NotreDame Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 True, but to be fair anyone can commit an atrocity in the name of x, y, or z. Regardless I've come to believe or at least consider that there's something more besides religious ideology at play. Because from what I gather this ideology is primarily rooted in the Middle East. I've never heard, or gotten the impression, from American-born Muslims that violence is the way to go. Not sure why you haven't heard of it, but you can tell from this thread that some people like to bury their head in the sand. The truth is that pretty much everywhere there are muslims, there are muslim terrorists: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Converts_to_Islam#Involvement_in_Terrorism http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/most-islamist-terrorists-in-uk-are-born-here-2018507.html And, having been to fort hood myself, lets not forget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan And the infamous shoe bomber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid the recent london beheadings: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/19/two-men-convicted-of-british-soldier-beheading.html This is just a sampling. The list goes on and on and on and on and on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) St Paul " Not all scripture is the perfect will of GOD, but all scripture is useful." Our LORD and saviour Jesus " Separate the weeds from the wheat." Perhaps even prophets in the old testament got there own will mixed up with the will of GOD at times, for even a prophet is also a man, only Jesus is LORD GOD made flesh and only his words are the perfect will of GOD as priest,prophet and king. I'm not saying Muhammad was a prophet because i don't know, i have only read one verse from the Koran and decided to not read any more, but i haven't read the whole thing in the light of searching for truth and light,even fragments of that light and truth, therefore i personally can not comment as to whether it is a matter of separating the will of Muhammad from the will of GOD. And i'm not very strong in the gift of discerning spirits so i can not tell if Muhammad would deliberately deceive or not. This is all just my opinion and perhaps i have said to much, i just try and hold the Persian people in the light of Abraham son Ishmael as being a seed of Abraham whether he and that branch be good or bad, whether I'm right or wrong. But i won't be converting to Islam, i believe i have the fullness of truth through the grace of our LORD and saviour Christ Jesus but that is not to say anyone outside of Christianity can not have some truth and light through the grace of GOD, even Muslims. All of what i have said may possibly be wrong so please don't judge me or condemn me for it. God is Good! Jesus is LORD! Onward Christian souls! Edited March 24, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I don't mean to say Persians are bad but in the light of truth St Paul also said something like " a branch can be cut off but re attached at any time chosen by GOD." if indeed that branch or perhaps the branch of Ishmael divides into multiple branches and some, half, most or all have been cut off and can or will be re attached. I don't know just saying all this in the spirit of good will and the desire to know the truth and bring light to any darkness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicsAreKewl Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) I think the posters arguing that Islam is not peaceful are making valid points. There is a problem in Islam that Muslims and nonmuslims are ignoring at the moment. However, it's hard to be taken seriously when we simplify and generalize Islam. Try to be more specific. Edited March 24, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) Extremely very strong tie to the orthodox church, huh? So I guess the General that got convicted of genocide was just a fake communist all those years? ? I don't know if this is a serious question or not. Slobodan Melisovic was also in the communist party for decades before championing Serbian Nationalism proved expeditious (which is a general trend in most Post-Communist states in Eastern Europe and Central Asia). Um. A large number of the Chechen insurgent leadership were also members of the communist party in the Soviet Days. That shouldn't really be surprising. However I'm sure you would be happy to classify most of them as a Muslim terrorist. Particularly since many of them embraced Muslim iconography and imagery during the war. As a general note, yes, Serbian nationalism and identity is, both historically and presently, very closely tied to the Orthodox religious tradition. For example, the colloquial were for an ethnic Serb in Bosnia today is the same as the word for 'Orthodox' (pravoslav). Edited March 24, 2014 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) This is exactly the problem and why I kept trying to stress the category error at the beginning here. Most of these conflicts are extremely complex as is the phenomena of terrorism (Were this conversation occurring in the 1910s you would be making threads about how HAS ANYBODY NOTICED HOW WHEREVER ITALIAN IMMIGRANTS GO THERE ARE VIOLENT ANARCHIST GROUPS. ITALIANS=ANARCHISTS. ITALIANS CULTURE BREEDS TERRORISTS AHHHHH). If your ignorant of how to do social science research or even the most basic facts about a given conflict making vast generalizations about how 'group 'x' tends to be more violent is going to be so confused and incoherent that it's hard to even substantively engage with. Edited March 24, 2014 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 The truth is that pretty much everywhere there are muslims, there are muslim terrorists: What is your range on this claim? Like, literally, what is your geographic range? This is a good example. This assertion is so vague that it cannot even be meaningfully addressed. It doesn't even rise to the level of being coherent enough to be right or wrong in any meaningful way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 No. There are plenty of people here who have noticed it. In fact, Aloysius wrote a post you ignored pointing out why it was an important point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Not that it's impressive or original that I noticed that it was a category error. That would be pretty obvious with anybody who had a basic grasp of even informal logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 This is exactly the problem and why I kept trying to stress the category error at the beginning here. Most of these conflicts are extremely complex as is the phenomena of terrorism (Were this conversation occurring in the 1910s you would be making threads about how HAS ANYBODY NOTICED HOW WHEREVER ITALIAN IMMIGRANTS GO THERE ARE VIOLENT ANARCHIST GROUPS. ITALIANS=ANARCHISTS. ITALIANS CULTURE BREEDS TERRORISTS AHHHHH). If your ignorant of how to do social science research or even the most basic facts about a given conflict making vast generalizations about how 'group 'x' tends to be more violent is going to be so confused and incoherent that it's hard to even substantively engage with. For someone with such a vast knowledge of formal logic and rhetoric, it apparently doesn't extend to making analogies. There's a number of issues with yours, but for starters drawing a conclusion based on one decade of a culture's three millennial history doesn't compare to drawing a conclusion based on the entire 1500 year history of a religion. As for the category error issue... Is it a category error to ask whether Islamic beliefs motivate violence? Not at all - and that's the meaning of asking whether "Islam is a religion of peace or not" and it has been the vernacular meaning of that question since Bush used it in September of 2011. An there's certainly no category error in anything I said. All those examples I listed were people that committed (or attempted to commit) murderous violence in the name of their religion.... What is your range on this claim? Like, literally, what is your geographic range? This is a good example. This assertion is so vague that it cannot even be meaningfully addressed. It doesn't even rise to the level of being coherent enough to be right or wrong in any meaningful way. ... And the meaning of my reply is perfectly clear especially in the context of the earlier post. Of course, you'd rather purposely misread it and rathole on one imprecise word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 No. There are plenty of people here who have noticed it. In fact, Aloysius wrote a post you ignored pointing out why it was an important point. OK, I just figured that since you kept repeating it that you weren't feeling heard. Not that it's impressive or original that I noticed that it was a category error. That would be pretty obvious with anybody who had a basic grasp of even informal logic. Well gee thanks Hasan! We're just here waiting for you to learn us some more stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 ... And the meaning of my reply is perfectly clear especially in the context of the earlier post. Of course, you'd rather purposely misread it and rathole on one imprecise word. Then answer my question. I'm not misreading it. I'm asking you basic questions that would add some minimal level of coherence to your incoherent claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kia ora Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 honestly, your smoking question just seems to reinforce my scratching-of-my-head at why you insist upon defining Islam... you seem to be trying to argue that Muslims should follow Islam more strictly? but we don't believe in Islam... if everything you said was 100% true rather than a selective reading of Islam, then why would you be standing up trying to argue that Muslims who disagree with those things are wrong? if I saw a Mormon drinking a coke, or a Muslim eating some pork, I'd just shrug my shoulders... maybe I'd be curious, and I'm sure this is where your question came from (but it's a good emblematic question to illustrate the point about the much bigger violence question), I'd be curious if they were following their conscience or not. if they're breaking their conscience by eating pork or drinking a coke, that's a problem, but if all they're doing is violating some norm of a religion I don't even believe in anyway, then more power to them. reminds me of those atheists who argue that fundamentalist christians are the only 'true' christians because they take their Bible seriously and that all those weak liberal christians should be like the fundamentalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kia ora Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Ahab, considered as the worst king of Israel, was never accused of atrocities similar to what committed Muhamed. Furthermore, no one to my knowledge follows the kings of Israel's examples as infallible example of a prophet who proclaimed the orders of God on a word per word basis and follow these instructions as beyond reproach, perfect, beyond criticism. I am familiar with the version of 'religion of peace' you iterate, and it is a mighty nice ideology. One I can agree to. Now if you don't like the wording in the title then what would you prefer then? Something in the line of 'Muhamed's inspired philosophy as written in the Koran dictates violence and oppression on non-muslims?' Let me know the wording you want, but please don't hide behind mere terminologies to avoid the real issues or the debate all together. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't post; plain and simple. joshua was worse than muhammad by far. so too moses. is there a christian here willing to slap joshua and moses across the face for following the words of god? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now