So, I’m trying to figure out why you think that changes the meaning of the text, and the only thing I can think of is that you think he was wailing on literal cows and sheep.
The map would be more interesting if the narrator actually stuck to facts as he claimed he was going to at the beginning, rather than engaging in half truths and utter distortions.
He natters on about all these battles being examples of jihad, with the clear implication, (and occasional outright claim), that the battles were being fought for the purpose of expanding Islam.
Had he stuck to facts, he would have noted that the majority of those battles were simply the standard expressions of empires in conflict. The claim that they were all, or even mostly, “jihad” intended to extend Islam, per se, is a lie. (Doubly so since, while jihad can mean something like “holy war,” it much more often appears in Islamic literature to mean spiritual struggles.)
Some were intended to expand Islam. Just as a number of battles in Central America, South America, and the Philippines were intended to promote Christianity. Charlemagne waged war to compel the conversion of the Saxons to Christianity. The Portuguese waged a program of conversion in their Goa territory in India to compel all the Hindus to accept Christianity. However, the vast majority of wars were simply the standard human action of empires, (Muslim or Christian), attempting to expand or defend themselves.
To take one popular (among those trying to make a case that Islam is aggressively trying to convert the world through conquest) story, look at the reality of the “invasion” of France stopped by Charles Martel. The Muslims-as-boogeymen story claims that the Iberian Muslims stomped over the Pyrenees and marched up through France looking to conquer and convert the Frankish Christians. The reality is that the first battle was between the Muslim chieftain of Iberia and a vassal of his already occupying what is now Southern France. The Muslim vassal in France, Uthman ibn Naissa, made a pact with the Frankish Odo of Aquitaine to rebel against al Andalus. Abdul Rahman, the governor of al Andalus, defeated Uthman ibn Naissa, then, because Odo had made war on al Andalus during the rebellion, Abdul Rahman pushed north to punish Odo and anyone who supported him. This was not some, “Let’s go convert some Franks” war of conversion, but the standard “You picked a fight; now I’ll finish it.” reaction of any kingdom. Rahman failed in his effort when Martel defeated him at Tours and the Franks put forth a lot of propaganda about “halting Islam,” but that propaganda had no bearing on the actual events–even if we still find people ignorant of history waving that event around as if the propaganda was reality.
Christianity has been fighting for over 1700 years, making it, (by your judgment), the most violent.
Anyone who paid serious attention to that map would recognize that it was a put up job, relying on distorted re-interpretations of what really happened in order to create a dishonest polemic.
Since the guy to whom you linked, above, is a liar, I suspect that I would be unimpressed with his statements. Both the Hebrew and Christian testaments have numerous references to Gentiles and other non-believers. Most of those statements are negative.
A tiny fraction of his statements probably are true. However, the way in which he distorts history and makes up shit means that you can have all the problems you wish with Islam, but that fails to make Islam, as a whole, the aggressive religion that he pretended.
Having embraced the distortions of Bill Warner, you might want to consider, instead, a separate view.
Dude. He beat the shit out of them.
Which probably wouldn’t have worked in real life. Merchants are a testy bunch. You tip over one table, and it’s “Hey, Rube!” and they all mob you and fix your wagon but good. The beating would have been on the other shit. Just try this at a Saturday morning flea market some day.
Every religion has had this affect at one time or another. Now isn’t special, and Muslims aren’t especially violent when compared to any other religion’s believers at various times through history.
Already addressed by others, but making a whip and driving people out doesn’t sound too peaceful to me.
I’m asking a question – it’s not about a claim. In light of how violent the Old Testament is, and how relatively peaceful the New is, why are Jews so much less violent, and more open and tolerant, than Christians?
This doesn’t conflict with anything I’ve said. The existence of violent Muslims, or Muslims who support capital punishment for blasphemy and apostasy, doesn’t change the fact that most Muslims (and especially most American Muslims) are peaceful, and that there’s nothing less inherently Muslim about supporting peace than supporting violence. Quranic verses can be found supporting both, and opposing both.
You think ISIS doesn’t care about what the world’s Muslims think? Bullshit. That’s their primary concern! What they want most is for all Muslims to support them in a war on everyone else. They want the world lumped into Muslim and non-Muslim, so their fellows see us as the enemy. They’re failing, of course, because most Muslims have no interest in an international Jihad against everyone else. And they’re also failing because all the peaceful Muslims living in America and elsewhere show ISIS’s beliefs to be bullshit – if Muslims can live happy and peaceful lives in America and other Western countries, then such a conflict is entirely unnecessary and undesirable for Muslims.
I’d prefer not to make their arguments for them, and I can’t imagine why someone else would want to do so.
Sure, in real life…if you aren’t GOD.
(Having plenty of solidly-thewed fisherman muscle at your back wouldn’t hurt. “Gee, whatta nice stall you got here. Shame if anything were to…happen…to it. Also, my temple should be a house of prayer.”
I agree with iiandyiiii on this.
Nope, I’d call your interpretation very, very, very, very unorthodox and universally rejected by Muslims. And I’d point out lots of ways in which more standard interpretations of Muslim doctrine contradict it.
However, that is simply not the same as your interpretation being “wrong”. Religious doctrines are not scientific facts, and there is no objective standard by which interpretations of them can be judged as “right” or “wrong” in any absolute sense.
Interpretations of many religious doctrines have shifted very substantially over time. For example, the ancient Vedas that most Hindus still revere as divine revelation were composed in the context of religious practices routinely including animal sacrifice (and, some scholars argue, originally even human sacrifice). The original texts unambiguously refer to animal sacrifices and their importance in ritual. Yet modern mainstream Hinduism, though it claims to be founded on the divinely revealed Vedas, generally rejects animal slaughter in any context, certainly in religious ritual.
Three thousand years ago, any veneration of Vedic doctrine that rejected animal sacrifice would probably have been widely regarded by Vedic peoples as a “wrong” interpretation. But at this point, it is unquestionably the standard interpretation of Hindu doctrine which self-identifies as founded on the Vedas. Are you going to tell modern Hindus that their rejection of animal slaughter is scripturally “wrong”?
Likewise, all the modern Abrahamic faiths whose scriptures were obviously originally influenced by homophobic attitudes are currently undergoing a process of reinterpretation. My guess is that two hundred years or so from now, any Jew, Christian or Muslim will regard early 21st-century claims such as yours that anti-homophobic interpretations of their faith’s doctrines are “wrong” as an irrelevant historical footnote. So why continue insisting on it?
“Wrongness” in interpretation of religious doctrine/scriptures is an ever-evolving quantity, and IMHO it’s pointless and counterproductive for anyone who doesn’t belong to a particular faith to attempt to decree what’s the “right” or “wrong” way to read them. I support and encourage modern interpretations of religion that I feel promote ethical and humane values, but as a non-believer, it’s not for me to call any interpretation objectively “right” or “wrong”.
That’s not what it says at all. You truncated your quote. “So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.”
He drove the sacrificial animals out and turned over the money tables. I’ve never read the Bible but it’s not hard to look it up on the internet. I’m guessing he did that in protest the selling of indulgences.
It’s pretty straight forward. when it says sheep and cattle it refers back to all that were chased out. The money changers had their tables turned over.
Logically one person could stampede the animals easily with a piece of rope. He’s not however going to chase out a room full of people handling money with a piece of rope. He’d get his ass kicked. The best anyone could expect is to turn the tables over and rant about it on the way out the door. I suspect he wasn’t too popular at that moment.
yes well the other religions seemed to have made the leap of faith that their magical god doesn’t need help smiting people. “Now” is special as it’s been over 18 centuries and there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who believe in Blasphemy and Apostasy laws. Something you just brush aside.
They’re not except in your imagination. Last time I checked they were giving tit-for every tat launched on them in Israel.
Very few Muslims live in America. But even with such a small number In America we’ve seen attack after attack. These aren’t random acts by Muslims, they’re attacks by Muslims professing their faith. That’s why we call it Islamic terrorism and not Muslim terrorism. Because it’s done in the name of Islam.
No, they don’t. They only care about what THEY think. That’s why they are busy killing Muslims as we speak.
At the end of the day, when you’ve exhausted your political correctness, it’s the religion driving the violence. It’s fabulous that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who are not batshit crazy but it isn’t a handful of miscreants causing problems. And that’s because there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who believe death is an acceptable resolution to insults.
We’re not seeing that in other religions. You can make art by dunking a crucifix in urine or decorate Jesus’s mother’s image with elephant dung. It falls under BFD. Making fun of Christianity is an artistic art form. You can buy a Virgin Mary toaster or a Grilled cheesus sandwich press and fill your tummy with yummy holiness.
Surely you’ve seen the cartoon with all the major religious prophets having sex with each other (minus Mohammad). Nobody died from it. What gets people killed are references to Mohammad that are considered Blasphemous. this is the mentality that spawns the terrorist groups we see today. That’s what has to change and it has to change on a very large scale.
Most Muslims have made this leap as well, especially American Muslims. That some don’t doesn’t indicate that there’s something especially wrong with the tenets or texts of Islam. .
Statistically, Jews commit far, far less violent crime than Christians.
I wouldn’t exactly call 3 million+ “very few” – that’s many more than live in Israel, and we have far, far fewer terrorist attacks. In fact, Muslims Americans, on a per capita basis, shoot a lot fewer people than non-Muslim Americans. Per capita, not gross numbers.
So there’s a pretty strong measure in which we can say, statistically, that Muslim Americans are less violent than non-Muslim Americans.
I think you’re nuts if you believe that ISIS has no interest in Muslim world opinion, but okay, we’ll disagree on this. I think ISIS wants to influence the world’s Muslims against western countries… I guess you don’t.
The same was true for hundreds of millions of Christians at many different points through history. It’s not unusual. It sucks that so many violent Muslims are influential today, but I don’t blame the Quran for that any more than I blame the Bible for the Inquisition or various anti-Jewish pogroms throughout European history. I’ll blame radical Islamic leaders and clergy who advocate for violence, just like I blame Christian church leaders throughout European history who advocated for anti-semitism, but this is an indictment of these people and not their entire religion.
This is a very new and unusual development in world history. For most of the history of Christianity, any of these things would have gotten the artist murdered or executed.
I’m all for this changing (as it already has for many Muslims, including most American Muslims), just as for much of Christianity’s history blasphemy and apostasy was often a capital crime but this changed.
The modern world isn’t special, and that more violence is statistically associated with Islam today tells us no more about the text and tenets behind the religion than the fact that the Christian world was far less tolerant and peaceful than the Islamic world at certain points in the past tells us about the Bible.
Maybe, at least, you can agree with the following: you believe that the Muslim world has always been more violent than the Christian world, and I don’t. I believe that there were many times in history in which Jews and homosexuals would have been far, far safer in Muslim empires than in Christian nations.
If I didn’t believe these things, then I’d agree with you. If you felt the same way as I did about history, then you’d agree with me.
It doesn’t look like we’re going to change each other’s minds, but we’ve drilled down to the beliefs behind our differing opinions – our beliefs and understanding of the history of the Islamic world and the Christian world.
Pretty much all of medieval Christian art disagrees with you hear. I’ve never heard an interpretation of this story that didn’t include Jesus physically expelling, by force, the merchants and money changers.
Yeah, but, you know, artists. Those guys also kept drawing Jesus and the disciples wearing medieval clothing!
(Absurd highjack of a highjack… Jesus said to Peter to put down the sword – but he also said “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” The Bible is full of this kind of contradiction. God is a God of mercy and love – and drowned all the nations of the earth. Yeah… “Religion of Peace…”)
Actually, lots of Christians got very upset about Serrano’s and Ofili’s work, respectively. NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani withheld city funding from the museum that showed Ofili’s “Holy Virgin Mary”, for example (until the courts forced him to restore it).
Serrano’s “Piss Christ” provoked death threats against the artist and exhibitors:
It’s simply not true that art perceived as blasphemous is automatically “BFD” to Christians. What makes the difference between Christian vandalism/threats and Islamist-extremist terrorism in response to “blasphemous” art is not the religion but the political entanglement of the religion.
Majority-Christian societies used to execute the creators of “blasphemous” art, too. What stopped them wasn’t the Christian religion but the rise of early modern civil secularism that limited the Christian religion’s power over the public sphere.
OMG, I actually laughed out loud at that. That took real balls to post. You’re really throwing up an objection to using public funds for mocking a religion against the extreme violence against artists for Blasphemy?
REALLY?
No, that’s manifestly not what she’s doing. She’s simply correcting an error on your part when you said that this sort of art was “no big deal” in the west. It is a big deal. Not as big a deal as similar depictions would be in many third world countries, but they were absolutely not, as you claimed, met with a shrug and a “so what?”
Well that certainly explains the 400 million who would kill you for blasphemy. Keep in mind that number only accounts for a handful of countries.
I would call .2% very few. Not 2%. point 2 percent. And I’m not sure what stick you’re using to measure terrorist attacks but by all means count them up in the US and Israel.
I didn’t read much of this thread but ive been told that in most Arabic countries theres a somewhat hypocritical "don’t ask don’t tell " approach especially concerning male brothels (apparently there used to be one in Egypt that was legendary in the debauchery you could buy) since there so strict about women
What suprised me tho is the shock of troops taking young males off as war prizes apparently caused a rift between us and afghan forces as its been known for years this occurs (the Russians supposedly had a shoot on sight order if they seen this happening wether ally or foe ) …
I’m sure that’s how white Jesus wanted to be remembered. I’ve always been impressed that they went to the effort of nailing him to to a square-cut cross.
sorry, I was using the Islamic scale where rioting and death occurred. Not the “don’t use public funds” scale.
I guess the only way to test it would be to put a “Piss-Mohammad” photo up in an art gallery and see what happens.