely was very strident in whipping up anti-Catholic sermons and speeches. If you are really confused into thinking that the English are a party of Northern Irish violence (beyond whatever clumsy efforts the government of Great Britain contributed) or that there was no religious connection to the violence, you have no business posting on that topic, at all. The violence is not a part of religious wars, but then, I never claimed it was, (as you once again mischaracterize what I have posted), only noting against your claim that only Muslims engage in senseless violence that Christians do it, as well.

Monty
09-30-2010, 12:14 AM
I was not aware that approximately 40% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_and_politics_of_Northern_Ireland) constituted "most."* Wow. You really need to brush up on your math skills. Either that or get a better dictionary. This is the second time in this thread someone's equated a minority with the term most.

*Let's remember the conflict was in Northern Ireland. By the way, there's a reason why Northern Ireland didn't go with the rest of the country. Care to guess the reason?

Magiver
09-30-2010, 12:58 AM
You're the one who assigns other factors to events like the Bali bombing. Yeah. It is shameless the way that I insist on posting facts. I posted a cite to back up what I said. You posted opinion about a terrorist bombing based on hatred for a "western backed" politician who was long dead.

Since most Irish are Catholic and most English are Protestant then they are by default involved in the conflict. Now cite this was driven by religion. Show me a quote from the Pope or the Arch Bishop of Canterbury directing their flock to win one for the gipper (in this case, Jesus).Regardless whether most English are Protestants, the Protestants who live in Northern Ireland are Irish. Neither the pope nor the Archbishop of Canterbury ever supported the violence, but the Reverend Ian Paisely was very strident in whipping up anti-Catholic sermons and speeches. If you are really confused into thinking that the English are a party of Northern Irish violence (beyond whatever clumsy efforts the government of Great Britain contributed) or that there was no religious connection to the violence, you have no business posting on that topic, at all. The violence is not a part of religious wars, but then, I never claimed it was. If you bring up Ireland in the discussion then you are implying religion was a driving force in the violence. But it's nice that you admit it isn't.

When someone yells "God is Great" right before they kill someone that is a religiously driven event. when someone issues a fatwa to kill a cartoonist or author that is a religiously driven event. These things are done because at the core of Islam is a legal system that justifies it. The person who wrote those laws carried them out. If this bothers your sense of balance in the universe it doesn't change the laws written or the acts committed. It explains why the most fanatical of Islam are more violent in relation to the perceived transgression just as the glorification of martyrdom explains the desire to carry out suicide bombings.

tomndebb
09-30-2010, 01:22 AM
Yeah. It is shameless the way that I insist on posting facts. I posted a cite to back up what I said. You posted opinion about a terrorist bombing based on hatred for a "western backed" politician who was long dead. Mischaracterization, again.

I noted that every violent Muslim movement has been promoted by reactions to pesecution, corruption, or social disturbance.
You claimed that the only "reason" for the Bali bombing was Islam, (which did not even address my point that did not involve motivation, per se).
I noted that the Jemaah Islamiyah group that executed the bombing had, indeed, been the object of persecution for a number of years.
You tried to dismiss that actual source of the growth and development of the group (which had been my actual point to which you were responding) on the grounds that their primary (not sole) persecutor had died four years previously. This really does not attack my actual point that the group developed in an atmosphere of persecution, but you continue to pretend that I posted only "opinion" when I have demonstrated the accuracy of my claim.

If you bring up Ireland in the discussion then you are implying religion was a driving force in the violence. But it's nice that you admit it isn't.Sorry. Your straw man does not work. Mentioning that religion was a factor in the violence when noting that religion plays a role in many violent events hardly makes a claim that it is a "driving force" in any specific situation, (although the actions of Rev. Paisely and the clear separation of sides based on religious identity would hardly indicate that religion is irrelevant). Stomping an argument I have not made does not make your argument stronger.

It explains why the most fanatical of Islam are more violent in relation to the perceived transgression just as the glorification of martyrdom explains the desire to carry out suicide bombings.Not until you explain why Buddhism "explains" the actions of the group that invented suicide bombings--a group that was not Muslim.

You continue to pick and choose what you want to look at while steadfastly ignoring facts that are inconvenient.

Magiver
09-30-2010, 01:48 AM
Mischaracterization, again.

I noted that every violent Muslim movement has been promoted by reactions to pesecution, corruption, or social disturbance.
You claimed that the only "reason" for the Bali bombing was Islam, .

No I claimed it was the driving force.

Magiver
09-30-2010, 01:57 AM
Not until you explain why Buddhism "explains" the actions of the group that invented suicide bombings--a group that was not Muslim.

You continue to pick and choose what you want to look at while steadfastly ignoring facts that are inconvenient. I don't have to explain Buddhist suicide bombings because they aren't running around the entire planet trying to kill people.

tomndebb
09-30-2010, 02:10 AM
Mischaracterization, again.

I noted that every violent Muslim movement has been promoted by reactions to pesecution, corruption, or social disturbance.
You claimed that the only "reason" for the Bali bombing was Islam, .

No I claimed it was the driving force.Well, what you actually said was None of that explains the Bali attack which has nothing to do with poverty oppression or government.which is simply not true. It had very much to do with oppression and the government. It very much was an expression of Islamist extremism--an extremism that was very much fostered by government oppression, a point you cannot acknowledge because it interferes with your need to view "Islam" as a problem, while ignoring the fact that Islam has a lot of different factions.

tomndebb
09-30-2010, 02:14 AM
I don't have to explain Buddhist suicide bombings because they aren't running around the entire planet trying to kill people.Actually, you mean that noting that suicide bombings actually originated with a group other than Muslims, (particularly one that does not put high values on martyrdom), puts a large hole in your argument that it is a "Muslim" phenomenon, so you need to hand-wave away that fact.

Magiver
09-30-2010, 02:20 AM
No I claimed it was the driving force.Well, what you actually said was None of that explains the Bali attack which has nothing to do with poverty oppression or government.which is simply not true. It had very much to do with oppression and the government. It very much was an expression of Islamist extremism--an extremism that was very much fostered by government oppression, a point you cannot acknowledge because it interferes with your need to view "Islam" as a problem, while ignoring the fact that Islam has a lot of different factions. Post 480 Suharto was out of office for 4 years prior to the Bali bombing. There is no logic to the idea that they were opposing him. It wasn't targeted at the government. It was targeted at symbols of Western cultural which corresponds to the messages handed down by Imams through mosques and schools. The driving force for the target was religion.

tomndebb
09-30-2010, 02:24 AM
Well, what you actually said was which is simply not true. It had very much to do with oppression and the government. It very much was an expression of Islamist extremism--an extremism that was very much fostered by government oppression, a point you cannot acknowledge because it interferes with your need to view "Islam" as a problem, while ignoring the fact that Islam has a lot of different factions. Post 480 Suharto was out of office for 4 years prior to the Bali bombing. There is no logic to the idea that they were opposing him. It wasn't targeted at the government. It was targeted at symbols of Western cultural which corresponds to the messages handed down by Imams through mosques and schools. The driving force for the target was religion.

Putting things in fancy colors does not make them less of a straw man.

I never claimed that the Bali bombing was a specific protest against Suharto.
I noted that Jemaah Islamiyah was founded and nurtured in an era of repression. That you continue to attack a statement I have never made or defended pretty much shows the poverty of your position.

Magiver
09-30-2010, 02:25 AM
I don't have to explain Buddhist suicide bombings because they aren't running around the entire planet trying to kill people.Actually, you mean that noting that suicide bombings actually originated with a group other than Muslims, (particularly one that does not put high values on martyrdom), puts a large hole in your argument that it is a "Muslim" phenomenon, so you need to hand-wave away that fact. I don't have to hand-wave what doesn't exist on anything remotely resembling the scale of Islamic suicide bombings. We are not spending billions on security because of Buddhist suicide bombings.

tomndebb
09-30-2010, 02:33 AM
I don't have to hand-wave what doesn't exist on anything remotely resembling the scale of Islamic suicide bombings. We are not spending billions on security because of Buddhist suicide bombings.I do note that I have typed Buddhist when I meant Hindu for the last couple of posts.

At any rate, you claimed that it was Islam that was the source for such actions. It was not.
There are more Muslims than Hindus in locations where they have been persecuted or suffered social disruption based on their religion, so Muslims will demonstrate more violence.

Your attempt to make suicide bombings an "Islamic" phenomenon is simply wrong.

Magiver
09-30-2010, 02:34 AM
Post 480 Suharto was out of office for 4 years prior to the Bali bombing. There is no logic to the idea that they were opposing him. It wasn't targeted at the government. It was targeted at symbols of Western cultural which corresponds to the messages handed down by Imams through mosques and schools. The driving force for the target was religion.

Putting things in fancy colors does not make them less of a straw man.

I put them in color to make it easier for you to see that you were wrong about what I said.

I never claimed that the Bali bombing was a specific protest against Suharto.
I noted that Jemaah Islamiyah was founded and nurtured in an era of repression. That you continue to attack a statement I have never made or defended pretty much shows the poverty of your position. You attempted to wave it away with other factors when it was the hatred taught in Mosques that drove the attack.

There is a serious worldwide problem with Islamic terrorism.
At the core of this is the religion itself. It has to be dealt with on this level or it will never go away. Mohammad's actions and teachings moved on 2 rails of track that were not compatible and until the violent side of his life are publicly addressed it will always be looked at as the blueprint for radical Muslims.

Magiver
09-30-2010, 02:36 AM
Your attempt to make suicide bombings an "Islamic" phenomenon is simply wrong. I point to the reality of the current attacks and you look for historic scraps to make a point.

tomndebb
09-30-2010, 07:58 AM
There is a serious worldwide problem with Islamic terrorism.
At the core of this is the religion itself. It has to be dealt with on this level or it will never go away. Mohammad's actions and teachings moved on 2 rails of track that were not compatible and until the violent side of his life are publicly addressed it will always be looked at as the blueprint for radical Muslims.Your attempt to make suicide bombings an "Islamic" phenomenon is simply wrong. I point to the reality of the current attacks and you look for historic scraps to make a point.I point out that Islam has both violent and peaceful elements and that other religions have had factions every bit as violent and evil as the worst of Muslim factions--even concurrent with the extremist Muslim actions--and you insist that "Islam" is the problem and somehow unique.

We're down to the "Is too"/"Is not" stage of the discussion and I'll let you have the last word unless you bring up something that is actually relevant.

Gyrate
09-30-2010, 08:20 AM
Your attempt to make suicide bombings an "Islamic" phenomenon is simply wrong. I point to the reality of the current attacks and you look for historic scraps to make a point.Last year (http://www.spur.asn.au/chronology_of_suicide_bomb_attacks_by_Tamil_Tigers_in_sri_Lanka.htm) is "historic"?

There is a serious worldwide problem with Islamic terrorism.Nobody is arguing with this.At the core of this is the religion itself. It has to be dealt with on this level or it will never go away. Mohammad's actions and teachings moved on 2 rails of track that were not compatible and until the violent side of his life are publicly addressed it will always be looked at as the blueprint for radical Muslims.Everybody is arguing with this. You are too wedded to your viewpoint to ever seriously consider that you might be wrong.

Uzi
10-01-2010, 12:34 AM
I noted that Jemaah Islamiyah was founded and nurtured in an era of repression.

From what little I've read, this group was radical before and after Suharto. Being 'repressed' in this case wouldn't have occurred without them first being rebels and attempting to create their own Islamic state.

Uzi
10-01-2010, 12:42 AM
You are too wedded to your viewpoint to ever seriously consider that you might be wrong.

Hmmm....

elucidator
10-01-2010, 12:45 AM
Any oppressed group that is predominately Muslim, and seeks political sovereignty is going to be "attempting to create an Islamic state", depending upon how loosely one wants to use the term.

The Buddhist monks who rebelled against the Vietnamese Catholic elites were not so much trying to establish a Buddhist state as trying to get out from under a Catholic one. In a way, I suppose they were successful but never really got to build that Victory Monastery in Saigon.

Your use of the term "Islamic state" carries more innuendo than substance.

Uzi
10-01-2010, 01:04 AM
Your use of the term "Islamic state" carries more innuendo than substance.

I got the term from the wikipedia article on the history of the group. Hence my "From what little I've read" comment. My main point is the timelines. They were radical before they were repressed.

tomndebb
10-01-2010, 10:11 PM
Your use of the term "Islamic state" carries more innuendo than substance.

I got the term from the wikipedia article on the history of the group. Hence my "From what little I've read" comment. My main point is the timelines. They were radical before they were repressed.Well, there was a radical group in the 1940s. However, the specific group that carried out the Bali bombing was created in 1993 after being forced to flee Indonesia in the face of persecution. Note, however, that the point I have made on several occasions was not that such groups only form under persecution, (Wahhabism is around 250 years old), but that persecution, corruption, and social disruption tend to provide the impetus for them to become larger and more powerful, drawing new recruits. Without those outside social phenomena, they tend to remain minor cranks with little effect on the regions where they exist. The zealots of Afghanistan were well known in the 1950s and 1960s, while wholly Muslim Afghanistan educated its women in universities and practiced a very progressive attitude toward the world. It was only when the entire country was thrown into turmoil with Soviet intervention and U.S. counter-intervention that the zealots were able to draw enough recruits to become the Taliban and send the country to hell.

Magiver
10-02-2010, 11:45 PM
At the core of this is the religion itself. It has to be dealt with on this level or it will never go away. Mohammad's actions and teachings moved on 2 rails of track that were not compatible and until the violent side of his life are publicly addressed it will always be looked at as the blueprint for radical Muslims.Everybody is arguing with this. You are too wedded to your viewpoint to ever seriously consider that you might be wrong. it's illogical to suggest that the most fanatical followers of a prophet will not follow his words and actions. And it's not my viewpoint, it's Mohammad's. It's my observation.

Fear Itself
10-03-2010, 08:05 AM
Everybody is arguing with this. You are too wedded to your viewpoint to ever seriously consider that you might be wrong. it's illogical to suggest that the most fanatical followers of a prophet will not follow his words and actions. Care to estimate what fraction of Muslims are 'fanatics'?

Magiver
10-03-2010, 06:18 PM
it's illogical to suggest that the most fanatical followers of a prophet will not follow his words and actions. Care to estimate what fraction of Muslims are 'fanatics'? Probably the same percentage of any other religion. If you need a count then look up the related terrorist attacks.

Fear Itself
10-03-2010, 06:40 PM
Care to estimate what fraction of Muslims are 'fanatics'? Probably the same percentage of any other religion. If you need a count then look up the related terrorist attacks.I want to know what you think.

Magiver
10-03-2010, 08:24 PM
Probably the same percentage of any other religion. If you need a count then look up the related terrorist attacks.I want to know what you think.I think there are enough to require billions of dollars worth of security measures.

Fear Itself
10-03-2010, 08:41 PM
I want to know what you think.I think there are enough to require billions of dollars worth of security measures.That could be less than one tenth of one percent of the total. The cost of security measures is hardly an indictment of the whole religion.

Revenant Threshold
10-03-2010, 09:22 PM
Everybody is arguing with this. You are too wedded to your viewpoint to ever seriously consider that you might be wrong. it's illogical to suggest that the most fanatical followers of a prophet will not follow his words and actions. And it's not my viewpoint, it's Mohammad's. It's my observation. Why "fanatical", out of interest? You already know that I disagree with you on the interpretations of followers, but accepting your point for the sake of argument, why would "fanatical" followers in particular follow the actions of a prophet?

Magiver
10-03-2010, 10:22 PM
I think there are enough to require billions of dollars worth of security measures.That could be less than one tenth of one percent of the total. The cost of security measures is hardly an indictment of the whole religion. The cost of security represents the danger involved. It is an indictment on the seriousness of the problem. Nobody in this thread has suggested a majority of Muslims are to blame.

Magiver
10-03-2010, 10:48 PM
it's illogical to suggest that the most fanatical followers of a prophet will not follow his words and actions. And it's not my viewpoint, it's Mohammad's. It's my observation. Why "fanatical", out of interest? You already know that I disagree with you on the interpretations of followers, but accepting your point for the sake of argument, why would "fanatical" followers in particular follow the actions of a prophet? because a fanatic (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fanatic) is: 1. a person whose enthusiasm or zeal for something is extreme or beyond normal limits.

Are you disagreeing that islamo-terrorism exists or that it's a minority of Muslims involved?

Mohammad created a religion and a political system based on war and conquest. There is a clear history of death and destruction directly related to him. Not his followers, him. Most Muslims find this off-putting and choose the more peaceful side of their prophet as guide to daily living. The more fanatical take his actions and laws to the extreme.

Revenant Threshold
10-03-2010, 11:19 PM
Why "fanatical", out of interest? You already know that I disagree with you on the interpretations of followers, but accepting your point for the sake of argument, why would "fanatical" followers in particular follow the actions of a prophet? because a fanatic (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fanatic) is: 1. a person whose enthusiasm or zeal for something is extreme or beyond normal limits.

Are you disagreeing that islamo-terrorism exists or that it's a minority of Muslims involved? I'm disagreeing that it is illogical to suggest that the most fanatical followers of a prophet will not follow their words and actions. I mean, I would call, let's say, the Phelps family fanatical Christians. Logically, then, since they are fanatics, and since they espouse hatred and death, Christian prophets stood for those things, right? To say that the most fanatical followers of a prophet will follow their words and actions means that, by judging the behaviour of those followers, we may judge the words and actions of those prophets. So, which Christian prophets is it that the Phelpses follow the words and actions of? Is Jesus himself included under "prophet", or should we just assume Moses and the like happily endorsed the murder of, well, pretty much most people?

Magiver
10-04-2010, 01:26 AM
because a fanatic (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fanatic) is: 1. a person whose enthusiasm or zeal for something is extreme or beyond normal limits.

Are you disagreeing that islamo-terrorism exists or that it's a minority of Muslims involved? I'm disagreeing that it is illogical to suggest that the most fanatical followers of a prophet will not follow their words and actions. I mean, I would call, let's say, the Phelps family fanatical Christians. Logically, then, since they are fanatics, and since they espouse hatred and death, Christian prophets stood for those things, right? To say that the most fanatical followers of a prophet will follow their words and actions means that, by judging the behaviour of those followers, we may judge the words and actions of those prophets. So, which Christian prophets is it that the Phelpses follow the words and actions of? Is Jesus himself included under "prophet", or should we just assume Moses and the like happily endorsed the murder of, well, pretty much most people?

While it could be said that Phelps isn't following the words of Jesus he hasn't killed anyone so the argument can be made that he is, in fact, following a peaceful existence. As fanatics go, he's harmless.

tagos
10-04-2010, 06:11 AM
Heard a 30 minute interview with this guy on the BBC.

Have you (the author of a book on how evil Islam is) read the Koran? No.

Have you been to any Muslim countries? Much hand-waving then he comes up with Egypt, (but was too scared to leave the hotel)

He generally made ITR Champion seem informed on the subject.

But in his own mind he didn't need to - all he needed to know was that Christianity was right so all else was evil and wrong.

And yes - all non-christian's were going to hell.

Uzi
10-04-2010, 11:14 AM
But in his own mind he didn't need to - all he needed to know was that Christianity was right so all else was evil and wrong.

Some religious guy knocking another religion. Very unusual that.

Revenant Threshold
10-04-2010, 11:59 AM
I'm disagreeing that it is illogical to suggest that the most fanatical followers of a prophet will not follow their words and actions. I mean, I would call, let's say, the Phelps family fanatical Christians. Logically, then, since they are fanatics, and since they espouse hatred and death, Christian prophets stood for those things, right? To say that the most fanatical followers of a prophet will follow their words and actions means that, by judging the behaviour of those followers, we may judge the words and actions of those prophets. So, which Christian prophets is it that the Phelpses follow the words and actions of? Is Jesus himself included under "prophet", or should we just assume Moses and the like happily endorsed the murder of, well, pretty much most people?

While it could be said that Phelps isn't following the words of Jesus he hasn't killed anyone so the argument can be made that he is, in fact, following a peaceful existence. As fanatics go, he's harmless. But it isn't enough, surely, that he follows a "peaceful" existence (which I would strongly disagree with; there is physical violence and there is mental violence; too, speeches endorsing violence and murder may well influence other people to actually perform those acts). The only reason that the Phelpses aren't actually practicing what they preach is that some of them, at least, are sane enough to realise they wouldn't get away with it.

Still, the point remains. It isn't a matter of harmlessness, it's a matter of following words, as you said. If the Phelpses are fanatics, we can judge their prophets by their words and actions. Ergo, Jesus didn't kill anyone himself, but he endorsed the murder of most people in the world, he happily sat outside funerals celebrating the people's deaths and promising God would bring more. That's correct, isn't it? When we look at Christians in the world, it is the fanatics, the abortion clinic bombers, the killers, the endorsers of violence, the censors, that truly represent the words and actions of Jesus. Right?

Or perhaps fanatics aren't particularly known for following their prophets words and actions. Perhaps it isn't illogical to suggest that.

tagos
10-04-2010, 12:05 PM
But in his own mind he didn't need to - all he needed to know was that Christianity was right so all else was evil and wrong.

Some religious guy knocking another religion. Very unusual that.

Yes - it actually is.

Most christian churches do not believe all non-christians are automatically hell-bound and so far only a very, very few have written a book naming Islam 'evil' without knowing the first thing about it.

Magiver
10-05-2010, 12:00 AM
Or perhaps fanatics aren't particularly known for following their prophets words and actions. Perhaps it isn't illogical to suggest that. Perhaps. but when you start adding up the intolerance, violence and killings from fanatics there is a disparity of numbers. Do you see fanatics rioting in the streets over art depicting Jesus getting a blow job? Certainly the outrage is there. Compare this to 6 people who were murdered halfway around the world over the mention of the burning of a sacred book.

There are no absolutes in anything involving human behavior. Your argument that all fanatics must follow the actions and writings of their prophet or the premise is wrong is illogical.

Revenant Threshold
10-05-2010, 11:55 PM
Or perhaps fanatics aren't particularly known for following their prophets words and actions. Perhaps it isn't illogical to suggest that. Perhaps. but when you start adding up the intolerance, violence and killings from fanatics there is a disparity of numbers. Do you see fanatics rioting in the streets over art depicting Jesus getting a blow job? Certainly the outrage is there. Compare this to 6 people who were murdered halfway around the world over the mention of the burning of a sacred book. At this point in time, i'm not making an argument about the preponderance of Christian vs. Islamic violence. Solely that your point upthread is wrong. It doesn't matter as to the proportion of violence, or the proportion of fanatics; so long as there are fanatics who follow prophets their words and actions should follow those prophets, per your point. If your argument is that Jesus was, merely, a commander of violence rather than a killer by his own hands, or that his displays of intolerance, violence, and killings were fewer in number, then I can understand your point. But I don't think that's what you're saying. There are no absolutes in anything involving human behavior. Your argument that all fanatics must follow the actions and writings of their prophet or the premise is wrong is illogical. It isn't my argument. It's your argument; it's illogical to suggest that the most fanatical followers of a prophet will not follow his words and actions. You've qualified it as "most" fanatical, but I don't think that aids your overall point at all. Your statements contradict one another.

Now, i'm happy to agree with your new point here - suggesting that all fanatics must follow the actions and writings of their prophet is, of course, entirely silly, as I pointed out in the very post you've just quoted from. Usually fanaticism can only be an indicator of strength of belief or inability to accept or understand opposing viewpoints. And given that the overall point you were trying to make, I believe, was; At the core of this is the religion itself. It has to be dealt with on this level or it will never go away. Mohammad's actions and teachings moved on 2 rails of track that were not compatible and until the violent side of his life are publicly addressed it will always be looked at as the blueprint for radical Muslims. I think you may have accidentally undermined your own argument through overstating.

Magiver
10-06-2010, 12:49 AM
At this point in time, i'm not making an argument about the preponderance of Christian vs. Islamic violence.

I am along with all the other major religions.

It doesn't matter as to the proportion of violence, or the proportion of fanatics; Yes, actually the proportion of violence does matter when discussing it.

Uzi
10-06-2010, 12:51 AM
Now, i'm happy to agree with your new point here - suggesting that all fanatics must follow the actions and writings of their prophet is, of course, entirely silly, as I pointed out in the very post you've just quoted from.

No one must follow anything, fanatic or not. But is it likely that a fan will dress up as the person they are idolizing? Millions of Star Wars and Star Trek fans kind of prove this point. They do.
So, why is it a stretch to suggest that some of the fans of Muhammad will attempt to emulate his actions? Because it is obvious that they will. The same as some will try to act like Christ rather than like Crusaders.

Revenant Threshold
10-06-2010, 11:50 PM
At this point in time, i'm not making an argument about the preponderance of Christian vs. Islamic violence. I am along with all the other major religions. To the extent that fanaticism drives that violence, your argument seems strongly flawed.It doesn't matter as to the proportion of violence, or the proportion of fanatics; Yes, actually the proportion of violence does matter when discussing it. You seem to be unfairly generalising my argument; yes, the proportion of violence does matter when discussing the proportion of violence. But I wasn't discussing that, as I pointed out and as you directly quoted. It seems unreasonable to quote a person saying they aren't arguing a particular topic and then call them out for failing to argue that particular topic. Illogical, even. I have to question why you've selected these two points (one point, really) to argue with, rather than the rest of my post which actually asks questions of you.

Revenant Threshold
10-07-2010, 12:07 AM
Now, i'm happy to agree with your new point here - suggesting that all fanatics must follow the actions and writings of their prophet is, of course, entirely silly, as I pointed out in the very post you've just quoted from.

No one must follow anything, fanatic or not. But is it likely that a fan will dress up as the person they are idolizing? Millions of Star Wars and Star Trek fans kind of prove this point. They do.
So, why is it a stretch to suggest that some of the fans of Muhammad will attempt to emulate his actions? Because it is obvious that they will. The same as some will try to act like Christ rather than like Crusaders. Because some act like Crusaders.

The problem is that you (and Magiver) seem to be drawing a line - that Muslims fanatics act the way they do because some are following Mohammed. Magiver generalises the point; the most fanatic will logically follow their prophets. But, when that same logic is applied to Christians, suddenly it doesn't work anymore; Christian fanatics, as violent and unpleasant as they may be, too, to whatever extent in proportion to fanatics of other stripes, aren't as they are because they follow Jesus. It seems like a double standard; as if, on one hand, there's a desire to be able to lay the blame at the feet of Mohammed, whilst avoiding doing so in the case of Jesus.

The issue is not, per se, with the idea that fanatics will attempt to emulate their prophets, but the idea that those fanatics are dependent on those prophets to do what they do. That we could replace Mohammed with Jesus, and suddenly loads of Islamic fanatics would be forced to become peaceful and pleasant. People will generally find support for whatever they believe irregardless of their purported source of those beliefs. It's just not a case of people sitting down with an open mind and saying "I want to be like this person", but rather "This person was like me".

People dress up as characters from Star Wars and the like all the time. They write fanfiction, too. But, oddly enough, sometimes the characters that people like or write about aren't the same as the ones others see. You'll get people swearing up and down that Darth Vader was a purely immoral bastard, and others saying that he was really a good person and did the best he could. Are they watching different films? No. And yet, people come away with different interpretations of these characters. And find different reasons for emulating their behaviour. From the same source, and everything. So it would be odd for me, with my interpretation of Darth Vader, to come along and say "All those people who dress up as him; they do it because they see the character as I see him", because I have no way of knowing what their interpretation is, or what reason they're doing it for.

I suppose the end question is; how can we know that there is not the same amount of violent Islamic fanatics doing what they do in attempts to emulate Mohammed than there are Christian fanatics doing what they do in attempts to emulate Jesus? When interpretation of character, personal biases, and the strength of belief that comes with fanaticism come into play, it's not really all that easy a question. And yet, it's treated as having an obvious answer.

Magiver
10-07-2010, 01:09 AM
Because some act like Crusaders. To start with it's 2010. Your point died centuries ago in organized political wars. Otherwise airport security would be looking for Monty Python.

The problem is that you (and Magiver) seem to be drawing a line - that Muslims fanatics act the way they do because some are following Mohammed. Magiver generalises the point; the most fanatic will logically follow their prophets. But, when that same logic is applied to Christians, suddenly it doesn't work anymore The logic holds up nicely in this century and is born out with the disproportionate level of violence attributed directly to perceived transgressions.

Uzi
10-07-2010, 03:33 AM
The problem is that you (and Magiver) seem to be drawing a line - that Muslims fanatics act the way they do because some are following Mohammed. Magiver generalises the point; the most fanatic will logically follow their prophets. But, when that same logic is applied to Christians, suddenly it doesn't work anymore; Christian fanatics, as violent and unpleasant as they may be, too, to whatever extent in proportion to fanatics of other stripes, aren't as they are because they follow Jesus. It seems like a double standard; as if, on one hand, there's a desire to be able to lay the blame at the feet of Mohammed, whilst avoiding doing so in the case of Jesus.

We agree that both sides have fanatics who commit violence. Yet, those who do so and follow Muhammad are actually following his dictates or actions. Those who do so in Jesus' name are not. Which book is the worse of the two because of it?

elucidator
10-07-2010, 11:23 AM
The outcomes being indistinguishable from each other, what possible difference can it make?

Gyrate
10-07-2010, 11:52 AM
The outcomes being indistinguishable from each other, what possible difference can it make?It's far better to be killed by someone who didn't really mean it and feels bad about it.

elucidator
10-07-2010, 12:11 PM
What, they repent, and don't go to Hell? I'm going for bad puns, and they get off? Fuck that shit!

Uzi
10-07-2010, 01:06 PM
The outcomes being indistinguishable from each other, what possible difference can it make?

Because they aren't and there has been ample evidence in this thread to that effect.

tomndebb
10-07-2010, 07:21 PM
Because they aren't and there has been ample evidence in this thread to that effect.???

There has been no evidence in this thread, (or any other that I have seen), that the zealots of one reliogion are actually following the dictates of their beliefs more closely than any other. And we certainly have no evidence that zealots of any religion have actually brought more harm to the world, based on their religion, than any similar group.

We do have a number of claims for those points, based on one-sided interpretations of various scriptures and a dismissal of all contrary information, but we have no actual evidence for your claim.

(We will now see a regurgitation of the "Mohammed was a violent aggressor" theme that is based on one interpretation of events and which ignores the fact that, as presented in his scriptures, his actions were always defensive. ::: shrug :::)

Dead or maimed is dead or maimed. Regardless whether the scripture to which the zealot appeals is filled with brutal violence or fluffy bunnies, the historical record shows that zealots are quite willing to engage in violence, no matter how their scriptures are written. It is simply special pleading to claim that "the other guys are worse" due to their scriptures, when the "good guys" have been equally or more brutal at different times either due to or in spite of their scriptures.

Uzi
10-07-2010, 07:58 PM
There has been no evidence in this thread, (or any other that I have seen), that the zealots of one reliogion are actually following the dictates of their beliefs more closely than any other.

I could bring an elephant and you'd still call it a zebra if it suited your purposes. Guys like Osama are following their religion as it is written and as Muhammad practiced it.
Muhammad didn't act in defense only. He acted many times as the aggressor. You have been shown that in this thread, but chose not to believe it. It certainly doesn't hurt that his followers were the ones to write his history, either.

elucidator
10-07-2010, 08:42 PM
Of course not, but they are all the texts we have. Have you a seperate history from 7th Century Arabia, from verifiably neutral sources that we may compare? And your insinuation of dishonesty on the part of early Muslims is a mite underhanded. You have no evidence to offer, you simply slip a few drops of cyanide into the well water.

You have no problem depending on the veracity of the Koran if you find its passages uncomplimentary, if you think they support your case. But if passages in the Koran run counter to your argument, well, we know they are all Muslims, therefore we cannot trust their veracity.

That isn't simply lame reasoning, thats paralyzed from the neck up.

Uzi
10-07-2010, 08:56 PM
I don't need to poison anything. Everything is right there in the Quran and the Hadiths. Osama isn't making shit up when he uses his religion to justify his actions. Whereas if he was a Christian, he'd have to use the Old Testament to get there and ignore Jesus almost entirely.
What I'm saying is that realistically there is probably a veneer of civility over Muhammad's history as with almost anything in history written by the victors. Or are you going to deny that happens, too?

tomndebb
10-07-2010, 09:33 PM
I could bring an elephant and you'd still call it a zebra if it suited your purposes.More likely, if you brought an elephant and I acknowledged that it was an elephant, you would begin accusing me of calling it a zebra even if I never mentioned "zebra" in any context.

Consider, for example, your current response:
Muhammad didn't act in defense only. He acted many times as the aggressor. You have been shown that in this thread, but chose not to believe it. It certainly doesn't hurt that his followers were the ones to write his history, either.This does not address my actual statement in any way. It also falsely accuses me of a position that I have never posted.
I noted that you are basing your claims on your own particular interpretation of the Qur'an. I had not even claimed that Mohammed was not violent. In response, you simply repeat your interpretation, (based on various beliefs and reports passed down by Byzantine observers). You might even be correct in your interpretation that Mohammed was aggressive as well as defensive. However, that is not what the book, itself, says. To get to that understanding, you must bring in other interpretations. The Qur'an, itself, indicates that the violence was all undertaken for purposes of defense. (I don't even hold that the Qur'an's version of events is accurate, any more than I believe that the minimized Roman actions and exaggerated Jewish actions regarding the death of Jesus in the Gospels is accurate.) But that is not the point we are discussing. You claim that the words of the Qur'an promote aggression while the overwhelming majority of Muslims would hold that it only provides for defense.
I addressed the issue of interpretation, and you replied by repeating your interpretation while refusing to acknowledge that it was an interpretation. I am not the one who is resolutely avoiding the actual issue, (the words of the Qur'an), that you brought up; you are. You are shifting the goalposts from what is actually printed in the book to your version of what might (or might not) have been a more accurate historical presentation, while still claiming that it is the words in the book that are the spource of the problem.

Your initial claim to which I responded was that there had been "ample evidence" that the actions of Muslims differ from the actions of other religions (with a subtext that it is the words of the Qur'an that cause the difference) and I will still note that no such "evidence" has been presented--only interpretive claims regarding your beiliefs regarding the beliefs of people whose beliefs you do not share.

elucidator
10-07-2010, 11:59 PM
Someday, we may remember the New York imam for his efforts to explain America to the Islamic world. We will say "Who was that mosqued man, I wanted to thank him!"

Fear Itself
10-08-2010, 12:07 AM
You are so going to hell.

Uzi
10-08-2010, 12:30 AM
The Qur'an, itself, indicates that the violence was all undertaken for purposes of defense.... You claim that the words of the Qur'an promote aggression while the overwhelming majority of Muslims would hold that it only provides for defense.
I addressed the issue of interpretation, and you replied by repeating your interpretation while refusing to acknowledge that it was an interpretation.

Jesus, of course it is an interpretation. We could interpret the elephant to be a zebra, but it is still an elephant.
The only real interpretation going on is the word 'defense'. Muhammad uses it rather loosely. He claimed it was in defense when he attacked the Jews (and I can't remember right at the moment which group it was. I or Magiver provided cites earlier), yet they weren't attacking him at the time, nor were they likely to in the future unless it was for their own defense against the Muslims who had wiped out a couple of other tribes of Jews before them. They finally surrendered and were slaughtered and enslaved for their troubles. So out the window with 'when they stop fighting you should stop fighting, too' entries in the Quran. Unless you use a definition that they have technically stopped fighting, because pillaging, looting, raping, and slaughtering doesn't fall under the definition of 'fighting'. So, I guess he wasn't a hypocrite after all.:rolleyes:

tomndebb
10-08-2010, 02:28 AM
Jesus, of course it is an interpretation. So, we're back to you deciding what other people believe about the book that holds their scriptures and then deciding, for them, how they are supposed to act on their beliefs--except that you want to pretend that your imposed interpretation has more reality for them than what they actually believe.

We are not talking about elephants and zebras, just enormous men made of straw.

elucidator
10-08-2010, 02:48 AM
... nor were they likely to in the future unless it was for their own defense against the Muslims...

Where do you get this? Is there some other authoritative, unbiased source of contemporaneous reporting? Or does the Koran say "Yeah, they were a pretty harmless bunch, but we wiped them out anyway." Perhaps you will share with us your source for these penetrating insights?

Revenant Threshold
10-11-2010, 12:15 AM
Because some act like Crusaders. To start with it's 2010. Your point died centuries ago in organized political wars. Otherwise airport security would be looking for Monty Python. Hold on a moment; i'm confused. Was the Bible rewritten between then and now? I'm aware that of course there have been changes in language since then, but I didn't realise that it had been comprehensively altered in such a fashion. After all, such a massive change in overall religious theory - from one in which going to war and murdering pretty much guaranteed you heavenwards bound on your death - can only be the result of a change in what prophets said. If not, why, that would be proof that the entirety of a religion could change without the words and actions of a prophet changing.

We agree that both sides have fanatics who commit violence. Yet, those who do so and follow Muhammad are actually following his dictates or actions. Those who do so in Jesus' name are not. Which book is the worse of the two because of it? You mistake my point, I think. I suspect that, were I to ask those Islamic fanatics whether they were following the will of Mohammed, they'd say yes. But if I asked those Christian fanatics if they were following the will of Jesus, they, too, would say yes. If I asked both groups whether they were following their respective religious texts, they would both say yes.

If we presuppose that the Bible is much more peaceful and nice (which I would disagree with, but let's accept it for the sake of argument), then the answer to your question is that clearly neither book is the worse of the two, given that fanatics will happily ignore or twist the precepts of those books in order to do what they want to. Logically I suppose the alternative is that Christians are inherently more bloodthirsty and unpleasant, since Christian fanatics are able to do all sorts of nasty things which supposedly aren't Bible- or Jesus-based; or, perhaps, that Christians are inherently more dishonest and aren't actually Christians at all. I don't think i'd agree with either of those two last options.

Magiver
10-11-2010, 01:26 AM
To start with it's 2010. Your point died centuries ago in organized political wars. Otherwise airport security would be looking for Monty Python. Hold on a moment; i'm confused. Was the Bible rewritten between then and now? Jesus didn't write the bible. When someone fanatically follows his actions and whatever writings associated with him they are left with a fairly simple message. It is a different message for the followers of Mohammad.

You choose to ignore the proportionality of violence in this discussion as if it has no bearing. It has everything to do with the argument. If only X number of one religion espouses violence and 1000X of another religion does then it is logical to look at the differences between them for clues as to why the numbers are radically different.

To start with, We know it's a religious connection (and not someone belonging to the religion) when someone invokes God in the process. From there, we look at the codification that justifies such actions. Here we have a system of laws, written by Mohammad, that dictate a harsh response to blasphemy. This is followed by a prophet who acted on his own words.

It is logical that someone fanatically following Mohammad would emulate his rather severe view of non-believers.

Uzi
10-11-2010, 02:02 AM
You mistake my point, I think. I suspect that, were I to ask those Islamic fanatics whether they were following the will of Mohammed, they'd say yes. But if I asked those Christian fanatics if they were following the will of Jesus, they, too, would say yes. If I asked both groups whether they were following their respective religious texts, they would both say yes.

What they say isn't relevant. What is true is. You could say that Dr. Seuss teaches people that killing is a good thing, but would that be true? Of course not. Anyone who supposes that it is and acts upon it would be wrong. Does Jesus say to kill people? Nope. Does Muhammad? Yep. Is a person who follows Jesus and kills people a hypocrite? Yep. Someone who follows Muhammad? Depends.

If we presuppose that the Bible is much more peaceful and nice (which I would disagree with, but let's accept it for the sake of argument),

The OT is pretty bloodthirsty, but all three Judaic religions follow that book in its somewhat different forms. So, for the difference between Islam and Christianity, the only books to compare are the latter ones, the NT and the Quran (and their supporting documentation eg. the Hadiths for Islam). You're telling me honestly that you can't see the difference between them?

So, we're back to you deciding what other people believe about the book that holds their scriptures and then deciding, for them, how they are supposed to act on their beliefs--except that you want to pretend that your imposed interpretation has more reality for them than what they actually believe.

'The cat is black'. A simple statement that means the color of the cat is most likely black. Now you, and everyone else, can believe it means anything you want it to mean, but it doesn't make the cat any other color than black, now does it? And guys like Osama and the Islamic theocracies of the world are interpreting their religion as written and probably closer than those who gloss over the bad parts to get through their daily lives. Because the majority have (mis)interpreted (or more likely just ignored) the objectionable sayings in their book doesn't make them none existent, or mean other than what they actually do mean.

Their book and prophet says to kill guys like me because I don't believe in their delusion. I'm not a person of the book. That they mostly ignore those parts of their 'holy' book, I'm eternally grateful for. I feel sorry for those innocents who have to die because of those that don't ignore it.

Perhaps you will share with us your source for these penetrating insights?
I already have previously. Which means that you haven't read my cite then and I'm not bothering to post it again. Frankly, I've backed up my argument with citations and I've seen very little from the other side backing up their claims that both books are equal in the fluffy bunny department or even that people aren't influenced by their religions for good or bad. I'm not entirely sure why I should spend anymore time on the matter.

elucidator
10-11-2010, 02:18 AM
...If only X number of one religion espouses violence and 1000X of another religion does then it is logical to look at the differences between them for clues as to why the numbers are radically different. ...

You haven't quantified this, you don't have numbers. You're giving us an "everybody knows" data point, with nothing more behind it but your insistence that it is so.

Der Trihs
10-11-2010, 02:28 AM
Their book and prophet says to kill guys like me because I don't believe in their delusion. And Christianity also has a long history of conversion by the sword and the extermination of unbelievers. I live in a country that was founded on genocide and slavery in the name of Christ, by people who constantly used the Bible to justify their atrocities.

Does Islam encourage aggression against outsiders? Of course, that's what monotheisms are like. But there's nothing special about it; if you fear someone just because they have a religion that calls for the persecution of unbelievers and justifies their slaughter, you should be just as scared of Christians and Jews as you are of Muslims.

Magiver
10-11-2010, 02:38 AM
...If only X number of one religion espouses violence and 1000X of another religion does then it is logical to look at the differences between them for clues as to why the numbers are radically different. ...

You haven't quantified this, you don't have numbers. You're giving us an "everybody knows" data point, with nothing more behind it but your insistence that it is so. Yes, because acts of violence are prevalent enough to make such an assertion. We can extrapolate what will happen if someone publicly blasphemes any given religion based on what has already transpired.

Der Trihs
10-11-2010, 02:44 AM
You haven't quantified this, you don't have numbers. You're giving us an "everybody knows" data point, with nothing more behind it but your insistence that it is so. Yes, because acts of violence are prevalent enough to make such an assertion. We can extrapolate what will happen if someone publicly blasphemes any given religion based on what has already transpired.Meaning, as a rule, nothing. People blaspheme Islam all the time outside of Islamic theocracies, and nothing happens. Cherry picking a few oddball cases or pretending that every time some nominally Islamic guy* gets angry it's because of his alleged religion won't change that. Meanwhile you ignore all the attempts by Christian and other non-Islamic fanatics to persecute unbelievers and write their religion into law, apparently because they don't yell "Allah" while they do so.


* Whose Islamicness may consist of having an "Islamic-sounding" name and saying "Allah" when he stubs his toe.

Magiver
10-11-2010, 02:49 AM
Does Islam encourage aggression against outsiders? Of course, that's what monotheisms are like. But there's nothing special about it; if you fear someone just because they have a religion that calls for the persecution of unbelievers and justifies their slaughter, you should be just as scared of Christians and Jews as you are of Muslims. That is statistically not true. Cartoonists are hiding for fear of their lives. Movie directors have been murdered and book writers threatened over their work. 10 doctors were recently murdered in Afghanistan because people thought they were trying to convert Muslims and 6 people were burned to death over the mere idea of burning a Koran. We spend billions on airport security. All of this is due to Islamic extremists.

Magiver
10-11-2010, 02:55 AM
Yes, because acts of violence are prevalent enough to make such an assertion. We can extrapolate what will happen if someone publicly blasphemes any given religion based on what has already transpired.Meaning, as a rule, nothing. People blaspheme Islam all the time outside of Islamic theocracies, and nothing happens. Cherry picking a few oddball cases or pretending that every time some nominally Islamic guy* gets angry it's because of his alleged religion won't change that. Meanwhile you ignore all the attempts by Christian and other non-Islamic fanatics to persecute unbelievers and write their religion into law, apparently because they don't yell "Allah" while they do so.


* Whose Islamicness may consist of having an "Islamic-sounding" name and saying "Allah" when he stubs his toe. Why don't you test your theory and make a public sculpture of Mohammad out of manure.

Gyrate
10-11-2010, 05:08 AM
We spend billions on airport security. All of this is due to Islamic extremists.It's true - before 9/11 people could just swan onto airplanes carrying shotguns and chainsaws if they wanted.

Der Trihs
10-11-2010, 06:54 AM
Does Islam encourage aggression against outsiders? Of course, that's what monotheisms are like. But there's nothing special about it; if you fear someone just because they have a religion that calls for the persecution of unbelievers and justifies their slaughter, you should be just as scared of Christians and Jews as you are of Muslims. That is statistically not true. Cartoonists are hiding for fear of their lives. Movie directors have been murdered and book writers threatened over their work. 10 doctors were recently murdered in Afghanistan because people thought they were trying to convert Muslims and 6 people were burned to death over the mere idea of burning a Koran. We spend billions on airport security. And doctors are murdered in America, gays are assaulted and murdered in America, Uganda is set to start an anti-homosexual genocide in the name of Christianity, AIDS is spreading in the name of the Christian war against condoms, and so on. And the entire American side of the Cold War with all its atrocities had a strong Christian holy war aspect; we were fighting godless Communism, which meant any evil we committed was automatically forgiven. The Iraq war also had a strong Christian crusader tinge.

All of this is due to Islamic extremists.And Christian extremists are just as brutal when they can get away with it. And airport security is more about security theater and harassing people the Bush Administration didn't like than a serious effort against terrorism, Islamic or otherwise.

Der Trihs
10-11-2010, 06:57 AM
Why don't you test your theory and make a public sculpture of Mohammad out of manure. If I did, I'd be more likely to be attacked by a Christian because of it than some Islamic guy.

Uzi
10-11-2010, 10:04 AM
It's true - before 9/11 people could just swan onto airplanes carrying shotguns and chainsaws if they wanted.
:rolleyes:

And airport security is more about security theater and harassing people the Bush Administration didn't like than a serious effort against terrorism, Islamic or otherwise.

They are spending more money now than before BECAUSE of Islamic nutbars. Whether it is useful or not is another matter entirely. Stop being obtuse it doesn't help your other arguments.

Uzi
10-11-2010, 10:12 AM
If I did, I'd be more likely to be attacked by a Christian because of it than some Islamic guy.

Sure, because you live in a primarily Christian country. The bozo who wanted to burn the Quran was more likely to be hurt by Christians, too. And yet the only people hurt in this whole fiasco were ones by Muslims on the other side of the planet as indicated by Magiver.

Magiver
10-11-2010, 01:43 PM
We spend billions on airport security. All of this is due to Islamic extremists.It's true - before 9/11 people could just swan onto airplanes carrying shotguns and chainsaws if they wanted. That statement makes no sense at all.

magellan01
10-11-2010, 02:16 PM
It's true - before 9/11 people could just swan onto airplanes carrying shotguns and chainsaws if they wanted. That statement makes no sense at all.

My guess is that he trying to make the point that since before 9/11 people could not go on to airplanes carrying shotguns and chainsaws, we must have been spending something to prevent that. So you can't attribute every dollar of the "billions" you mentioned, "all", to Islamic extremists.

Either that or the cat was playing on his keyboard.

I did like his use of "swan" as a verb, though. Very nice.

Revenant Threshold
10-11-2010, 06:42 PM
Hold on a moment; i'm confused. Was the Bible rewritten between then and now? Jesus didn't write the bible. When someone fanatically follows his actions and whatever writings associated with him they are left with a fairly simple message. It is a different message for the followers of Mohammad. Really? Then you would be a believer of the alternatives I suggested; that Christian fanatics are either inherently more bloodthirsty or inherently more deceitful. Because there do seem to be Christian fanatics who espouse rather unpleasant views; if the message is so simple, how else would you explain the number of Christians who do not follow it and yet claim to?
You choose to ignore the proportionality of violence in this discussion as if it has no bearing. It has everything to do with the argument. If only X number of one religion espouses violence and 1000X of another religion does then it is logical to look at the differences between them for clues as to why the numbers are radically different. To the contrary, i'd argue you've missed a trick as regards proportionality. It's not simply proportionality of violence, but a lack of proportionality of tone of violence. That is to say, your argument as I understand it is that the Bible is generally a much more peaceful and pleasant text than the Koran; likewise from them our understanding of respective prophets. But that would only explain actual proportionality of tone of violence; that is to say, when the degree of violence espoused is different, we should expect that difference to reflect in their followers, but a difference in followers doesn't follow when it's not a degree of violence that's different, but acts in and of themselves that are different.

To try and put it quantitatively, let's imagine Jesus says that murder is ok under a strict set of circumstances. Mohammed says that murder is ok under half as stringent circumstances. Let's presume followers are logical people, that the message is understood and agreed on by all concerned as that. We would expect that followers of Jesus would, generally speaking, commit half as many murders as followers of Mohammed; this, as I understand it, is bascially the point you're making; proportionally speaking, Christian fanatics are generally less violent than Muslim fanatics, hence we can work backwards and guess that this is a result of the words and actions of their respective prophets. But - and you may have already noted the problem here - this requires that Jesus says murder is ok. But if we change the situation - to Jesus no longer saying murder is ok at all - we now have an inexplicable situation of there being Christian murderers. Where have they come from? Difference in tone doesn't explain difference in acts. And if we are to accept that we cannot judge the actions of followers by actions of prophets, then the entire system comes into question - what if we're talking correlation and not causation?To start with, We know it's a religious connection (and not someone belonging to the religion) when someone invokes God in the process. That's actually incorrect. All we know from someone invoking a deity is that that person believes there to be a religious connection.
From there, we look at the codification that justifies such actions. Here we have a system of laws, written by Mohammad, that dictate a harsh response to blasphemy. This is followed by a prophet who acted on his own words. Alright, let's do this. Fred Phelps invokes God. Let's look at the codification that justifies such actions. Please, point out the sections of the Bible and/or Jesus' words which condone, let's say, the murder of gays, and acted on those words.

It is logical that someone fanatically following Jesus would emulate him, after all. It is logical that someone fanatically following Mohammad would emulate his rather severe view of non-believers. Only if they agree with your understanding. And, beyond that, i'm not sure i'd hold up your average fanatic as being particularly logical.

Revenant Threshold
10-11-2010, 06:57 PM
You mistake my point, I think. I suspect that, were I to ask those Islamic fanatics whether they were following the will of Mohammed, they'd say yes. But if I asked those Christian fanatics if they were following the will of Jesus, they, too, would say yes. If I asked both groups whether they were following their respective religious texts, they would both say yes.

What they say isn't relevant. What is true is. You're partially correct. What is relevant, in the end, is not what they say or what is true, but what they believe is true. And that belief is grounded in their understanding of their respective religions. Which, suprisingly enough, is not immutable nor objective. Look at us, disagreeing on this subject; doesn't the fact that we're having a debate at all prove that people have different interpretations of the world? Of course, you will say that what your understanding is accurate and true, but so would I. So where is the important part of interpretation - is it the world, or is it us? You could say that Dr. Seuss teaches people that killing is a good thing, but would that be true? Of course not. Nonsense. Anything can teach anything. That's the miracle of interpretation. You have someone who desperately believes something, as fanatics are wont to do, and they will see support for that in the most innocuous sources. Anyone who supposes that it is and acts upon it would be wrong. Does Jesus say to kill people? Nope. Does Muhammad? Yep. Is a person who follows Jesus and kills people a hypocrite? Yep. Someone who follows Muhammad? Depends. Only based on your interpretations. Some people apparently disagree. Whose word should I, as a non-reader of most of the Bible and Koran, take? Because I imagine fanatics claim they follow their religious texts and leaders pretty well, and would declare you to be wrong. Who do I trust has their interpretations right?The OT is pretty bloodthirsty, but all three Judaic religions follow that book in its somewhat different forms. So, for the difference between Islam and Christianity, the only books to compare are the latter ones, the NT and the Quran (and their supporting documentation eg. the Hadiths for Islam). You're telling me honestly that you can't see the difference between them? I haven't read much of the Koran, in all honesty. I have read more of the Bible, but still a minor amount of the entirety of it. Generally what parts of the Koran I have read have taken the form of "Hey, look at these quotes that show how bad it is!" lists, of which I don't see much difference between parts of the Bible and it, no.

Revenant Threshold
10-11-2010, 06:58 PM
If I did, I'd be more likely to be attacked by a Christian because of it than some Islamic guy.

Sure, because you live in a primarily Christian country. The bozo who wanted to burn the Quran was more likely to be hurt by Christians, too. And yet the only people hurt in this whole fiasco were ones by Muslims on the other side of the planet as indicated by Magiver. Really? How would you know that? I can certainly see bullying, both of Muslims and Christians, being performed as a result of that event.

Uzi
10-11-2010, 10:18 PM
Really? How would you know that? I can certainly see bullying, both of Muslims and Christians, being performed as a result of that event.

We are talking about the 6 people (Magiver's statement) who were killed because of the Quran burning that never happened. I wonder how many would have been killed if it had actually occurred?

Magiver
10-11-2010, 10:27 PM
To the contrary, i'd argue you've missed a trick as regards proportionality. It's not simply proportionality of violence, but a lack of proportionality of tone of violence. That is to say, your argument as I understand it is that the Bible is generally a much more peaceful and pleasant text than the Koran; likewise from them our understanding of respective prophets. But that would only explain actual proportionality of tone of violence; that is to say, when the degree of violence espoused is different, we should expect that difference to reflect in their followers, but a difference in followers doesn't follow when it's not a degree of violence that's different, but acts in and of themselves that are different.
No, you don't understand. Jesus did not write the Bible. There are passages in the New Testament that are attributed to his teachings. His teachings and way of life differ greatly from that of Mohammad and it correlates with how fanatics view the world.

To try and put it quantitatively, let's imagine Jesus says that murder is ok under a strict set of circumstances. Mohammed says that murder is ok under half as stringent circumstances. If we're imaging stuff then we might as well discuss Elvis.

Alright, let's do this. Fred Phelps invokes God. Let's look at the codification that justifies such actions. Please, point out the sections of the Bible and/or Jesus' words which condone, let's say, the murder of gays, and acted on those words.

Fred Phelps hasn't killed anybody so his actions are in line with his religion. For whatever links he's found in the bible to homosexuality he is still stuck with a roll model who didn't kill people.

tomndebb
10-11-2010, 11:07 PM
So, we're back to you deciding what other people believe about the book that holds their scriptures and then deciding, for them, how they are supposed to act on their beliefs--except that you want to pretend that your imposed interpretation has more reality for them than what they actually believe.
'The cat is black'. A simple statement that means the color of the cat is most likely black. Now you, and everyone else, can believe it means anything you want it to mean, but it doesn't make the cat any other color than black, now does it? And guys like Osama and the Islamic theocracies of the world are interpreting their religion as written and probably closer than those who gloss over the bad parts to get through their daily lives. Because the majority have (mis)interpreted (or more likely just ignored) the objectionable sayings in their book doesn't make them none existent, or mean other than what they actually do mean.

Their book and prophet says to kill guys like me because I don't believe in their delusion. I'm not a person of the book. That they mostly ignore those parts of their 'holy' book, I'm eternally grateful for. I feel sorry for those innocents who have to die because of those that don't ignore it.You are being silly and you are failing to support your claim.

You claim that the Qur'an orders Muslims to "kill guys like" you, based on your interpretation of extracted sentences from four suras (out of 114 suras) that you take out of context and interpret a particular way and then insist that your interpretation is the same as the declarative sentence "The cat is black." Yet, not even bin Laden has ever claimed that those suras justify or even encourage the killing of every unbeliever. That is something that you simply invent to support your odd interpretation. There are contexts for the statements that you quote and the context makes clear that your interpretation is nonsense and that your claim that they are simply black-and-white declarations is without foundation.

As I noted earlier, your argument is exactly the same as saying that the bible claims that money is the root of all evil. You can find those words in the bible, but a reading of the actual passage indicates that anyone who holds a belief in that claim is either ignorantly or willfully misreading the passage.

elucidator
10-11-2010, 11:15 PM
The Scriptures clearly condemn French Impressionism, explicitly so in the passage about the love of Monet being the root of all evil.

Magiver
10-11-2010, 11:51 PM
You are being silly and you are failing to support your claim.

You claim that the Qur'an orders Muslims to "kill guys like" you, based on your interpretation of extracted sentences from four suras (out of 114 suras) that you take out of context and interpret a particular way and then insist that your interpretation is the same as the declarative sentence "The cat is black." Yet, not even bin Laden has ever claimed that those suras justify or even encourage the killing of every unbeliever. . We have a documented history of Muslims invoking the name of Allah while committing terrorist acts. The acts are linked to the religion.

You claim that 4 out of 114 writings are misinterpreted. To start with, you attempted to minimalize the 4 sjras by showing they are a small percentage of the entire compilation. That is a nice debate tactic but it doesn’t mean the 4 siras have no meaning or were inaccurate. You are free to argue your opinion of what the suras mean but when all is said and done, it is the opinion of those who commit the acts in the name of Allah that matter. The 4 siras are not in conflict with Mohammad's actions.

Magiver
10-11-2010, 11:56 PM
The Scriptures clearly condemn French Impressionism, explicitly so in the passage about the love of Monet being the root of all evil. yes, and Vincent Van Gogh would talk your ear off about religion. What's your point?

elucidator
10-12-2010, 12:36 AM
Well, aren't you a fun guy.

My point, which I will reiterate, is that you put a lot of potency in the original avatar of a religious tradition, a nearly supernatural influence that you support with your insistence that it is so. While I won't deny that it is reasonable to assume that followers of a religion may seek to emulate the founder, this is by no means certain. Jesus was very pacifistic, his followers may well be expected to be pacifistic, except when they aren't, in which instances they are as bloodthirsty as any other group of people.

Your firm principle of human behavior may as well be magic, in the sense that sometimes the magic works, and sometimes it doesn't. Having little else, you insist that we respect this compelling principle as if it were established fact. Well, tell you what, you establish the fact and then, perhaps, we might.

Point enough?

tomndebb
10-12-2010, 12:38 AM
We have a documented history of Muslims invoking the name of Allah while committing terrorist acts. The acts are linked to the religion.Yeah, so? I don't know anyone who denies that there are Muslim fanatics running around being terrorists. We also have a whole lot of history of even more Muslims actually behaving quite peacefully, refraining from killing people when they were able to do so and demonstrating no desire to kill people.

Uzi's weird claim (that you enjoy sharing) is that the book tells them to go out and kill all unbelievers (along with a number of other people). That, however, is only Uzi's interpretation. He carefully ignores or distorts the ways in which the book is actually written and actually is read by its adherents, then Uzi makes the false claim that the book says one thing that is merely his own personal interpretation--an interpretation that is not actually shared by even the most fanatical zealots of that religion.

Uzi's claim is false and his logic is based on his own need to interpret other people's beliefs for them.
You simply want to hate some vague creation of your own that you assign the name "Islam," invoking history when it suits you, then denying history when it fails to support you--which is most of the time.

Monty
10-12-2010, 03:22 AM
To whoever it was who mentioned that Jesus didn't write any of the Bible: Well, Muhammed didn't write the Qur'an. That particular tome was put in written form after the man's death.

Magiver
10-12-2010, 03:59 AM
To whoever it was who mentioned that Jesus didn't write any of the Bible: Well, Muhammed didn't write the Qur'an. That particular tome was put in written form after the man's death. Mohammad dictated it to his scribes while he was alive.

Rune
10-12-2010, 05:23 AM
Mohammad dictated it to his scribes while he was alive.If he existed. There doesn’t seem to be any reliable sources than mention him until 200 years after his supposed death.

Gyrate
10-12-2010, 05:58 AM
My point, which I will reiterate, is that you put a lot of potency in the original avatar of a religious tradition, a nearly supernatural influence that you support with your insistence that it is so. While I won't deny that it is reasonable to assume that followers of a religion may seek to emulate the founder, this is by no means certain. Jesus was very pacifistic, his followers may well be expected to be pacifistic, except when they aren't, in which instances they are as bloodthirsty as any other group of people.

Your firm principle of human behavior may as well be magic, in the sense that sometimes the magic works, and sometimes it doesn't. Having little else, you insist that we respect this compelling principle as if it were established fact. Well, tell you what, you establish the fact and then, perhaps, we might.

Point enough?What you're missing is that what Magiver is presenting is the refined form of the ongoing argument of some on this board of Why Muslims Are All Evil. Having failed to demonstrate that Muslims have been historically significantly more violent than Christians (or indeed many other religions), or that Muslims are the leaders in modern terrorism or even that the peaceful Muslims are in favor of occasionally killing innocent people in the name of Allah, he has finally found a basis for comparison he can use without immediate failure: Mohammed was definitely a more violent guy than Jesus.

Whether this argument actually means anything is another thing entirely.

Monty
10-12-2010, 08:43 AM
To whoever it was who mentioned that Jesus didn't write any of the Bible: Well, Muhammed didn't write the Qur'an. That particular tome was put in written form after the man's death. Mohammad dictated it to his scribes while he was alive.

Well, he dictated something (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an) to scribes; however, the compilation and standardization happened long after Muhammed's death. Evidently, there was a variety of books accepted by the early believers to have been a record of Muhammed's revelation.

Uzi
10-12-2010, 08:55 AM
Uzi's weird claim (that you enjoy sharing) is that the book tells them to go out and kill all unbelievers (along with a number of other people). That, however, is only Uzi's interpretation. He carefully ignores or distorts the ways in which the book is actually written and actually is read by its adherents, then Uzi makes the false claim that the book says one thing that is merely his own personal interpretation--an interpretation that is not actually shared by even the most fanatical zealots of that religion

If I made the claim that they must kill all unbelievers, or gave that impression, then I am sorry. They are only required to kill unbelievers in certain circumstances that they determine are appropriate. Usually in some form of 'defense' of themselves or their religion. The term defense Muhammad himself uses very loosely. It includes a proactive component that allowed him to wipe out the third Jewish tribe.

Also, the argument that what the majority of a religions followers do and how they interpret their book doesn't mean they are following their religion as the book actually says, or how the prophet expected it to be followed. You can claim that I have misinterpreted those suras, but I've yet to see any proof on your part, well, other than your hand waving, that I have done so.

Magiver
10-12-2010, 10:55 AM
Mohammad dictated it to his scribes while he was alive.

Well, he dictated something (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an) to scribes; however, the compilation and standardization happened long after Muhammed's death. Evidently, there was a variety of books accepted by the early believers to have been a record of Muhammed's revelation. Your goal post is growing feet.

Magiver
10-12-2010, 11:04 AM
What you're missing is that what Magiver is presenting is the refined form of the ongoing argument of some on this board of Why Muslims Are All Evil. Having failed to demonstrate that Muslims have been historically significantly more violent than Christians (or indeed many other religions), or that Muslims are the leaders in modern terrorism or even that the peaceful Muslims are in favor of occasionally killing innocent people in the name of Allah, he has finally found a basis for comparison he can use without immediate failure: Mohammed was definitely a more violent guy than Jesus.

Whether this argument actually means anything is another thing entirely.

Nobody is arguing that Muslims are all Evil. The only thing evil is this kind of rhetoric in a debate forum. There is a serious problem with violence associated with the religion. It generates far more violent reactions to blasphemy or criticism than other religions in this time period.

Magiver
10-12-2010, 11:06 AM
What you're missing is that what Magiver is presenting is the refined form of the ongoing argument of some on this board of Why Muslims Are All Evil. Having failed to demonstrate that Muslims have been historically significantly more violent than Christians (or indeed many other religions), or that Muslims are the leaders in modern terrorism or even that the peaceful Muslims are in favor of occasionally killing innocent people in the name of Allah, he has finally found a basis for comparison he can use without immediate failure: Mohammed was definitely a more violent guy than Jesus.

Whether this argument actually means anything is another thing entirely.

Nobody is arguing that Muslims are all Evil. The only thing evil is this kind of rhetoric in a debate forum. There is a serious problem with violence associated with the religion. It generates far more violent reactions to blasphemy or criticism than other religions in this time period.

Magiver
10-12-2010, 11:14 AM
Mohammad dictated it to his scribes while he was alive.If he existed. There doesn’t seem to be any reliable sources than mention him until 200 years after his supposed death.
best of luck convincing a billion Muslims that.

Monty
10-12-2010, 03:15 PM
Well, he dictated something (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an) to scribes; however, the compilation and standardization happened long after Muhammed's death. Evidently, there was a variety of books accepted by the early believers to have been a record of Muhammed's revelation. Your goal post is growing feet.

Keep posting bull here. I'd love for this thread to be moved to the Pit.

Magiver
10-12-2010, 05:46 PM
Your goal post is growing feet.

Keep posting bull here. I'd love for this thread to be moved to the Pit. You posted a cite showing that Mohammad dictated the Koran. This is in contrast to your statement that]Muhammed didn't write the Qur'an so pit yourself.

Monty
10-12-2010, 06:47 PM
Which was it, he wrote it or he didn't write it? The moronic position is that he did both. That's clearly impossible.

Uzi
10-12-2010, 06:56 PM
Does it matter? Believers think it was derived from God no matter how it actually made it onto paper.

Magiver
10-12-2010, 06:57 PM
Which was it, he wrote it or he didn't write it? The moronic position is that he did both. That's clearly impossible. He clearly dictated his words while he was alive, therefore he wrote it. If you want to say that his words weren't directly inscribed by his hand as part of an argument over whether he is the author then make a case for it. The Koran is a product of Mohammad and was created during his lifetime through his dictation.

Uzi
10-12-2010, 07:24 PM
My understanding is that what was written was edited or compiled after his death with more editing and deletions of the Hadiths on numerous occasions throughout the years. The Hadiths themselves have different levels of authority depending on which sect a person follows, too.

tomndebb
10-12-2010, 09:01 PM
If I made the claim that they must kill all unbelievers, or gave that impression, then I am sorry. They are only required to kill unbelievers in certain circumstances that they determine are appropriate. Usually in some form of 'defense' of themselves or their religion. The term defense Muhammad himself uses very loosely. It includes a proactive component that allowed him to wipe out the third Jewish tribe.You're back to interpreting things that other people are supposed to believe. The words of the book only talk about killing in an act of defense. If you want to make a case that the original Muslims were aggressive in their behavior, have at it, but then stop pretending that that is what the book says.

Also, the argument that what the majority of a religions followers do and how they interpret their book doesn't mean they are following their religion as the book actually says, or how the prophet expected it to be followed. You can claim that I have misinterpreted those suras, but I've yet to see any proof on your part, well, other than your hand waving, that I have done so.I'm not going to get into another round of your game-playing. The evidence that the violent suras were written in the context of defense was provided long ago in this thread by other posters and you are the one who is waving your hands while you change topics back and forth between what the book says and how you interpet Mohammed's behavior.

I have made no argument regarding whether modern Muslims are or are not following their religion appropriately. I have pointed out, in the context of information that was provided earlier, that your claim regarding killing unbelievers does not match anyone else's interpretation, (other than a few hate-Islam web sites).

Uzi
10-12-2010, 09:26 PM
You're back to interpreting things that other people are supposed to believe. The words of the book only talk about killing in an act of defense. If you want to make a case that the original Muslims were aggressive in their behavior, have at it, but then stop pretending that that is what the book says.

I'm not pretending. It is quite clear that Muhammad attacked and slaughtered a tribe that was not attacking him. His interpretation of defense is to kill those who may attack him in the future. You are the one avoiding the correct interpretation that 'defense' is whatever suits the moment.

The evidence that the violent suras were written in the context of defense was provided long ago in this thread by other posters and you are the one who is waving your hands while you change topics back and forth between what the book says and how you interpet Mohammed's behavior.

The only evidence provided was by me supporting my view. There has been none from anyone else to refute it. You claim the sites I've quoted are 'hate' sites, but I've seen little evidence of it. They are interpreting the words of the prophet, not warping them. If that is hateful then any criticism falls under that category. Are you saying that religions are above criticism? Maybe that is why you can't see the forest for the trees. You've done the same thing in other threads, too. Religion isn't a cause, it is just a coincidence.

I have made no argument regarding whether modern Muslims are or are not following their religion appropriately. I have pointed out, in the context of information that was provided earlier, that your claim regarding killing unbelievers does not match anyone else's interpretation, (other than a few hate-Islam web sites).

Anyone else's? I'm sure that many people wished that their were not such words in their holy book and want to explain them away in the nicest light rather in the reality of what they actually mean. It is understandable. Yet, I've asked before, why not remove them entirely and avoid the misunderstandings completely? Either it is the entire word of god, or it is just a bunch of made up stuff. If the latter, then no harm to remove it. If the former, then there is always someone willing to follow the letter of the law in god's name.

elucidator
10-12-2010, 10:25 PM
Basically, you are suggesting that religious people regard their holy texts with the same indifference as an atheist, as something to be amended or discarded as convenience demands. Rational, but not reasonable.

Uzi
10-12-2010, 10:40 PM
That is what tomndebb is suggesting with his view that people do things for almost any reason other than for religion. I'm saying that if people actually believe in this crap it is likely that it will influence their actions good and bad. And if their prophet condones acts of violence then it is likely that, at least sometimes, those actions will occur for no other reason than that.
He may say that I'm misinterpreting the Quran, but both of us are saying this with the benefit of a western education where people are taught to be critical. What does the person with minimal education and few critical thinking skills think when his Imam tells him to stone some woman because his religion demands it? He relies on what others tell him and not much else. Where does the Imam get his information from? His holy book and the supporting documentation, his religious upbringing, and his culture. In many cases they are one and the same.
Most of these debates we tend to end up arguing absolutes when things are not always so black and white. To think otherwise is naive, but that is the nature of the board.

elucidator
10-12-2010, 10:48 PM
The naivete of the Board is primarily evidenced by our refusal to agree with your hard-headed realism. I ask you, have you ever met a cynic that didn't think of himself as a hard-headed realist?

tomndebb
10-12-2010, 11:09 PM
What does the person with minimal education and few critical thinking skills think when his Imam tells him to stone some woman because his religion demands it? He relies on what others tell him and not much else. Where does the Imam get his information from? His holy book and the supporting documentation, his religious upbringing, and his culture. In many cases they are one and the same.So, here you are noting that some hypothetical imam is basing his violent beliefs on outside readings and culture, yet you still want to claim that it is the book that is the root of the problem, (because you wish to claim that "in many [uncited and unsubstantiated] cases they are one and the same").

(In this case, it should be noted that stoning is not specified anywhere in the Qur'an and an imam proposing it is not following the word of the Qur'an, at all.)

Uzi
10-13-2010, 01:03 AM
(In this case, it should be noted that stoning is not specified anywhere in the Qur'an and an imam proposing it is not following the word of the Qur'an, at all.)

There is no point in arguing with you. You have little to no knowledge of Islam at all. From the Hadiths (which are used to interpret the Quran as has been pointed out many times to you). Note the "prophet said". I don't know why I bother as you'll just ignore it anyways.

Muslim 623 The Prophet said: "It is not permissible to take the life of a Muslim except in one of the three cases: the married adulterer, a life for a life, and the deserter of Islam."

Muslim 680 The Prophet said: "When an unmarried couple fornicate they should receive one hundred lashes and banishment for one year. In the cases of a married male committing adultery with a married female, they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned to death. If one of the pair is unmarried, one hundred lashes and exile for a year.

Muslim 682 The Prophet said: "Do not stone the adulteress who is pregnant until she has had her child." After the birth she was put into a ditch up to her chest and the Prophet commanded them to stone her. Khalid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and he cursed her. The gentle Prophet prayed over her and she was buried.

Monty
10-13-2010, 03:28 AM
How do you explain those wars between Muslim countries, then, if Muslims are so hepped on following the Hadiths to the extreme?

Uzi
10-13-2010, 09:03 AM
Because they didn't? Kind of like those Christians who kill each other in droves, too?

The world isn't black and white, kind of like I had posted only two posts ago. It is funny how people are misinterpreting things I write, yet I am the one who is misinterpreting the Quran...

tomndebb
10-13-2010, 12:57 PM
(In this case, it should be noted that stoning is not specified anywhere in the Qur'an and an imam proposing it is not following the word of the Qur'an, at all.)

There is no point in arguing with you. You have little to no knowledge of Islam at all. From the Hadiths (which are used to interpret the Quran as has been pointed out many times to you). Note the "prophet said". I don't know why I bother as you'll just ignore it anyways.So, I note that stoning does not appear in the Qur'an. You point to some hadiths, (many of which are challenged by various differing Mulsim groups), to find references to stoning. Then you want to claim that I am going to "ignore" you.

I think the verb you wanted to use was "dismiss," not "ignore." You are jumping around from your argument that the Qur'an says that unbelievers may be killed, (when the explicit text is in the context of one particular battle), to claims that an imam who follows particular hadiths, (and not others), is following the Qur'an. You make up whatever you want, on the fly. ::: shrug :::

Magiver
10-13-2010, 03:40 PM
So, I note that stoning does not appear in the Qur'an. You point to some hadiths, (many of which are challenged by various differing Mulsim groups), to find references to stoning.
I don't understand your argument. Stoning is one method of punishment. All Islamic law is derived from Sharia law which leads back to one person, Mohammad. How it is carried out is secondary to the origins of the laws.

tomndebb
10-13-2010, 07:03 PM
So, I note that stoning does not appear in the Qur'an. You point to some hadiths, (many of which are challenged by various differing Mulsim groups), to find references to stoning.
I don't understand your argument. Stoning is one method of punishment. All Islamic law is derived from Sharia law which leads back to one person, Mohammad. How it is carried out is secondary to the origins of the laws.Uzi, who has made a big deal about Muslims following the Qur'an, made a claim about an imam stating that a person needed to be stoned. Nowhere in the Qur'an is there a passage that prescribes stoning for a punishment. There are a small number of passages in the hadith where stoning is prescribed, but, (despite the externally tagged "The Prophet said:" that was affixed to a number of passages by some later person), anyone who proposes that a person be stoned is not following the Qur'an and we have no idea whether they are really following Mohammed.

When it is convenient for Uzi to point to the Qur'an, (even if he has to truncate some passages), he points to the Qur'an and when it is convenient, he points to later traditions and insists that they orginated with Mohammed.

= = =

And, of course, you are repeating the false claim about Sharia that is popular among various Islam bashing groups. Sharia simply means a philosophy of law. There is no (one) Sharia. There are numerous examples of Sharia that often conflict on specific points. The versions of Sharia that get trotted out as examples of "bad" Islamic law tend to be the culturally derived versions that are most barbaric while the versions of Sharia that were promulgated under more sophisticated cultures are generally dismissed by the bashers as "not really Sharia." Anyone who talks about Sharia as though it was one monolithic system of codified law is simply displaying ignorance of the topic.

Uzi
10-13-2010, 07:19 PM
There are a small number of passages in the hadith where stoning is prescribed, but, (despite the externally tagged "The Prophet said:" that was affixed to a number of passages by some later person), anyone who proposes that a person be stoned is not following the Qur'an and we have no idea whether they are really following Mohammed.

When it is convenient for Uzi to point to the Qur'an, (even if he has to truncate some passages), he points to the Qur'an and when it is convenient, he points to later traditions and insists that they orginated with Mohammed.

Man, there is really no point. The Hadiths are what are used to determine how to interpret the Quran and as a way to flesh out what Muhammad really wanted. They go hand in hand with the Quran. You ignore the evidence even when the Hadiths in question are considered reliable by Islamic scholars themselves.
And how many passages do you want to refer to a specific practice for it to be valid in your world? Should there be an entire volume dedicated to stoning for it to be worth even bringing up? That people follow the practice because of their religion should be proof enough that someone somewhere is taking their religion at its word. But, nooo, they must be interpreting it wrong because it isn't practiced that way in New York, or London, or another civilized place where they know how to interpret the religion 'properly'.

Magiver
10-13-2010, 07:36 PM
And, of course, you are repeating the false claim about Sharia that is popular among various Islam bashing groups. Sharia simply means a philosophy of law. There is no (one) Sharia. There are numerous examples of Sharia that often conflict on specific points. The versions of Sharia that get trotted out as examples of "bad" Islamic law tend to be the culturally derived versions that are most barbaric while the versions of Sharia that were promulgated under more sophisticated cultures are generally dismissed by the bashers as "not really Sharia." Anyone who talks about Sharia as though it was one monolithic system of codified law is simply displaying ignorance of the topic. Are you really suggesting sharia law is not based on the writings of Mohammad?

tomndebb
10-13-2010, 07:37 PM
But, nooo, they must be interpreting it wrong because it isn't practiced that way in New York, or London, or another civilized place where they know how to interpret the religion 'properly'.I have made no claim that any particular imam or Muslim is interpreting anything in the wrong way.

You have repeatedly asserted that Muslims follow various ideas directly from the Qur'an. When it is pointed out that the ideas you claim they are following are not actually in the Qur'an, then you change the topic or the "evidence."

Clearly, there are Muslims who engage in stoning and there are Muslims who are quite happy to murder unbelievers. I have never denied those situations.

You are the one who insists that they engage in those behaviors because they are following the book and then jump and shuck and jive when it is pointed out that they are not actually following the book but some later interpretation by someone other than Mohammed. Their actions might very well be well within one tradition or another of Muslim belief, but your claim that they are following the Qur'an fails.

tomndebb
10-13-2010, 07:48 PM
Are you really suggesting sharia law is not based on the writings of Mohammad?I am pointing out the straight dope that Sharia is a concept of applying Islamic belief to law that has multiple traditions and any claim that there is simply one set of codified Sharia that anyone and everyone can point to as "Sharia" is made up nonsense by people who don't know what they are talking about.

"Based on the" (nonexistent) "writings of Mohammed" has no meaning. Different flavors of Sharia are based on separate readings of the Qur'an plus the hadiths plus other writings in the context of the cultures in which the texts were being written. All Muslims hope that the flavor of Sharia to which they adhere (or on which they philosophize) are based on the teachings of Mohammed, just as Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin hope that their writings are based on the teachings of Jesus. In each case, however, it is up to the readers of those authors to determine how well they achieved their goals. Pretending that Sharia is a single set of laws that can be traced without interruption or diversion directly to Mohammed fails on the two points that Sharia is not a single set of codified laws and that there are multiple and conflicting versions of it extant.

Monty
10-13-2010, 08:52 PM
Let me get this straight. We should be worried about Muslims because they adhere strictly to commands of violence against non-Muslims. And the reason they do that is because their religious books command that. But at the same time, their religious books command them to not conduct violence against other Muslims and since they're so strict about obeying the religious books they should be following this too. Well, that sure sets me straight.

But I still don't understand how they can be doing all that violence against non-Muslims, in obedience to their religious tomes, when they're too busy conducting wars, violence you know, against other Muslims. Can you clear that up for me?

Oh, yes, and where is all this violence against non-Muslims happening and how often does it happen? Given the approximate one billion Muslims on the planet at the moment, one would think that there'd be non-Muslims dropping like flies everywhere and every day, especially since Muslims happen to be everywhere.

Magiver
10-14-2010, 12:45 AM
Clearly, there are Muslims who engage in stoning and there are Muslims who are quite happy to murder unbelievers. I have never denied those situations.
Clearly there are. And they are following their beliefs based on the words and actions of Mohammad.

Uzi
10-14-2010, 01:00 AM
Let me get this straight. We should be worried about Muslims because they adhere strictly to commands of violence against non-Muslims. And the reason they do that is because their religious books command that. But at the same time, their religious books command them to not conduct violence against other Muslims and since they're so strict about obeying the religious books they should be following this too. Well, that sure sets me straight.

We should be worried that there is a book out there, and for tomndebb's understanding, important supporting documents that condones certain god derived violent actions that some follow more closely than others. And if you want to rate that book compared to other such books, I'm quite willing to say one is worse than the other. I have supported my claims with facts that support my contention that some people follow the book very closely and by doing so they are following the actions of their prophet. Whether that be Saudi, Pakistan, or even Indonesia. The influence of fundamentalist Islam isn't very good for the people who have to live under it and worse for those who aren't followers. Fundamentalist Islam is attempting to follow the religion as closely as possible. Muhammad condoned stoning, so stoning is followed in certain areas. If he explicitly said stoning was wrong, it would be highly unlikely that it would be practiced by Muslims at all.

That the majority of Muslims ignore the more odious sections of their holy book, is not surprising as the majority of Christians pretty much ignore their book, too. Most people are Christians or Muslims in name only and go through the motions because of family, culture and societal pressures. Luck for all the rest of us that it is so.

Magiver
10-14-2010, 01:09 AM
Let me get this straight. We should be worried about Muslims because they adhere strictly to commands of violence against non-Muslims. We are worried about radical Muslims because of all the attacks that have occurred and artists threatened.

Monty
10-14-2010, 01:27 AM
Well, what about the radical Christians who use their religious writings to justify their murders, the radical Hindus who use their religious writings to justify their attacks on others, etc.?

Look, the Qur'an isn't the problem. If it were, then those who adhere so strictly to its precepts (according to you) to kill non-Muslims would also adhere strictly to its precepts against killing Muslims. Obviously, since there is Muslim-on-Muslim violence, including actual wars between Muslim countries, this isn't the case.

Take a hint from tomndebb and identify the actual cause of the violence. That way you'll not show your ignorance.

Gyrate
10-14-2010, 06:08 AM
Clearly, there are Muslims who engage in stoning and there are Muslims who are quite happy to murder unbelievers. I have never denied those situations.
Clearly there are. And they are following their beliefs based on the words and actions of Mohammad.So saith Magiver: all bad things Muslims do are because they're just following Mohammed, all good things Muslims do are because they aren't, and all bad things people of other religions do are irrelevant.

Can I issue a fatwa against confirmation bias?

Magiver
10-14-2010, 01:49 PM
Clearly there are. And they are following their beliefs based on the words and actions of Mohammad.So saith Magiver: all bad things Muslims do are because they're just following Mohammed, all good things Muslims do are because they aren't, and all bad things people of other religions do are irrelevant.

Can I issue a fatwa against confirmation bias? You can issue a fatwa for not reading the entire thread. We've discussed the difference between someone acting on their beliefs versus someone of a particular religion doing something bad. When someone issues a fatwa that a cartoonist should die, that is based on a religious belief. When someone yells "God is Great" just before killing people, that is driven by religious belief.

Magiver
10-14-2010, 02:21 PM
Well, what about the radical Christians who use their religious writings to justify their murders, the radical Hindus who use their religious writings to justify their attacks on others, etc.?

Here again, we're dealing with a drastically different ratio of violence between Islam and than other religions. There are no equivalent mechanisms like fatwas or sharia law justifying the violence.

Look, the Qur'an isn't the problem. If it were, then those who adhere so strictly to its precepts (according to you) to kill non-Muslims would also adhere strictly to its precepts against killing Muslims. Obviously, since there is Muslim-on-Muslim violence, including actual wars between Muslim countries, this isn't the case. When a progenitor prophet of a religion justifies violence there is nothing illogical about different factions within the religion engaging in the same behavior. It is not a blanket reason behind wars nor is this discussion related to those wars. What Uzi and I have discussed is the violence inherent to radical Islamists who are clearly driven by their beliefs to kill people over ideas and perceived blasphemy.

Take a hint from tomndebb and identify the actual cause of the violence. That way you'll not show your ignorance. When there is such a large disparity of violence between the various religions it is logical to look at the religion itself to see if there is a link to the violence and not attempt to assign the same political/social conditions that people in other religions experience as an excuse.

There are clear links to fatwas demanding the death of someone and their murder. There are clear links to people who yell "God is Great" just before killing a random group of people. There are clear links to people murdering other people over the suggesting that a book is burned.

Your inability to posit a rational response to what I've said and then suggest ignorance on my part is not a legitimate debate tactic. As a scientific advisor to this board you should be the last person to engage in such behavior as well as your previous passive aggressive threat of a pit thread.

elucidator
10-14-2010, 02:48 PM
...When there is such a large disparity of violence between the various religions it is logical to look at the religion itself to see if there is a link to the violence and not attempt to assign the same political/social conditions that people in other religions experience as an excuse....

Except that you have not proved any such thing as a "large disparity", you've taken it as a given, an "well, everybody knows" fact. But is it a fact? Can you offer any such proof?

As far as offering an "excuse", no, what we are offering is a clear motivation to violence, one common to other religious and ethnic groups who do respond with violence. Some of those are Muslim, others are not.

Uzi
10-14-2010, 11:15 PM
If it were, then those who adhere so strictly to its precepts (according to you) to kill non-Muslims would also adhere strictly to its precepts against killing Muslims.

That is assuming they are the same group of people, isn't it?
Does a Shia think that a Sunni is actually following Islam? Or the Sunni in regards to Shia? Protestants and Catholics have had very similar thoughts towards each other. Nor has anyone suggested that religion is the only motivational factor, rather I'd suggest it can be a tipping point towards actions that wouldn't normally occur otherwise.

Magiver
10-15-2010, 12:01 AM
Except that you have not proved any such thing as a "large disparity", you've taken it as a given, an "well, everybody knows" fact. But is it a fact? Can you offer any such proof? Yes, I've taken an everybody knows it stance. Where would you like me to start? Downed aircraft? attempted aircraft bombings? Number of people murdered in random bombings? Artists threatened or murdered? Shootings? Fatwas? Riots and murders over book burnings? riots and murders over statements made in public. Gays sentenced to death?

elucidator
10-15-2010, 12:16 AM
Well, if thats what you've got, you've already started, and repeated, with numbing redundancy. You have proven beyond contradiction that Muslims are human beings, and a number of them are very much not nice.

Dung Beetle
10-22-2010, 11:52 AM
Dove World pastor Terry Jones gets a car for not burning Quran. (http://www.gainesville.com/article/20101022/articles/101029802&tc=yahoo)

Really Not All That Bright
10-22-2010, 12:21 PM
I can see the next Oprah special already.

Revenant Threshold
10-22-2010, 07:03 PM
Yes, I've taken an everybody knows it stance. Where would you like me to start? Downed aircraft? attempted aircraft bombings? Number of people murdered in random bombings? Artists threatened or murdered? Shootings? Fatwas? Riots and murders over book burnings? riots and murders over statements made in public. Gays sentenced to death? Actually, i'd be interested in stats, too.

Revenant Threshold
10-22-2010, 07:05 PM
We are talking about the 6 people (Magiver's statement) who were killed because of the Quran burning that never happened. I wonder how many would have been killed if it had actually occurred? I don't know. I was under the impression we were talking about any people who could be or were harmed as a result of that situation.

Revenant Threshold
10-22-2010, 07:17 PM
No, you don't understand. Jesus did not write the Bible. There are passages in the New Testament that are attributed to his teachings. His teachings and way of life differ greatly from that of Mohammad and it correlates with how fanatics view the world. Jesus is quoted in the Bible. His life and his actions are set out for potential followers to emulate him. The problem you have is that it is not enough to draw a proportional claim, you have to draw an exact one. You've claimed that there are people killing and doing all sorts of unpleasant things because they are fanatic followers of Mohammed, and fanatic followers follow the words and actions of their prophets. Using that same logic, we must lay the sins of Christian fanatics at Jesus' feet; if that does not work, then it does not work across the board. If we're imaging stuff then we might as well discuss Elvis. You may as well, given that your argument requires that Jesus commands deaths, while also claiming that he didn't. Christian fanatics have killed people. Fanatics follow their prophets. Ergo, Christian fanatics kill people because they're following the words and actions of Jesus. If that conclusion is false, then it is because the argument is incorrect. Fred Phelps hasn't killed anybody so his actions are in line with his religion. Really? The total sum of Christian thought is "No killing?" That's it? You know, they could probably lose a lot of the Bible, then. Save a fortune on printing costs! For whatever links he's found in the bible to homosexuality he is still stuck with a roll model who didn't kill people. You really think that Phelps and his group argue strongly for the deaths of so many people but of course wouldn't dare to go through with it? They only don't because they'd be locked up. Plenty of Christian fanatics over the years have killed people, either because they didn't think they'd be caught or they were nuts enough to not think about it.

But that still doesn't matter, because for Phelps to be line with his actions Christianity must support all of the unpleasant things he does. And, since fanatics follow prophets, so too he must be Jesus-like in his character and actions.

Is he?

Magiver
10-22-2010, 07:20 PM
Actually, i'd be interested in stats, too. Then knock yourself out doing the research. I've already listed a few of the categories you can break them down my.

Revenant Threshold
10-22-2010, 07:24 PM
Then knock yourself out doing the research. I've already listed a few of the categories you can break them down my. I'd have a go at it, but I presumed from the finality of your posts that you already had such stats to hand. When you say you're talking about it from an "everybody knows it" stance, are you meaning that you're taking that as your evidence for it?

Magiver
10-22-2010, 07:45 PM
I'd have a go at it, but I presumed from the finality of your posts that you already had such stats to hand. When you say you're talking about it from an "everybody knows it" stance, are you meaning that you're taking that as your evidence for it?
When you post stuff like this: Really? The total sum of Christian thought is "No killing?" That's it? You know, they could probably lose a lot of the Bible, then. Save a fortune on printing costs! I don't see where you really want to discuss or debate anything.

elucidator
10-22-2010, 07:48 PM
So you mean to say that you will answer the question, but only if asked by a poster with sufficient moral fiber and character references?

Perhaps if you gave us a short list of posters who qualify, we might ask them to pose the question?

Revenant Threshold
10-22-2010, 07:54 PM
When you post stuff like this: Really? The total sum of Christian thought is "No killing?" That's it? You know, they could probably lose a lot of the Bible, then. Save a fortune on printing costs! I don't see where you really want to discuss or debate anything. What, because I made a joke? It wasn't at your expense, or intended offensively, though i'll certainly apologise if I offended you. As to whether i'm really wanting to discuss or debate, I suppose all I can do is assure you that I do want to do those things and point to what i'd guess is quite a lot of posts in this thread by now by me. I've offered quite a few arguments; you may find them lacking, but i'd be suprised if you had honestly dismissed them entirely up until now.

Magiver
10-22-2010, 08:00 PM
So you mean to say that you will answer the question, but only if asked by a poster with sufficient moral fiber and character references? I mean to say what I actually say. There is no hidden meaning. I'm going shopping now so you have a nice day. And by that I mean I hope you have a nice day.

Uzi
10-22-2010, 10:45 PM
Jesus is quoted in the Bible. His life and his actions are set out for potential followers to emulate him. The problem you have is that it is not enough to draw a proportional claim, you have to draw an exact one. You've claimed that there are people killing and doing all sorts of unpleasant things because they are fanatic followers of Mohammed, and fanatic followers follow the words and actions of their prophets. Using that same logic, we must lay the sins of Christian fanatics at Jesus' feet; if that does not work, then it does not work across the board.

I think you are missing the point. Some followers of Jesus will actually follow his words because he supposedly said them. eg. Turn the other cheek, give to the poor, etc. They might not have done so otherwise. The same holds true regarding Mohammad's followers. Some may kill because he said it was okay to do so whereas they would not have done so otherwise. That many people do things contrary to their prophets teachings or example isn't relevant because they would do whatever they want to do anyways. They are essentially followers of convenience.

Revenant Threshold
10-25-2010, 08:20 PM
I think you are missing the point. Some followers of Jesus will actually follow his words because he supposedly said them. eg. Turn the other cheek, give to the poor, etc. They might not have done so otherwise. The same holds true regarding Mohammad's followers. Some may kill because he said it was okay to do so whereas they would not have done so otherwise. That many people do things contrary to their prophets teachings or example isn't relevant because they would do whatever they want to do anyways. They are essentially followers of convenience. No, I agree with all you have written here. That's the point i'm trying to make; it's not very helpful to say that fanatics will follow their prophets' words and actions, because people, fanatics or otherwise, will generally do what they want to do irregardless of what their prophets are held to have said or did. You're right that it isn't a relevant point, precisely because people will do whatever they want to do anyway.

I'd add to that that we can't really even include those who honestly believe they are following their prophet, given differing interpretations. I mean, in this thread alone, we have many different interpretations of the words of the Koran and Bible, the words and actions of Jesus and Mohammed. I don't know enough Muslim board members to say, but i'm a regular poster in the general religious threads on here and among Christians at least there are posters who I have no doubt speak truthfully of their sincere belief and desire to follow Jesus, yet have radically differently ideas of what that means for them. To refer to your point, you could easily say that some followers of Jesus will actually follow his words because he supposedly said them, and thus kill because he said it was ok to do so. Some Muslims may not because Mohammed said it wasn't. It's not a matter of One Correct Interpretation, because even if there was such a thing we have no means of knowing what it is.

The problem, in the end, is when we try and attribute those ideas to prophets. It just doesn't make much sense to me put much responsibility on those actual words when it comes to looking at what is to blame for modern behaviour. You can't take texts which people so widely interpret and say "Ah, this is to blame for what goes on", even less so "Ah, these particular people have this text as their basis", and even less still "Ah, these particular people have this text as their basis, and I know because their actions align with my interpretation of it".

Magiver
10-25-2010, 10:34 PM
The same holds true regarding Mohammad's followers. Some may kill because he said it was okay to do so whereas they would not have done so otherwise. That many people do things contrary to their prophets teachings or example isn't relevant because they would do whatever they want to do anyways. They are essentially followers of convenience. What is convenient about suicide bombings? Do you think they're trying to save money on long distance calls to Mohammad?

Uzi
10-25-2010, 10:43 PM
Those who die in Jihad will immediately go to paradise. Probably those who follow the Quran and Mohammad closer than most.

Kobal2
10-25-2010, 11:07 PM
What is convenient about suicide bombings? Do you think they're trying to save money on long distance calls to Mohammad?

Well, you do save a money on the return ticket.


Sorry.

Uzi
10-25-2010, 11:09 PM
Well, you do save a money on the return ticket.

And want to blend in with your surroundings. ...

Magiver
10-25-2010, 11:11 PM
Well, you do save a money on the return ticket.


Sorry.
Note to self, don't buy any super-saver tickets on Saudi Airlines.

Gyrate
10-26-2010, 05:45 AM
What is convenient about suicide bombings? Do you think they're trying to save money on long distance calls to Mohammad?You get to escape your miserable life, strike a blow against [enemy of your choice], become a martyr-hero to others who think like you, go straight to Paradise, and don't have to deal with the consequences of your actions on account of you being dead.

It's a win all around if you look at it from the Crazyland side. But as it remains the view of only a very, very tiny percentage of Muslims the "it's probably because of the Qu'ran/Muhammed" argument doesn't really fly.*



*sorry about that