DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Richpo64 on August 15, 2007, 05:53:23 PM
-
August 15, 2007, 7:00 a.m.
Jihad 101
Robert Spencer takes the enemy at its word.
By Deroy Murdock
Give Islamic extremists this: They are as clear as the desert sunshine about their plans for us infidels. Unlike America?s former Cold War enemies, who swaddled their barbed wire and ballistic missiles in warm words about proletarian liberation, Muslim hotheads state their intentions with disarming candor.
?The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world,? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said.
?One of the primary responsibilities of the Muslim ruler is to spread Islam throughout the world,? said South Africa?s Mufti Ebrahim Desai. ?If a country doesn?t allow the propagation of Islam to its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this, then the Muslim ruler would be justified in waging jihad against this country.?
These statements appear in What Americans Need to Know about Jihad, by Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch (JihadWatch.org), at Los Angeles? David Horowitz Freedom Center. Spencer has authored seven books, including the forthcoming Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn?t.
?Our most fundamental mistake six years into the War on Terror is fighting an enemy we refuse to define clearly,? Spencer tells me. ?This makes it impossible to deal properly with the challenge that confronts us in all its dimensions. So, in my work, I try to show what we face.?
As Spencer details, jihad is an Islamofascist struggle for global domination, not just withdrawal of American troops from Baghdad or Israeli soldiers from Bethlehem.
?Islam is a revolutionary ideology and program which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals,? said Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of Pakistan?s radical Jamaat-e-Islami party. ?Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the Earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam, regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it.? Maududi said this at Lahore, Pakistan?s Town Hall in April 1939, nine years before Israel?s independence and seven years before President Bush?s birth.
Shortly before an American laser-guided bomb dispatched him to eternal Hellfire in June 2006, al-Qaeda in Iraq chieftain Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said, ?We fight today in Iraq, tomorrow in the land of the Holy Places, and after there in the West.?
Islamism requires that infidels submit to Islam.
A 1991 manual of Islamic law, approved by Cairo?s influential Al-Azhar University, called jihad a ?war against non-Muslims.? Reliance of the Traveler, as it is titled, added: ?The caliph makes war upon Jews [and] Christians?until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.?
Soon after Islamic terrorists blasted two Balinese nightspots in October 2002, killing 202 and wounding some 300, Abu Bakar Bashir, spiritual leader of al-Qaeda?s Indonesian franchise, Jemaah Islamiyah, advised the victims? survivors. ?My message to the families is: Please convert to Islam as soon as possible.?
Al-Qaeda?s Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden?s right-hand man, rejects the Mid-East ?peace process.? ?War with Israel is not subject to a treaty, cease-fire, Sykes-Picot Treaty agreements, patriotism or disputed borders,? he said last summer, ?but it is jihad for the cause of God until the entire region is for Him only.?
Indeed, today?s Islamofascists, the most diabolical anti-Semites since Auschwitz, are downright Hitlerian in their Jew hatred.
?Where did they come from? Are they human beings?? Iran?s Ahmadinejad has wondered about Jews. ?They are like cattle, nay, more misguided?Next to them, all the criminals of the world seem righteous.?
Hamas? charter cites the prophet Mohammed?s prediction in Sahih Muslim, book 41, No. 6985 that someday Jews will ?hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: ?O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!??
?Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country,? Sheik Ahmad Abu Halabiya said in an October 2000 Gaza sermon broadcast on Palestine Authority TV. ?Fight them wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them??
America also is fixed in jihad?s cross hairs.
In October 2005, Ahmadinejad said: ?To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or to those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible.?
In his book, Nuclear Terrorism, Graham Allison explains that Islamic zealots blame America for some four million Muslim deaths ? thanks, they argue, to U.S.-Iraq policy pre-dating today?s war, the Taliban?s ouster, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, etc.
?Parity will require killing four million Americans. America can be kept at bay by blood alone,? al-Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith said in June 2002. ?We have the right to kill four million Americans ? two million of them children ? and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands.?
How can these fanatics efficiently exterminate four million Americans? Chemical or atomic weapons would help. As Osama bin Laden told Time magazine in December 1998:
?Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so. And if I seek to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty.? This is especially chilling, given al Qaeda?s Clinton-era ?Jihad against Jews and Crusaders:? ?The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies ? civilian and military ? is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.?
Publicizing such militant-Islamic bloodthirstiness has earned Spencer further such bloodthirstiness. In June 2005, the now-defunct RevivingIslam.com said of him: ?May Allah rip out his spine from his back and split his brain in two, and then put them both back, and then do it over and over again?Amen.?
Fortunately, Spencer remains undeterred. He writes and speaks constantly on this age?s most pressing issue. His latest work is not light, cheerful beach reading. However, it is a much-needed antidote to such head-in-the-sand nonsense as Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards?s recent claim that the War on Terror is just ?a bumper sticker slogan.?
? Deroy Murdock is a New York-based columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution.
http://www.nationalreview.com/ (http://www.nationalreview.com/)
-
<<Spencer has authored seven books, including the forthcoming Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn?t.>>
That's absolutely hilarious. I think some of us descendants of the victims of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Ukrainian Peasant Revolt, the Middle Passage, the "settling" of America, the pogroms and the Holocaust are kind of wondering what the Religion of Peace has up its sleeve for the 21st Century. They're sure as hell off to a good start in Iraq.
-
<<Spencer has authored seven books, including the forthcoming Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn?t.>>
That's absolutely hilarious. I think some of us descendants of the victims of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Ukrainian Peasant Revolt, the Middle Passage, the "settling" of America, the pogroms and the Holocaust are kind of wondering what the Religion of Peace has up its sleeve for the 21st Century. They're sure as hell off to a good start in Iraq.
Got a canadate religion with a better record?
To nominate a religion as a religion of Peace , but remember you have to include every misdeed that can be attached to it even if performed by adherents who adhere very loosely.
Lets start with the middle passage , what other religion ever inspired an Abolition movement?
-
plane, EVERY religion is better than Christianity. The Jews lived amongst the Muslims for centuries and never endured massacres on the scale of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Ukrainian Peasant Revolt or the Holocaust. The Hindus have never conducted massacres on that scale. The Buddhists never did. There is no religion on the face of the earth with so much innocent blood on its hands.
To call Christianity the Religion of Peace is more than just another big fucking lie, it is a real obscenity because it denigrates and devalues the lives of all the millions of victims of Christianity.
-
[quote ]
The Jews lived amongst the Muslims for centuries and never endured massacres on the scale of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Ukrainian Peasant Revolt or the Holocaust.
[/quote ]
[[[[[[[[Jews conducted a Massacre now and then like Jerico or Ai , and of course Mohammed himself helped destroy a Jewish town like Yathreb or Khaibar the reason fo rit seems to be key.
This may seem like small potatoes to us, but massacres in general have grown in scale as humanity becomes more advanced . The motives have not changed so much as the availible methods.
Jesus didn't teach conquest , I know that thee were a lot of guys who used his name in Conquest , but I don't think that they could have gotten his approval on the project.]]]]]]]]]
[quote ]
The Hindus have never conducted massacres on that scale. [/quote ]
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[Sure they have , but who hasn't?]]]]]]]]]]]]]
[quote ]The Buddhists never did. [/quote ]
[[[[[[[[[[Oh come on ,you know WWII history as well as I do. Idoubt that you can actually find a religion more than a few years old that has no such crime in its closet. ]]]]]]]]
[quote ]There is no religion on the face of the earth with so much innocent blood on its hands.
To call Christianity the Religion of Peace is more than just another big fucking lie, it is a real obscenity because it denigrates and devalues the lives of all the millions of victims of Christianity.
[/quote]
This does depend on whether you consider Christ to be the founder of Christianity as it later became or not , getting an understanding of Jesus's intent from his teaching is very diffrent from getting an impression from a long list of crimes and rationalizations that came along later and was overlaid on his message.
So is Richard the Lion Hearted a better representative of Christianity or William Wilberforce?
It might be diffrent to ask which is more representative of Christianity and which is a better representative of Christ.
-
(http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/8692/toilerdl4.jpg)
-
plane, you can turn and twist and spin all you like but one thing you can't change and that is the bottom line.
The bottom line is that the Christians have more innocent blood on their hands than all the other religions combined. And blaming it on the more devastating weapons of recent times is a cop-out because you can measure each era's massacres by the weaponry of the times, and even on an era-by-era comparison, the Christians always come out on top as the No. 1 killers. The Crusades, just for example, were an unparalled example of religious massacre at the time. It's true, the Mongols might have been racking up a bigger death toll, but that was a campaign of territorial acquisition, with no religious basis. And the Mongols gave up their mass killings over a reasonably short period of time, whereas the Christians returned again and again, from the Inquisition to the Holocaust, to torture, rape and murder more innocents.
Japan BTW and particularly its armed forces in WWII were Shinto not Buddhist - - the Yasukuni Shrine for Japanese war criminals is Shinto, not Buddhist.
I have given this matter some thought, and IMHO the reason why the Christians have spilt so much innocent blood, all the while painting themselves as "the religion of peace," is because that religion is based on a lie, the lie being the divinity of Christ. They can't stand that others can simply expose the lie for what it is, and since it's a lie, there is no defence other than violence to preserve it intact. The Jews in particular are a living refutation of that lie, since if Jesus supposedly came as THEIR Messiah, their continuing rejection of him proves what utter bullshit the whole thing really is. Which is why the Jews have to be converted (impossible) or physically exterminated (many attempts, all failed.) In the meantime, the ongoing killing, torture etc., nine-tenths of it instituted by Christians, kind of renders ridiculous the idea that Jesus, the Messiah, ushered in a new era of Godliness. You would think that after 2,000 years people would have kind of started to wonder, hey, how can this guy be the Messiah? where's the peace he was supposed to bring? but people are REALLY dumb, so maybe it'll take another 2,000 years of shit before it finally hits them, "well, I guess he wasn't."
-
>>The bottom line is that the Christians have more innocent blood on their hands than all the other religions combined.<<
Another example of the left creating a differnet reality.
I blame the public school system.
-
<<I blame the public school system.>>
Me too, if it turned out morons like you.
-
I disagree completely with your reasoning Tee.
Yes, the Crusades were nasty, but don't kid yourself that the Muslim armies were somehow kind and generous. They committed some nasty atrocities as well. Much of it (especially after the First Crusade) had to do with repaying debt owed to Venetian merchants and others who financed the expeditions. I've found that very few people know much about the history of the Crusades, be they Christians, Muslims, Jews, or whatever. But yes, they were brutal and many times got far out of hand and often included political rivalries (both between Muslims and Christians) as well as fortune hunting.
It's true, the Mongols might have been racking up a bigger death toll, but that was a campaign of territorial acquisition, with no religious basis.
The Crusades was very much about territorial acqusitions and there were very important religious principles involved with the Mongols.
And the Mongols gave up their mass killings over a reasonably short period of time, whereas the Christians returned again and again, from the Inquisition to the Holocaust, to torture, rape and murder more innocents.
Only because the Mongols were defeated or in some cases became legitimate authorities over various expanses. The problem is that you apply one set of logic to Christians (i.e. anyone remotely associated to Christianity is responsible for all deaths in a conflict) yet you don't apply that logic to other religions.
More than that, what does it matter who killed more than whom? Is that the criteria for who is more evil? Isn't murdering one person bad enough?
-
>>Yes, the Crusades were nasty, but don't kid yourself that the Muslim armies were somehow kind and generous. <<
I'm sure you already know, and if you don't I'll be surprised, that Muslims were in effect responsible for the Crusades. In other words, the Christians went out to reclaim what was there's in the first place.
-
<<Yes, the Crusades were nasty, but don't kid yourself that the Muslim armies were somehow kind and generous. They committed some nasty atrocities as well.>>
You want to completely ignore that each and every Crusade was an act of aggression, an expedition for loot and plunder with the blessing of the Church as further incentive. Where did I ever claim the Muslim armies were "kind and generous?" That is totally absurd.
War is an ugly thing. Once it starts, NOBODY is on their best behaviour. The fault for all of the atrocities in a war rests primarily on the initiators, the aggressors. In the case of the Crusades, the sadism and viciousness of the Crusaders was well-known. Once they set the standard, revenge was natural and the whole cycle of atrocity-payback-atrocity was set in motion. The Church blessed it all from the start.
<<Much of it (especially after the First Crusade) had to do with repaying debt owed to Venetian merchants and others who financed the expeditions. I've found that very few people know much about the history of the Crusades, be they Christians, Muslims, Jews, or whatever.>>
Well, congratulations. Sounds like you uncovered the mercenary motives underlying the Crusades. No shit, Sherlock. Hate to break it to you so harshly, but it's pretty much common knowledge. Thankss for the will to enlighten me just the same. I'll take it as well-intentioned. MY point is that, mercenary motives and all, these were still expeditions of murder and rape and plunder BLESSED by the Church, facilitated by the Church and encouraged by the Church. The strongest priestly objections to these atrocities came when the Church felt it wasn't getting its fair share of the loot.
<<But yes, they were brutal and many times got far out of hand and often included political rivalries (both between Muslims and Christians) as well as fortune hunting.>>
"our men did nothing evil to their women but only pierced their bellies with their lances"
Just good simple Christians in the service of their Lord and Master Jesus Christ
-
>>You want to completely ignore that each and every Crusade was an act of aggression, an expedition for loot and plunder with the blessing of the Church as further incentive. <<
See, another example of Liberal/communist anti-reality.
It's incredible.
-
<<See, another example of Liberal/communist anti-reality.
<<It's incredible.>>
What's INCREDIBLE is how a total moron like you takes a quote that in your fucking ignorance you disagree with (because you simply don't know any better) and without adding a single fact or argument to the contrary, simply pronounce the thing "incredible" as if your mere saying made it so. As if you had made some kind of contribution to a reasoned debate.
Oh well, don't mind me. I do tend to get a little testy once in a while. I'm not knocking your right to express an opinion but could you at least put a little meat on it next time? Put a little flesh on the bones?
-
Rich,
As you might notice, a whole bunch of posts are missing here. I asked JS to remove them. I was OK answering general questions in a public forum, but when you start asking about my child, you've gone too far.
If you wish to challenge my personal choices in a private email, you are more than welcome to do so.
yasos.mom@gmail.com
-
I deleted the posts having to do with Ms Henny's personal life. I also deleted some of Ms Henny's post so that the thread retained some continuity.
The fact is that how one arrives at one's views is not nearly as important as the substance of those views. That substance is what should be discussed, not anyone's personal decisions.
I understand though that deleting any posts on a forum like this can cause problems. If you do have concerns then let Bt know and I'll abide by whatever decision he makes. If I overstepped my bounds, I apologize, but I would do so again in a heartbeat as I do not think that such discussions are material or fair for the people involved.
-
Just good simple Christians in the service of their Lord and Master Jesus Christ
So you think Christians are just murderers by nature?
I don't think your game of "they started it" is a very well respected analytical view of history. The original Crusade was in fact called because the leader of the Byzantine Empire asked for help from Latin Christendom, to help fight the invading Muslims. Before you jump down my throat again, I'm not saying that justifies anything, but the Byzantine Empire was being invaded and did ask for aid. It was not as simple as you make it out to be, where a bunch of Christians with blood dripping from their teeth dragged their knuckles down to Jerusalem out of sheer hatred mixed with greed and envy.
In fact, many of the cases you discuss are rather complex, such as the Spanish Inquisition. Saying they are complex, does not justify what happened, but it does acknowledge that the Church wasn't simply impaling everyone with a cross because they were different.
-
"... but that was a campaign of territorial acquisition, with no religious basis..."
When the Moguls took over in India they made no such distinction , nor did Mohemmed himself make any such distinction.
The rightious Muslim has a right to take over territory and confiscate stuff, this was a business Mohemmed himself participated in.
Any situation in which a Muslim is in charge is more rightous than a non -muslim being in charge and anything that brings this about is rightious.
They don't all agree with these statements but they are scriptural to Osama and his clique , Sufi philosophy is more laid back.
Where Jews were allowed to live in peace amoung the Muslims in anchient times were they subject to Dimi?
I don't think we want to be Dimi.
Also , Zen Buddism was the favoriate of the Saumari and was commoinly practiced in the Japaneese Imperial Army, there is no requirement in Buddism or Shinto that requires exclusivity.
One of the best books on Military Zen is the"Book of Five Rings " by Miyamoto Musashi and I must admit it is a good read, even though Miyamoto Musashi is also famous for killing the Christians of Nagasaki.
-
<<Spencer has authored seven books, including the forthcoming Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn?t.>>
That's absolutely hilarious. I think some of us descendants of the victims of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Ukrainian Peasant Revolt, the Middle Passage, the "settling" of America, the pogroms and the Holocaust are kind of wondering what the Religion of Peace has up its sleeve for the 21st Century. They're sure as hell off to a good start in Iraq.
Got a canadate religion with a better record?
To nominate a religion as a religion of Peace , but remember you have to include every misdeed that can be attached to it even if performed by adherents who adhere very loosely.
Lets start with the middle passage , what other religion ever inspired an Abolition movement?
I concur. Interesting how you post an expert, a gentleman who has authored seven books and people rip into him as if he's a schmuck. How many of YOU have authored even ONE? (self-publishing doesn't count)
-
<<Spencer has authored seven books, including the forthcoming Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn?t.>>
That's absolutely hilarious. I think some of us descendants of the victims of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Ukrainian Peasant Revolt, the Middle Passage, the "settling" of America, the pogroms and the Holocaust are kind of wondering what the Religion of Peace has up its sleeve for the 21st Century. They're sure as hell off to a good start in Iraq.
Got a canadate religion with a better record?
To nominate a religion as a religion of Peace , but remember you have to include every misdeed that can be attached to it even if performed by adherents who adhere very loosely.
Lets start with the middle passage , what other religion ever inspired an Abolition movement?
I concur. Interesting how you post an expert, a gentleman who has authored seven books and people rip into him as if he's a schmuck. How many of YOU have authored even ONE? (self-publishing doesn't count)
I keep meaning to .
I have the outline of a few conceved , but the project seems very daunting while I am so busy.
-
MT: "I have given this matter some thought, and IMHO the reason why the Christians have spilt so much innocent blood, all the while painting themselves as "the religion of peace," is because that religion is based on a lie, the lie being the divinity of Christ. They can't stand that others can simply expose the lie for what it is, and since it's a lie, there is no defence other than violence to preserve it intact. The Jews in particular are a living refutation of that lie, since if Jesus supposedly came as THEIR Messiah, their continuing rejection of him proves what utter bullshit the whole thing really is. Which is why the Jews have to be converted (impossible) or physically exterminated (many attempts, all failed.) In the meantime, the ongoing killing, torture etc., nine-tenths of it instituted by Christians, kind of renders ridiculous the idea that Jesus, the Messiah, ushered in a new era of Godliness. You would think that after 2,000 years people would have kind of started to wonder, hey, how can this guy be the Messiah? where's the peace he was supposed to bring? but people are REALLY dumb, so maybe it'll take another 2,000 years of shit before it finally hits them, "well, I guess he wasn't.""
Actually, groups like Jews for Jesus have converted many Jews into Messianic Jews.
And, as you know, it all comes down to faith anyway.
I postulate, MT, that looking at the created versus the Creator is a typcial, if misguided, approach, e.g do you also take excpetion with with what Jesus Christ said, or the actions of His followers?
-
I deleted the posts having to do with Ms Henny's personal life. I also deleted some of Ms Henny's post so that the thread retained some continuity.
The fact is that how one arrives at one's views is not nearly as important as the substance of those views. That substance is what should be discussed, not anyone's personal decisions.
I understand though that deleting any posts on a forum like this can cause problems. If you do have concerns then let Bt know and I'll abide by whatever decision he makes. If I overstepped my bounds, I apologize, but I would do so again in a heartbeat as I do not think that such discussions are material or fair for the people involved.
You are entirely incorrect. HOW you came to your views is crucial in that it shows the stimulai involved and that can tell you an awful lot about the environment and so on.
Ah, Gestapo tactics. I would not have imaigned it, especially of you. I read many posts here that are personal attacks and so on and these seem to fly, sometimes I actually wonder why by the way but if you are NOT in charge, which I'm not...
-
In the meantime, the ongoing killing, torture etc., nine-tenths of it instituted by Christians, kind of renders ridiculous the idea that Jesus, the Messiah, ushered in a new era of Godliness.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
That is certainly not what Jesus promised or proposed , he told his deciples that they would suffer and that suffering in his name was blessed.
I am not the very devout sort that seeks that particular blessing but I admire it when it is evident.
On this subject , do you know who Wiliam Wilberforce is?
Do you know of any people, religion or group other then Christians ,who haveing Slaves gave them up ?
WW of course would have given all the glory to God , but I still admire him too.
-
<<Spencer has authored seven books, including the forthcoming Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn?t.>>
That's absolutely hilarious. I think some of us descendants of the victims of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Ukrainian Peasant Revolt, the Middle Passage, the "settling" of America, the pogroms and the Holocaust are kind of wondering what the Religion of Peace has up its sleeve for the 21st Century. They're sure as hell off to a good start in Iraq.
Got a canadate religion with a better record?
To nominate a religion as a religion of Peace , but remember you have to include every misdeed that can be attached to it even if performed by adherents who adhere very loosely.
Lets start with the middle passage , what other religion ever inspired an Abolition movement?
I concur. Interesting how you post an expert, a gentleman who has authored seven books and people rip into him as if he's a schmuck. How many of YOU have authored even ONE? (self-publishing doesn't count)
I keep meaning to .
I have the outline of a few conceved , but the project seems very daunting while I am so busy.
Well, I have authored ONE and it was one of the most hellish experiences around due to the amount of time and commitment required, so I admire someone who can publish SEVEN!
-
I deleted the posts having to do with Ms Henny's personal life. I also deleted some of Ms Henny's post so that the thread retained some continuity.
The fact is that how one arrives at one's views is not nearly as important as the substance of those views. That substance is what should be discussed, not anyone's personal decisions.
I understand though that deleting any posts on a forum like this can cause problems. If you do have concerns then let Bt know and I'll abide by whatever decision he makes. If I overstepped my bounds, I apologize, but I would do so again in a heartbeat as I do not think that such discussions are material or fair for the people involved.
You are entirely incorrect. HOW you came ot your views is crucial in that it shows the stimulai involved and that can tell you an awful lot about the environment and so on.
Ah, Gestapo tactics. I would not have imaigned it, especially of you. I read many posts here that are personal attacks and so on and these seem to fly, sometimes I actually ownder why by the way but if you are NOT in charge, which I'm not...
-
and??? your point, Plane?
-
I deleted the posts having to do with Ms Henny's personal life. I also deleted some of Ms Henny's post so that the thread retained some continuity.
The fact is that how one arrives at one's views is not nearly as important as the substance of those views. That substance is what should be discussed, not anyone's personal decisions.
I understand though that deleting any posts on a forum like this can cause problems. If you do have concerns then let Bt know and I'll abide by whatever decision he makes. If I overstepped my bounds, I apologize, but I would do so again in a heartbeat as I do not think that such discussions are material or fair for the people involved.
You are entirely incorrect. HOW you came to your views is crucial in that it shows the stimulai involved and that can tell you an awful lot about the environment and so on.
Ah, Gestapo tactics. I would not have imaigned it, especially of you. I read many posts here that are personal attacks and so on and these seem to fly, sometimes I actually wonder why by the way but if you are NOT in charge, which I'm not...
Don't be very worried about this ,JS has been entrusted with a stewardship that depends on his judgement . He has a long history with this group that engenders trust.
I did not get to read the offending passages , but I am content with my knoledge of JS's modes of behavior to trust him not to hit the flush lever unless the odor warranted .
Very few instances of censorship have plagued us here , I hope it remains so , the minimum standard is quite low on purpose .
-
<<The fact is that how one arrives at one's views is not nearly as important as the substance of those views. That substance is what should be discussed, not anyone's personal decisions.>>
I respectfully disagree. HOW a person came to a particular POV is always of interest, particularly if that person has deviated from the mainstream of his or her own background. Whole books have been devoted to the subject. ("Letter to Greco" by Nikos Kazantzakis, for one.)
-
Get DOWN, we agree!
Am I now then an Honorary Canadian?
-
I deleted the posts having to do with Ms Henny's personal life. I also deleted some of Ms Henny's post so that the thread retained some continuity.
The fact is that how one arrives at one's views is not nearly as important as the substance of those views. That substance is what should be discussed, not anyone's personal decisions.
I understand though that deleting any posts on a forum like this can cause problems. If you do have concerns then let Bt know and I'll abide by whatever decision he makes. If I overstepped my bounds, I apologize, but I would do so again in a heartbeat as I do not think that such discussions are material or fair for the people involved.
You are entirely incorrect. HOW you came to your views is crucial in that it shows the stimulai involved and that can tell you an awful lot about the environment and so on.
Ah, Gestapo tactics. I would not have imaigned it, especially of you. I read many posts here that are personal attacks and so on and these seem to fly, sometimes I actually wonder why by the way but if you are NOT in charge, which I'm not...
Don't be very worried about this ,JS has been entrusted with a stewardship that depends on his judgement . He has a long history with this group that engenders trust.
I did not get to read the offending passages , but I am content with my knoledge of JS's modes of behavior to trust him not to hit the flush lever unless the odor warranted .
Very few instances of censorship have plagued us here , I hope it remains so , the minimum standard is quite low on purpose .
Hmmmmmmmmm. The determining point seems to wander...
-
and??? your point, Plane?
Fat finger flub.
-
<<So you think Christians are just murderers by nature?>>
No, I made it very clear in one of my recent posts that, given the lie at the very centre of their religion, they really have no option but to kill those who will not be convinced by their lies. I guess I should have been a little clearer in ascribing the policy to the leaders only, since the rank and file really don't give a shit and may in fact be taken in by all the "peace and love" that the killingest religion in history loves to bedeck itself in.
<<I don't think your game of "they started it" is a very well respected analytical view of history. The original Crusade was in fact called because the leader of the Byzantine Empire asked for help from Latin Christendom, to help fight the invading Muslims. >>
That's exactly what I mean. As the successors to the Roman Empire in the East, the Byzantine Emperor had a lot of land to defend, none of it his by any right except that of conquest. The actual target of the First Crusade, for example, was the Jewish Homeland, which neither the Byzantines nor the Muslims had any God-damn right to. The Crusaders jumped into this on behalf of their fellow Christians, and along the way tortured, raped and slaughtered thousands of defenceless Jews. But I suppose that was OK because the Byzantine Emperor must have signed off on that too.
<<Before you jump down my throat again . . . >>
Sorry if I seemed to be jumping down your throat, I detected or thought I detected a patronizing note in your post and reacted accordingly. Next time I'll just turn the other cheek. :)
<<I'm not saying that justifies anything, but the Byzantine Empire was being invaded and did ask for aid.>>
We should get back to the original point at issue here. It was whether the Christian religion (as opposed to the Fountain of Evil Muslim religion) is or is not the "Religion of Peace." I'm sure that ANY belligerent can justify its belligerence one way or another - - my friend was being attacked, they were hiding weapons of mass destruction, we had to bring them democracy, etc., etc., etc. Rarely if ever has a belligerent justified its actions with morally disreputable reasons: We wanted their oil, God told us to kill them, etc. In other words, I don't think we were discussing whether Christianity was a peaceful religion with some really nifty reasons for making war, just simply was it peaceful or not. They can find as many good reasons for going to war as there are hairs in the beards of all their saints. They are true geniuses at finding a cause for war in any situation. But surely none of that is relevant to the point.
<< It was not as simple as you make it out to be, where a bunch of Christians with blood dripping from their teeth dragged their knuckles down to Jerusalem out of sheer hatred mixed with greed and envy.>>
Well, let's say they went to Jerusalem with motives so lofty and noble that even Jane Fonda and Noam Chomsky would have given their seal of approval. The fact remains that in fulfilling all this noble and lofty dream, they stacked up a whole lot of dead bodies of Jews and other infidels, as they have done in over 2,000 years of unrelieved slaughter, and at the end of the day, the Religion of Peace through some strange irony of history has managed to stack up the biggest death toll of any of the world religions. Am I allowed to at least comment on the irony of the situation?
<<In fact, many of the cases you discuss are rather complex, such as the Spanish Inquisition. Saying they are complex, does not justify what happened . . . >>
So why mention it?
<< . . . but it does acknowledge that the Church wasn't simply impaling everyone with a cross because they were different.>>
Got it. Their motives could have been worse. And the body count is: ________
-
"has managed to stack up the biggest death toll of any of the world religions"
I can understand this being your opinion , but do you have a real comparison to make?
Do you have the figures on how many Indians died while the Mongols were takeing it for Allah?
-
<<Get DOWN, we agree!
<<Am I now then an Honorary Canadian?>>
Professor, I had to laugh at the very thought that you would even show a passing interest in honorary citizenship in such a hell-hole of socialism and moral depravity, but geeze, yeah, even with your bizarre social values, this country would be honoured to have you. We need to know first if you know how to get into a canoe.
-
Depends upon the SIZE of the canoe...lol
-
I have a canoe , made in Canada , it makes my Toyota look like a turtle.
-
<<Where Jews were allowed to live in peace amoung the Muslims in anchient times were they subject to Dimi?
<< I don't think we want to be Dimi.>>
plane, I don't think you got my point. It was not that the Muslims were perfect and treated Jews or Christians among them the way my aunts and uncles treated me and my folks when we came to visit. There were some rough spots. Granted. But on a scale of 1 to 100, where 100 is the absolute rock-bottom worst in the way human beings can be treated, I would say, very roughly, the Muslims were at about 20 and the Christians were close to 100. You simply have no idea of the scope of the massacres, the expulsions, the robberies - - the Christians conducted massacres on the level of the Crusades or the Holocaust, the Muslims might in one BIG riot in a city, one time, maybe kill a couple of thousand. Much less frequently too, I might add.
So while Dimi is not an ideal way to go, it sure as hell beats massacres and pogroms hands-down.
<<Also , Zen Buddism was the favoriate of the Saumari . . . >>
maybe just for its meditative techniques?
<< . . . and was commoinly practiced in the Japaneese Imperial Army, there is no requirement in Buddism or Shinto that requires exclusivity.>>
Well, I realize that exclusivity is not required in either Buddhism or Shinto but one of the key tenets of Buddhism, one of the eight steps in the Eightfold Path, is ahimsa, or harmlessness. It's really kind of hard to see how a Buddhhist can practice ahimsa and be a soldier. Whereas Shinto places no such limitation on conduct. The shrine to the deceased war criminals is definitely a Shinto and not a Buddhist shrine.
<<One of the best books on Military Zen is the"Book of Five Rings " by Miyamoto Musashi and I must admit it is a good read, even though Miyamoto Musashi is also famous for killing the Christians of Nagasaki.>>
Are you sure that it's Buddhist? Does it mention the Eightfold Path? Does it mention ahimsa? And if so, how does it reconcile ahimsa with the military?
-
<<I have a canoe , made in Canada , it makes my Toyota look like a turtle.>>
Yeah? Who made it? Fabric or aluminum?
-
<<I concur. Interesting how you post an expert, a gentleman who has authored seven books and people rip into him as if he's a schmuck. How many of YOU have authored even ONE? (self-publishing doesn't count)>>
My daughter wrote one, published in Canada and the U.S.A. My first cousin wrote one, published in the U.S.A. My dad never wrote a book but some of his business letters were collected by people he did business with and published in a style book, a sort of how-to for writing business correspondence that was published here in Canada. He was a great letter writer, not only for business letters. My ex-secretary wrote two books, both self-published but one has already paid for its production costs and is still flying off the shelves.
People here have often told me I oughtta write a book, and you know what, I fully intend to. I know all about the business, I helped with all the books that my friends and family wrote and I don't think it's all that difficult. The one I'd really like to write about is about some sexual adventures with older married women that I let slip through my fingers when I was a teenager just through sheer inexperience and stupidity and then some later more successful adventures with strippers and dancers before I got married,because there's a ton of lessons in those experiences, but I'm afraid my wife would get really pissed off, also some of the family of the two older women, one of whom is still alive; also a book about the Jews and the Palestinian issue, but then nobody would ever want to speak to me again. I need to find a good subject that isn't gonna get me in hot water and then cut loose. Believe it or not, the hardest fucking thing is to find a subject. I just can't get this thing off the ground. But I know it's gonna happen.
-
<<I can understand this being your opinion [that Christianity has managed to stack up the biggest death toll of any of the world religions] but do you have a real comparison to make?
<<Do you have the figures on how many Indians died while the Mongols were takeing it for Allah?>>
Jeeziz, plane, you have got to stop taking me so literally. I am trying to make a point here, that Christianity is NOT the "Religion of Peace," whatever else it may or may not be. I mean, THINK about it: if we really could do an accurate count, and Christianity only came in second or third, would THAT make it the "Religion of Peace?"
(Although I still believe, given the Holocaust and the Crusades, the pogroms, the Spanish Inquisition and the extermination of the North and South American Indians and other stuff, that I can't even think of another religion that comes close,)
-
<<Actually, groups like Jews for Jesus have converted many Jews into Messianic Jews.>>
The only Jews I know who have been converted like that (there are two of them, sisters) are pathetic losers, lost souls. I really feel sorry for them. Plus one other guy, also a loser. A nice guy, but . . . It kind of reminds me of the Duke of Windsor -- after he made his choice, which was basically to walk away from his responsibilities, nobody had any respect for him any more. Jewish converts to Christianity are sad, sad people.
<<And, as you know, it all comes down to faith anyway.>>
Honest to God, Professor, I don't know what it comes down to. In the case of the two women I know, I think it really came down to loneliness. In the case of the male, he was cheated by his own father.
<<I postulate, MT, that looking at the created versus the Creator is a typcial, if misguided, approach, e.g do you also take excpetion with with what Jesus Christ said, or the actions of His followers?>>
As I understand it, Professor, it was Jesus' followers and not Jesus who claimed he was of divine origin, but whoever said it, I certainly take exception. That is absolutely blasphemous for a Jew to say, although it's OK for a gentile to say it because they're not God's people anyway so they can worship whoever or whatever they like. Also I take exception to some of the things Jesus said, like it's better to rip out your own eye than to look lustfully at a woman, which is so fucking stupid I can't understand why his followers would even publish it, also "turn the other cheek," which is a recipe for suicide. But as stupid and misguided as Jesus' sayings (some of them) may be, they're as nothing compared to the horrendous actions of his followers. But I don't expect better, really - - since the religion is based on a lie, I don't expect a whole lot of good to come from it. Actually, it's amazing that ANYTHING good has come out of it. But even religions based on truth (Buddhism for example) don't always produce good results, however you can certainly expect more good to come from them than, say, from Christianity.
BTW, I don't object to EVERYTHING Jesus said, some of it was OK - - like when he tells the Jews, don't worry so much about what goes INTO your mouths, worry more about what comes out of them. I loved that. Or when the guy asks you to carry his pack a half-mile, you should carry it a mile. And what Lanya quoted, Whosoever harmest the least of us . . . And one of my dad's favourites, and mine, "Sufficient unto the day . . . "
-
<<That is certainly not what Jesus promised or proposed [that the Messiah would usher in an era of everlasting peace] he told his deciples that they would suffer and that suffering in his name was blessed.>>
What I meant was that the Messiah as foretold in the Old Testament (from the very little that I know of these things) was going to usher in a new era of peace and love - - therefore, that Jesus, who so far has ushered in about two thousand years of torture and murder and mayhem - - could not possibly be the Messiah of the Old Testament.
<<On this subject , do you know who Wiliam Wilberforce is?>>
Wasn't he an Englishman who campaigned for an end to slavery in the Empire or an end to the slave trade or something like that?
<<Do you know of any people, religion or group other then Christians ,who haveing Slaves gave them up ?>>
Yeah the Jubilee - - weren't the Jews supposed to free all their slaves every 50 years or some such nonsense? I'll bet anything they figured out some way to get around it. Actually the only slave-holding religions I know about in modern times are the Muslims and the Christians. I can't really think of any decent religion that would permit anyone to own a slave. The fact that the Christians gave them up - - INVOLUNTARILY, at the point of a G.A.R. bayonet - - is nothing to be proud of. It's like the Germans boasting "Do you know any other people who shut down an extermination camp?"
<<WW of course would have given all the glory to God , but I still admire him too.>>
I'm sure he was a good man in a society of bad men.
-
>> I'm not knocking your right to express an opinion but could you at least put a little meat on it next time?<<
Why? You're predictable and a prick.
Why shoud I bother?
-
>>As you might notice, a whole bunch of posts are missing here. I asked JS to remove them. I was OK answering general questions in a public forum, but when you start asking about my child, you've gone too far.<<
What did I ask about your child? You brought him up, not me.
Nice censorship though. Reminds me of an article I posted. I think I know enough about you without going any further.
-
>>The fact is that how one arrives at one's views is not nearly as important as the substance of those views.<<
What nonsense.
-
<<Why? You're predictable and a prick.
<<Why shoud I bother?>>
So you won't look quite as fucking stupid as you do now? So that maybe I'll take your post a little more seriously instead of automatically writing it off as the product of a semi-literate moron? So that you can contribute more to the group than a gratuitous screen fart?
-
>>As you might notice, a whole bunch of posts are missing here. I asked JS to remove them. I was OK answering general questions in a public forum, but when you start asking about my child, you've gone too far.<<
What did I ask about your child? You brought him up, not me.
Nice censorship though. Reminds me of an article I posted. I think I know enough about you without going any further.
I find it intriguing that many on the the Left tend to bring up the issue of censorship quite alot (usually indicating that the Right is censoring something), and yet censorship is practiced, as is evidenced by this latest action, by them. I find this paradoxical. If censorship is to be followed, persuade me to participate further, please. What's next? No freedom of expression of ANY kind? I find the logic of this action illogical.
-
I find it intriguing that many on the the Left tend to bring up the issue of censorship quite alot (usually indicating that the Right is censoring something), and yet censorship is practiced, as is evidenced by this latest action, by them. I find this paradoxical. If censorship is to be followed, persuade me to participate further, please. What's next? No freedom of expression of ANY kind? I find the logic of this action illogical.
Deleting posts that go against the terms of service for this forum is not censorship, nor is it a freedom of speech issue as this site has zip to do with the government. You don't have a right to post here, you are granted the privilege of posting here by virtue of agreeing to abide to the terms of service of this board.
I did not read the deleted posts.
I presume JS was asked to look at the posts and exercised his right as a moderator to remove them . JS is not one to act arbitrarily nor rashly. I don't recall him ever deleting a post in any of the predecessors of this board, going alll the way back to the great-granddaddy of them all, Conspiracy Cafe. which Chicky and he founded.
I know he never deleted a member in all the time i have known him and posted with him , which must be going back 9 or 10 years online.
I trust his judgment.
-
>>As you might notice, a whole bunch of posts are missing here. I asked JS to remove them. I was OK answering general questions in a public forum, but when you start asking about my child, you've gone too far.<<
What did I ask about your child? You brought him up, not me.
Nice censorship though. Reminds me of an article I posted. I think I know enough about you without going any further.
I find it intriguing that many on the the Left tend to bring up the issue of censorship quite alot (usually indicating that the Right is censoring something), and yet censorship is practiced, as is evidenced by this latest action, by them. I find this paradoxical. If censorship is to be followed, persuade me to participate further, please. What's next? No freedom of expression of ANY kind? I find the logic of this action illogical.
Once again we have the absolute.
This is much a game, debate with rules, but the actual realities of our lives are hardly games' pieces, no matter whose pocket they inadvertantly spill out of.
Suppose I find your mother's debit card, and coincidentally become aware of her pin number--should I post it and call it freedom of speech? How about your sister's medical records--is that covered under anything goes?
-
If censorship is to be followed, persuade me to participate further, please. What's next? No freedom of expression of ANY kind? I find the logic of this action illogical.
Does no one objecting to the removal of the posts take into account that Henny asked for the posts to be removed because she felt they were too personal for this public forum? Doesn't Henny deserve some respect regarding what she is willing to discuss about her family in this forum? Jeez.
-
<<The fact is that how one arrives at one's views is not nearly as important as the substance of those views. That substance is what should be discussed, not anyone's personal decisions.>>
I respectfully disagree. HOW a person came to a particular POV is always of interest, particularly if that person has deviated from the mainstream of his or her own background. Whole books have been devoted to the subject. ("Letter to Greco" by Nikos Kazantzakis, for one.)
I should reiterate that I asked JS to delete those posts. I generally have no problem discussing how I came to be who I am and think what I do, but I am not going to let my family be dissected by the likes of Rich in a public forum.
I think all of you know enough about me to know where I come from and what my experiences have been. Like I said, if Rich is truly interested in details about why I made the choices I did about my family, he can ask me privately. However, I suspect his questions were not out of interest, but mainly to insult, and simply because he had run out of substantive points to debate.
-
I didn't realize that Henny had asked for her own posts to be removed, which in and of itself ought to have settled the question. If I post something that for any reason I wish to take back, I would think - - regardless of what the rules say and whether or not I have waived copyright in the post - - then out of simple decency, the post ought to be taken down. When issues of privacy and family are concerned, all the more reason to comply with the author's wishes and take down the post.
Sorry, Henny, I didn't realize what was at stake. Sorry Professor, guess now it looks like we still can't agree on ANYTHING - - but I'm still OK with you being an Honorary Canadian if you're still interested.
-
Well, I guess I apologize. I must have overlooked the part about her requesting the removal. Of course, if anyone ASKS for posts to be removed, then that should be their perogative.
However, are we not able to remove our own posts? I know I have done this in the past. Is this capability no longer available?
-
Well, I guess I apologize. I must have overlooked the part about her requesting the removal. Of course, if anyone ASKS for posts to be removed, then that should be their perogative.
However, are we not able to remove our own posts? I know I have done this in the past. Is this capability no longer available?
They were Rich's posts addressed to me on personal issues.
-
I find it intriguing that many on the the Left tend to bring up the issue of censorship quite alot (usually indicating that the Right is censoring something), and yet censorship is practiced, as is evidenced by this latest action, by them. I find this paradoxical. If censorship is to be followed, persuade me to participate further, please. What's next? No freedom of expression of ANY kind? I find the logic of this action illogical.
Deleting posts that go against the terms of service for this forum is not censorship, nor is it a freedom of speech issue as this site has zip to do with the government. You don't have a right to post here, you are granted the privilege of posting here by virtue of agreeing to abide to the terms of service of this board.
I did not read the deleted posts.
I presume JS was asked to look at the posts and exercised his right as a moderator to remove them . JS is not one to act arbitrarily nor rashly. I don't recall him ever deleting a post in any of the predecessors of this board, going all the way back to the great-granddaddy of them all, Conspiracy Cafe. which Chicky and he founded.
I know he never deleted a member in all the time i have known him and posted with him , which must be going back 9 or 10 years online.
I trust his judgment.
For the record, I respect JS, even though I rarely agree with him, philosophically. I find his posts to be thoughtful and I enjoy the back-and-forth.
And, even though we (DebateGate) have zero to do with government, freedom of speech and expression is a broader philosophical term that applies across society, not just governmental entities.
Now, for JS to remove Henny's posts per her requests (even though she could it do for herself) is perfectly fine. Sounds very gentlemanly of him. But to remove Rich's posts? I remember Terra used to say some really terrible things and yet I do not remember her posts ever being removed. Domer mentions an aspect of her religion, however (a correct one by the way, FACTUALLY), and he is suspended for a while. Hey, I hardly EVER agree with Domer, but that's beside the point here.
Someone removes any of mine, however, and I'll join the Left in protests against Fascism/autocratic behavior. I hope Rich is upset as I believe he deserves to be. And if anyone is upset I am upset, so be it. Remove me from the list for it if you wish for this opinion and put on your armband. As BT pointed out, it is BT, JS, chickencunter, Plane and Victor's call anyway.
-
Your idealism and courage of convictions is noted.
Let's get back to talking past each other, shall we?
-
>>Your idealism and courage of convictions is noted. <<
As is your lack there of.
But that's old news.
-
>>They were Rich's posts addressed to me on personal issues.<<
I guess I hit a nerve.
Personally I don't give a damn about you or your family. You give yourself much to much credit for being the slightest bit interesting. I asked a simple question ABOUT YOU, I never mentioned your children. At the time I didn't realize that you had become one of them. the last I heard you were a Catholic who actually wrote about her Catholic beliefs. I didn't realize that it had become a probnlem for you, which it obviously has. I asked a question regarding what i thought was relevant to your position on an issue. I was seeking clarification. If I made you uncomfotrtable regarding your personal problems regarding the issue please, except my sincere apologies, then go fuck yourself.
-
>>They were Rich's posts addressed to me on personal issues.<<
I guess I hit a nerve. Personally I don't give a damn about you or your family.
Personally, I do, not that it matters to anyone. So much easier to make enemies around here Rich, even when ideologically they're not that far off from each other. Try to keep that in mind before you tell others to go f- themselves, would be my strong suggestion......for improved dialog, debate, and support of common interests/issues
-
As is your lack there of.
But that's old news.
Apparently.
And so it goes.
-
>>Your idealism and courage of convictions is noted. <<
As is your lack there of.
But that's old news.
<heavy sigh>
-
>>They were Rich's posts addressed to me on personal issues.<<
I guess I hit a nerve.
Personally I don't give a damn about you or your family. You give yourself much to much credit for being the slightest bit interesting. I asked a simple question ABOUT YOU, I never mentioned your children. At the time I didn't realize that you had become one of them. the last I heard you were a Catholic who actually wrote about her Catholic beliefs. I didn't realize that it had become a probnlem for you, which it obviously has. I asked a question regarding what i thought was relevant to your position on an issue. I was seeking clarification. If I made you uncomfotrtable regarding your personal problems regarding the issue please, except my sincere apologies, then go fuck yourself.
Bullshit, asswipe. You specifically led right into asking why I chose to raise my son the way I did and then further insulted that by insinuating that I didn't have a choice. You were being a prick - no problem, you always have been - but it was simply too personal for me to leave posted in here. I don't give a goddamn if what you think of me and my family, but you were deliberately baiting and insulting, as you've always done to people in the past.
I guess the mistake is that by having the posts deleted, you can sing "poor censored me."
-
You don't, but that is no one's business but your own. Can we, as BT said, now move forward?
For example, how was Jordan as far as radical Islam? What is the position of their government in this arena? Was there a diversity of opinion on this issue there? What did the average guy on the street think in this regard?
-
You don't, but that is no one's business but your own. Can we, as BT said, now move forward?
For example, how was Jordan as far as radical Islam? What is the position of their government in this arena? Was there a diversity of opinion on this issue there? What did the average guy on the street think in this regard?
I don't what?
-
You don't, but that is no one's business but your own. Can we, as BT said, now move forward?
For example, how was Jordan as far as radical Islam? What is the position of their government in this arena? Was there a diversity of opinion on this issue there? What did the average guy on the street think in this regard?
I don't what?
I'm taking BT's suggestion, I suggest you do as well.
Again...
How was Jordan as far as radical Islam? What is the position of their government in this arena? Was there a diversity of opinion on this issue there? What did the average guy on the street think in this regard?
-
<<I have a canoe , made in Canada , it makes my Toyota look like a turtle.>>
Yeah? Who made it? Fabric or aluminum?
Pelican , it is plastic.
I have had it out on the Ocmulgee and on a lake , it is ideal for the slow moveing and twisty Ocmulgee.
http://www.paddling.net/Reviews/showReviews.html?prod=837
-
<<I can understand this being your opinion [that Christianity has managed to stack up the biggest death toll of any of the world religions] but do you have a real comparison to make?
<<Do you have the figures on how many Indians died while the Mongols were takeing it for Allah?>>
Jeeziz, plane, you have got to stop taking me so literally. I am trying to make a point here, that Christianity is NOT the "Religion of Peace," whatever else it may or may not be. I mean, THINK about it: if we really could do an accurate count, and Christianity only came in second or third, would THAT make it the "Religion of Peace?"
(Although I still believe, given the Holocaust and the Crusades, the pogroms, the Spanish Inquisition and the extermination of the North and South American Indians and other stuff, that I can't even think of another religion that comes close,)
So who exactly does call Islam or Christianity "the religion o peace"?
-
<<That is certainly not what Jesus promised or proposed [that the Messiah would usher in an era of everlasting peace] he told his deciples that they would suffer and that suffering in his name was blessed.>>
What I meant was that the Messiah as foretold in the Old Testament (from the very little that I know of these things) was going to usher in a new era of peace and love - - therefore, that Jesus, who so far has ushered in about two thousand years of torture and murder and mayhem - - could not possibly be the Messiah of the Old Testament.
<<On this subject , do you know who Wiliam Wilberforce is?>>
Wasn't he an Englishman who campaigned for an end to slavery in the Empire or an end to the slave trade or something like that?
<<Do you know of any people, religion or group other then Christians ,who haveing Slaves gave them up ?>>
Yeah the Jubilee - - weren't the Jews supposed to free all their slaves every 50 years or some such nonsense? I'll bet anything they figured out some way to get around it. Actually the only slave-holding religions I know about in modern times are the Muslims and the Christians. I can't really think of any decent religion that would permit anyone to own a slave. The fact that the Christians gave them up - - INVOLUNTARILY, at the point of a G.A.R. bayonet - - is nothing to be proud of. It's like the Germans boasting "Do you know any other people who shut down an extermination camp?"
<<WW of course would have given all the glory to God , but I still admire him too.>>
I'm sure he was a good man in a society of bad men.
Hahahaha.... Willam Wilberforce was a great leader , he did a lot to shape his time and ours .
You are wrong about the Involentary part , William Wilberforce was a MP .
-
So even if I can point to millions and millions of people killed by Christians or by people raised in Christian countries in Christian families, even in my own lifetime, the example of William Wiberforce means that Christianity still is the Religion of Peace and still has the right to demonize Islam?
How does that work?
-
So even if I can point to millions and millions of people killed by Christians or by people raised in Christian countries in Christian families, even in my own lifetime, the example of William Wilberforce means that Christianity still is the Religion of Peace and still has the right to demonize Islam?
How does that work?
Christianity has been used as a tool by bad guys , in this respect it is not more usefull than any other religion.
Christ did not say that Christianity would bring peace to the world and neither did I , as often as you say "religion of Peace" I wonder who you are quoting.
But Christ taught an egalitarian message that led directly to William Wilberforce .
The foundation of Western Civilization was in slave owning society , the Greeks , the Romans , Renaissance Europe , all slave owning. Much of the wealth of Britain in the early 1700' was from slave trade.
But William Wilberforce was persueded that it was unChristian to trade in slaves , then he persueded his nation. This couldn't have happened without Christs teaching being well distributed . This took all of his lifetime ,and more, and was a unique thing in all history.
In the same tradition Martin Luther King Jr. made constant use of Christ's teaching to make his leadership effective , his movement successfull and his cause persuasive, even tho Gandhi was a Hindu did the same thing.
Wars were happening without Christianity and religions have always been a part of it , but even a misused Christianity can recover the good of Christs teaching .
Islam on the other hand was founded by Mohamed who was a plagiarist and a pirate.
-
Plane makes a good point here. Many who wish to bash Christianity as some religion of killing, are actually referencing in large part people using Christianity & Christ's teachings as their supposed reason for killing, when in actuality, they're not acting as Christians in any way shape or form. Just because someone kills in the name of the Christian God doesn't make them Christian. It generally makes them evil
-
<<as often as you say "religion of Peace" I wonder who you are quoting.>>
Somebody - - I think it was the Professor - - recommended a book entitled "Why Christianity is the Religion of Peace - - and Islam is Not." That's who I'm quoting.
Also, as I understand the Christ legend, it was foretold in the Old Testament that the Messiah would come to earth and usher in a reign of peace and then in the New Testament it was said that Christ was the Messiah. So you can take my remarks as aimed at the claim that Christ is the Messiah referred to in the Old Testament. He obviously is not.
<<The foundation of Western Civilization was in slave owning society , the Greeks , the Romans , Renaissance Europe , all slave owning. Much of the wealth of Britain in the early 1700' was from slave trade.>>
I'm not impressed that some Christians persuaded other Christians not to own slaves. If the Christian religion was any good in the first place, there would not have been any Christian slave owners and there would have been no need for other Christians to tell them to stop it. Sure as hell took them long enough. Christianity was around since the year 1 and the Christians finally give up slavery 1,732 years later? Whoopee doo.
And slavery, horrendous as it was, is only one of the LESSER crimes and atrocities of the Christians. Who persuaded them to stop killing and torturing millions and tens of millions? NOBODY. They're still at it. You think Wilberforce wipes out the crimes of the Inquisition and the Crusades, the extermination of the Indians and the Holocaust? Gimme a break. Wilberforce this and Wilberforce that and at the end of the day the Christians have STILL killed more innocent victims than any other religion on the face of the earth and have absolutely NO right to demonize any other religion, particularly the Muslims who over all and notwithstanding anything written in the Koran have a much more tolerant history than the Christians do.
<<Islam on the other hand was founded by Mohamed who was a plagiarist and a pirate.>>
Exactly what I mean. A religion founded by a plagiarist and a pirate was more decent and more humane than yours. There are so many millions of Jews killed by Christians over the milennia and they would have given everything they owned to have been able to live in a Muslim world, at peace and allowed to go about their business, dhimmi or not, than to live in a Christian world and be burned at the stake, killed by rampaging mobs or gassed in concentration camps. You have one hell of a nerve slandering Mohammed, when he founded a better, gentler and more tolerant religion than yours.
I think it's just incredible how you can ignore all of the crimes and victims of Christianity and then pull out Wilberforce as if he could negate everything that happened. Doesn't work that way, plane. Christianity is a religion of stone cold killers with a few good guys thrown into the mix. They killed more and tortured more than the Muslims. Muslims today are violent in reaction to injustices perpetrated upon them. Who perpetrated those injustices? Jews and Christians.
-
Plane makes a good point here. Many who wish to bash Christianity as some religion of killing, are actually referencing in large part people using Christianity & Christ's teachings as their supposed reason for killing, when in actuality, they're not acting as Christians in any way shape or form. Just because someone kills in the name of the Christian God doesn't make them Christian. It generally makes them evil
Yes , the KKK is prone to brag about its Christianity, and it has a Christianity as good as many an Emperor of the past.
Kings have always been bloody handed things and Christinity didn't change that much , but it wroughta change from the bottom up so profound that we really take it for granted.
-
<<Plane makes a good point here. Many who wish to bash Christianity as some religion of killing, are actually referencing in large part people using Christianity & Christ's teachings as their supposed reason for killing, when in actuality, they're not acting as Christians in any way shape or form. Just because someone kills in the name of the Christian God doesn't make them Christian. It generally makes them evil>>
OK. So the Inquisitors and the Crusaders weren't really Christians. The Germans who conducted the Holocaust weren't really Christians. Really fooled me. They went to Church, got baptised in church, got married in church, got buried in churchyards, had crosses put on their graves - - but they were not Christians. The Inquisitors were all priests of the RCC but I guess you can be a priest of the RCC without being a Christian. The Crusades were preached by priests and monks, but the priests and monks weren't Christians. I got it!! NOBODY who claimed he was a Christian was a Christian. They were evil-doers.
So what if I said that none of the people who killed in the name of Allah were Muslims? THEY were just evil-doers too.
Won't work. THEY were MUSLIMS. Got it.
-
<<Kings have always been bloody handed things and Christinity didn't change that much , but it wroughta change from the bottom up so profound that we really take it for granted.>>
Oh yeah, I can really see that. BIG difference between the days of the Crusades and the Inquisition and the days of the Holocaust. HUGE difference from the bottom up. Profound.
-
I'm not impressed that some Christians persuaded other Christians not to own slaves. If the Christian religion was any good in the first place, there would not have been any Christian slave owners and there would have been no need for other Christians to tell them to stop it. Sure as hell took them long enough. Christianity was around since the year 1 and the Christians finally give up slavery 1,732 years later? Whoopee doo.
The early Christians were the slaves , a lot of spoilage occured when the Emporer took it up. The people were much more receptive at the lower levels
Slave owning was pretty much universal with no large kingdoms free of it . War was and is totally universal.
I doubt that your numbers are carefully researched , can you really say that you know that the Crusades killed more people than died in Stalins purges? Or that Islam has killed one fewer person in its time?
By the way do you suppose that Christianity will kill more Jews than Islam this year? I wonder if we should be slacking while they are trying so hard to catch up?
-
<<Kings have always been bloody handed things and Christinity didn't change that much , but it wroughta change from the bottom up so profound that we really take it for granted.>>
Oh yeah, I can really see that. BIG difference between the days of the Crusades and the Inquisition and the days of the Holocaust. HUGE difference from the bottom up. Profound.
True , in the time of the Inquisition no one was prepared to come to the rescue . With out Christianity who ever would have been?
-
<<Plane makes a good point here. Many who wish to bash Christianity as some religion of killing, are actually referencing in large part people using Christianity & Christ's teachings as their supposed reason for killing, when in actuality, they're not acting as Christians in any way shape or form. Just because someone kills in the name of the Christian God doesn't make them Christian. It generally makes them evil>>
OK. So the Inquisitors and the Crusaders weren't really Christians. The Germans who conducted the Holocaust weren't really Christians. Really fooled me. They went to Church, got baptised in church, got married in church, got buried in churchyards, had crosses put on their graves - - but they were not Christians. The Inquisitors were all priests of the RCC but I guess you can be a priest of the RCC without being a Christian. The Crusades were preached by priests and monks, but the priests and monks weren't Christians. I got it!! NOBODY who claimed he was a Christian was a Christian. They were evil-doers.
So what if I said that none of the people who killed in the name of Allah were Muslims? THEY were just evil-doers too.
Won't work. THEY were MUSLIMS. Got it.
They were a fit for their times, few of these you mention would fit in our times witout accepting Islam.
No ,only Jesus can decide who measures up , think he looks for intent and sincerity .
Jesus mentions that some people will misuse his authority and his name : http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=7&verse=23&version=31&context=verse.
Matthew 7:23 (New International Version)
23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
It is quite possible that he is offeded with some of the same people you are , I suppose I could commit ome vile atrocity and claim that MT told me to , but would this endear me to you ?
-
<<The early Christians were the slaves , a lot of spoilage occured when the Emporer took it up. The people were much more receptive at the lower levels>>
That's ludicrous. None of Jesus or the Twelve Apostles were slaves and their first cult members were all Jews, none of them slaves.
<<Slave owning was pretty much universal with no large kingdoms free of it . War was and is totally universal.>>
Well if you're claiming that Wilberforce is a triumph of Christianity, you have to admit given the time taken that it's a pretty insignificant accomplishment. I don't buy that Wilberforce did this singlehandedly, there was a lot of anti-slavery mobilization, Christianity played a part only because the biggest slave-holding societies were Christian, so the opposition to slavery would have concentrated in the only organization within the slave-holding society that had moral influence. If the biggest slave-holding societies had been Buddhist, it would have been Buddhist activists who ended it.
<<I doubt that your numbers are carefully researched , can you really say that you know that the Crusades killed more people than died in Stalins purges? >>
Probably did. Stalin's purges were greatly exaggerated, and a lot of the victims were enemies of the Revolution, fascists and anti-Semites. They deserved to die. Besides which, what do Stalin's purges have to do with this? Was he a Muslim? The subject seems to be the slanderous accusations that some Christians and Jews are directing at Islam as a religion of violence, and my allegation that Christianity has way more blood on its hands than Islam. I don't know of any Islamic massacres that claimed anywhere near as many innocent lives as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the pogroms (including the Ukrainian Peasant Revolt) and the Holocaust, let alone the extermination of the American Indians. Sorry, but if you want to convince me that Islam is as violent as Christianity, you'll have to come up with some facts in support. I will tell you right now that I don't know of any of them.
<<Or that Islam has killed one fewer person in its time?>>
Go ahead. Find me one Islamic massacre that matches the Holocaust or the extermination of the American Indians.
<<By the way do you suppose that Christianity will kill more Jews than Islam this year? >>
NO, they teamed up against the Muslims. I bet their team will kill a lot more innocent Muslims than Muslims will kill innocent Christians and Jews.
<<I wonder if we should be slacking while they are trying so hard to catch up?>>
That's why Israel has 400 nuclear weapons. Anyone who wants to try is welcome to step up to the plate.
-
Plane:
"Wars were happening without Christianity and religions have always been a part of it , but even a misused Christianity can recover the good of Christs teaching ."
Superb and thoughtful comment. No one, even the Church, is above repentence.
-
I'm taking BT's suggestion, I suggest you do as well.
How was Jordan as far as radical Islam? What is the position of their government in this arena? Was there a diversity of opinion on this issue there? What did the average guy on the street think in this regard?
Sigh. I figured it out anyway. And while what you suggest is not true in my particular circumstance, it does happen. But as an aside to illustrate the point, when my parents married, my father was a Catholic, my mother a Methodist. He gave her an ultimatum - the kids will be Catholic, or no kids. I guess she didn't have a choice.
About Jordan - the government is obviously a strong ally for the U.S. in the region. Officially, terrorism is condemned and they have amazing anti-terrorism forces at work, and they work hand-in-hand with American intelligence to prevent terrorism. You frequently hear of terror plots being thwarted.
But when you step outside of the official stand, there are some problems. Most of the problems are now coming from Iraqi refugees, and I suspect we'll here of more problems as the refugee crisis gets worse - in other words, sectarian violence will begin to spill over the borders. And of course there was Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi who was from Zarqa, a small town just outside of greater Amman. (I heard on the news that people here thought that the town Zarqa was named after Zarqawi - not true. Zarqawi means "from Zarqa," and he changed his name to Zarqawi as an adult to reflect where he was from.) If you talk to the people on the street, there is some anger, but the people I personally knew - and heard of from others - denounced terrorism in all of its forms as cowardly acts.
-
I'm taking BT's suggestion, I suggest you do as well.
How was Jordan as far as radical Islam? What is the position of their government in this arena? Was there a diversity of opinion on this issue there? What did the average guy on the street think in this regard?
Sigh. I figured it out anyway. And while what you suggest is not true in my particular circumstance, it does happen. But as an aside to illustrate the point, when my parents married, my father was a Catholic, my mother a Methodist. He gave her an ultimatum - the kids will be Catholic, or no kids. I guess she didn't have a choice.
About Jordan - the government is obviously a strong ally for the U.S. in the region. Officially, terrorism is condemned and they have amazing anti-terrorism forces at work, and they work hand-in-hand with American intelligence to prevent terrorism. You frequently hear of terror plots being thwarted.
But when you step outside of the official stand, there are some problems. Most of the problems are now coming from Iraqi refugees, and I suspect we'll here of more problems as the refugee crisis gets worse - in other words, sectarian violence will begin to spill over the borders. And of course there was Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi who was from Zarqa, a small town just outside of greater Amman. (I heard on the news that people here thought that the town Zarqa was named after Zarqawi - not true. Zarqawi means "from Zarqa," and he changed his name to Zarqawi as an adult to reflect where he was from.) If you talk to the people on the street, there is some anger, but the people I personally knew - and heard of from others - denounced terrorism in all of its forms as cowardly acts.
Jordan sounds like a place where more radical Islam should look to for inspiration on how to get along in this complex world we live in.