There Is No Such Thing As Radical Islam
Post Orlando, odd posts popped up throughout the web, hostile to Christians, even blaming Christians for motivating the massacre at Pulse. How odd, I thought, the gay community is so focused on its low level persecution by Christians and Western Civilization that it can't bring itself to see the people who not only perpetrated the massacre but, claimed glorious credit for it. Then it occurred to me, when we analyze events and threats, we use our own personal probability models. Even though Christians in the US can do little more than shout names at the gay community, the community is 100% certain the Christians condemn them emotionally. Muslims, on the other hand, just murdered 49 and wounded scores more gays. But, to the gay community, the odds of being killed by a Muslim are so small that they ignore the improbable, no matter how deadly and, focus on what they see as a sure thing, even though it's little more than an irritant.
Strange but, apparently true, the Calculus of Self Deception.
Strange but, apparently true, the Calculus of Self Deception.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
If you pick a subject other than religion, I suspect you and I will not bang heads so much :)
Funny Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzSq...
Stoic Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true...
The Quran progresses from tolerance to intolerance chronologically and, after the contradictions became too many to ignore, Muhammad instituted the principle of abrogation: the earlier verses are made invalid by chronologically later verses. Muhammad and is scribes made this less accessible by reorganizing the Quran into nonchronological order. Quranic scholars know the true chronological order and thus, know which verses remain true and which were made null by Muhammad's later revelations. As Muhammad's military success expanded and he became more martial, his revelations became less tolerant until, by his later years ALL the peaceful, we can live together, let's be tolerant verses were made null. His final revelation was Muslims must enslave or rid the earth of all infidels. That is the final, lasting, only verse that matters, core of the Quran and Islam.
Now, tell me something useful. Is there a way to prevent a specific member from posting on a specific thread? Does the Gulch make it possible for me to exclude you from future discussions and prevent you from hijacking my future posts?
This one was only about the limitations imposed on Muslims by the Quran, the literal, unchangeable, uneditable, unreinterpretable word of Allah. You've chosen to make it about the Catholic Church. I have no expertise in or desire to talk about the Catholic Church but, every time I try to get the discussion back to the Quran, you go off the rails again.
So, if you want to teach me something, tell me how to exclude you from future discussions. If not, let's simply agree to ignore each other. I haven't sought you out or tried to hijack your posts, please do me the same courtesy and we'll be fine, coexisting in the same digital world but, apart. :)
I did not say the bible instructed christians to kill gays. I said the bible condemns them, simply refuting your unsupported assertion using the No True Scottsman fallacy. My statement is supported by the catholic church's past and present interpretation of the bible. Your statement is a recent, less literal and modern interpretation, where the bible is not the "literal word of god", but more than a story written by wise men a long time ago. Great. On to islam.
Islam is ~600 years younger than christianity. Additionally, islam has not benefited from open dissent, evaluation and argument in a free and wealthy society for hundreds of years. People offer chrisianity the benefit of hundreds of years of open discourse in rich society where the participants have been protected by law. Now the dogma has become allegory, molded to what has been logically concluded acceptable by society, and it seems so reasonable. Well of course it does.
So when do we offer muslims the same benefit. First 600 years of religious evolution, and second hundreds of years of open dialog, discussion and argument, allowing the purveyors of dogma to back away from their untenable positions.
If one wants to argue, the present behavior of christians is less violent than that of present muslims, ok.
If one wants to argue, that islam is fundamentally violent, and christianity is not, that is completely debunked by history. With respect to present behavior: What I hear is 1) present christians aren't as violent as muslims. 2) The new testament, says not to kill, so the old testament is overcome. 3) The quran says to kill in some places. Therefore, islam is fundamentally violent and christianity is not. This is flawed logic.
Listen to yourself. "...not a crazed pope killing jews or some goofball in Missouri who kills kills mormans..." You reject overwhelming evidence of christian-inspired violence in favor of your own (or a few around you) interpretation of the bible. However, you offer islam no such benefit. This is unfair, illogical and precisely the kind of argument used to support genocide.
The problem with all religion is that faith offers absolutes, and logic need not apply. This allows institutions to manipulate populations and individuals to take extreme positions outside logical social behavior. The only difference between christianity, islam et al is external pressure from freedom and economic position of the groups.
I have no idea what you are talking about WRT to slander of Blarman.
" there is NO question that there are many more than one place". Then cite them. You are trying to put into your terms and based on your perspective things that happened four thousand years ago - in a different land with different laws and customs. MichaelAarethun put together a very detailed argument outlining an extensive list of scriptural passages regarding the issue. It was excellent and I'd refer you to it.
"Apparently none of you "real" christians would do the things the church leadership demands and gobs of other "christians" have done"
No, I wouldn't. Want to know why? Because the "christian" church that Christ founded apostatized shortly after it was created. By the advent of the Nicene Council in 423 AD it had lost all power and all authority to be called Christ's Church. The Catholic Church initiated a procedure called indulgences where priests would "forgive" sins in exchange for money. If you think I support that, you're gravely mistaken. The Catholic Church was responsible for the execution of William Tindale whose crime was to translate the Bible into English and publish it for the common man. They also persecuted Galileo for pointing out that they had taken upon themselves the mantle of God by proclaiming that the Earth was the center of the universe. I won't even go into the ridiculous assertions of the current Pope. I don't hold it against anyone who looks at the Catholic Church and then wonders why anyone would be a Christian - and that very pointedly includes Ayn Rand. I simply tell you that the whole reason for the Enlightenment was that suddenly people began to read the Bible for themselves and questioned the hegemony of the Catholic Church and its teachings because they did not match the Bible. And so people like Martin Luther, Roger Williams, and many others left the Catholic Church. I do not defend the Catholic Church nor its actions of the past 1600+ years. I also do not confuse that entity with Christianity.
"Would you ask god for his ID if he told you to kill your first born, like he did Abraham, or would you just do it?"
Did you even read the rest of that story either? The whole point of that exercise was to show an example of the future sacrifice of Christ to all of Abraham's posterity. Have I personally ever been asked to do something and not known why at the time? Yup. And if you'd like to know more I'll tell you in a private thread.
What really galls me in these topics is the continued assertion of guilt by association. It's why I don't deal with sects and stick with principles. Identify the principle in play. Identify whether or not it is correct/accurate/real and then we know what to look for.
Had you visited the several websites supplied by myself and others here, you'd have far less confidence that the Bible condemns homosexuality. The explanations for Sodom and those involving Gaius in particular seem to clear the issue. I'm only interested in what the religion itself commands, not what a church run by a man born a millennia after Christ died commands.
So far no one has come forward with multiple verses in the Old Testament commanding the Israelites murder a particular class of person, like homosexuals or nonbelievers. My Jewish friends say there is one, they assured me it's there but, didn't give me the book and verse.
I'm more informed on the Inquisition. The Catholic Church's representatives in Spain apparently killed approximately as many people in 200 years as the Muslims killed when they took Jerusalem in the first hour but, there's nothing in the Bible telling Christians to kill nonbelievers, in fact, the New Testament commands them to do the opposite.
So, once again, my premise is about Islam, the religion as stated in the Quran. Others (you not the least) have dragged Christianity into this but, if you insist on talking about Christianity it must be the religion itself, the Bible, not a crazed Pope who kills Jews or some goofball in Missouri who kills Mormons. If you can find Bible verses that tell Christians to kill Jews or Mormons, I'm interested, otherwise i consider your contribution here a waste of time and your mention of blarman in support of yourself a slander against him.
1) "The actual executions lasted a few years and, my source says the Spanish Inquisition resulted in 4 deaths."
2) "...there is one case in the Old Testament when Yahweh commanded the Israelites to attack another tribe..."
3) "...those who condemn gays aren't following their Christian religion."
I offered you an easy way out of #3, but you rather you want to argue the bible doesn't instruct execution to gays. Maybe. I only asserted it and the church condemns the practice, and catholic church excommunicates them.
You are welcome to admit error, and start over with your new assertion, but you do not get to pose a new argument until you finish the last one.
PS - I told my old buddy Blarman, I was ready to let this nonsense drop, but if you want to keep playing, bring your lunch junior...and your "scholarly" bible advisors.
1. ...but we refuse to offer muslims the same benefit of learning secularism, allegory and moderation.
2,3,4 - are not arguments. They are responses to simple statements of fact from the bible refuting ridiculous falsehoods asserted earlier (e.g. "The bible only has one reference to killing..."). Before you argue with me, go back and read what was said, and make sure you really disagree with the facts. If you want a separate argument about the how to interpret "Kill every man woman, child, infant..." please do make a separate argument, but there is NO question that there are many more than one place god tells his people to kill, period.
Last sentence..."no true Scottsman", again in the same thread. Maybe you and Wanderer should read what that is. Apparently none of you "real" christians would do the things the church leadership demands and gobs of other "christians" have done, because we should trust in your interpretation of dogma. Maybe we should just allow a little gun control too, because "they" just want to control the "bad" guys. We should just trust all the "real" christians, but not any muslims. I ask a simple question. "Would you ask god for his ID if he told you to kill your first born, like he did Abraham, or would you just do it?"
If you are going to tell me, that the word of god is yours alone to interpret, I say, fine for you, but not for anyone else. You may NOT base a logical argument on faith, ever.
The Old Testament is a chronological history with commentary, not an order to commit mass murder.
The New Testament consistently commands Christians to be nonviolent.
As I have said repeatedly and people on this board have repeatedly, purposely ignored in order to argue their own pet issues, my thesis has only to do with religion, not with churches or individuals. Christianity clearly advocates nonviolence toward nonbelievers. Islam clearly demands violence toward nonbelievers. If you can debunk that, fine. If you have some other question to debate, start your own thread. Please, please, please, please. Go away and argue your pet questions somewhere else.
1. The Mosaic Law was built to be not only a religious code of conduct, but the basis for a governmental code as well. The Israelites were their own people and government. The religious authorities were also the legal authorities, so there was inevitably going to be overlap in jurisdiction. The notion of a secular society did not exist in their day - it is a much more recent development. You may disagree with this combination of roles or the values themselves, but it is history and to attempt to portray it as something it was not is disingenuous. Their religious values were very much intertwined with their legal code.
2. If one is looking at Mosaic Law, one should understand that the Israelites themselves denied the first set of rules brought down from the Mount by Moses - the rules Christ later brought back. It is entirely proper for New Testament proclamations to override Old Testament ones. Such was the case of the woman taken in adultery and brought before Christ. The rulers thought to trap Christ by adhering to the letter of the Law, forgetting entirely the spirit of it. When He reminded them of the spirit of the law, they recused themselves and walked away, condemned by their own consciences. But the entirety of the story also needs to be brought out: the commandment to the woman to "Go, and sin no more." There was no condemnation of the woman, but there was no tolerance of her acts either.
3. People were free to leave the association of the nation of Israel. It was a rare occurrence because it meant forsaking one's heritage, one's way of life, and one's potential for inheritance. If we claim to respect natural rights, we must accept freedom of association as one of those.
4. The peoples of the land into which the people of Israel traveled were asked to permit them passage. Very few were amiable. Most attacked the Israelites as soon as they had opportunity. What should also be understood is that Israel was commanded to keep themselves apart from the pagan traditions and rituals of the other peoples in those areas. Many worshiped idols or groves of trees. Some sacrificed their own children by burning them to death. Israel was commanded to leave nothing like that standing for several reasons. First, it was a warning to the Israelites themselves not to participate in these practices. Second, it was a warning to other nations. But before one summarily condemns those laws, one must do significant historical research into the times and the peoples of 2000-3000 BC. To say that they lived by significantly different rules than the ones we enjoy nowadays is an understatement.
Regarding Numbers 31, don't cherry pick. Read the entire chapter. Israel was supposed to destroy the entire people. They didn't, and ended up compromising their principles. The entire Old Testament is an example of a nation with high standards who didn't live up to them time and time again. To hold up ancient Israel as a paragon of virtue is to ignore the lessons of history. Ancient Israel was not a nation to emulate. They were an example to all mankind of the failure to meet high standards.
"Christians persecuted and killed mormons and amish peoples in the US years ago, and they kill people in abortion clinics today."
And when they do so, are they following the words of Christ? If Obama claimed himself to be an Objectivist, would any who was a true Objectivist actually consider them an Objectivist? No, nor should they. Just like any other sect or philosophy, there are principles and there is practice. One should never confuse the two.
If we claim the Right of Association, we must respect the Right of individual Associations, meaning not only businesses but religions, etc. to state their own rules about inclusion and honor them. It doesn't matter whether we like them or not. No one has the right to force any other Association to change their rules of membership.
One of the big differences between Islam and Christianity, however, is that Christianity claims the privilege of excommunication or denial of Association while Islam claims the right of corporal punishment. Christianity does not claim to be both secular AND religious authority. Islam does. That to me is a major and significant difference.
"Here are my points on bad religion.
1. They are all bad, because they exclude the ability to openly discuss, debate and change with that which is sacred."
That is certainly your opinion to hold, but again, what we must go back to is the Right of Association and who is allowed to set those conditions for Association. Your basic disagreement here is that you want to be able to change the rules of association. Most religions simply say that they (human beings) aren't the ones who set the rules and therefore have no authority to change them.
You also assume that the principles upon which anything called "religion" are not actually the correct principles in the first place. This is an incredibly broad and borderline argument. I'd strongly suggest that instead, one focus on deriving critical principles first and eliminating organizations which follow incorrect principle as being invalid.
"3. Because of point 1, religion can NEVER be allowed to be the basis of government. This is a big problem for muslims, perhaps THE problem for muslims."
You miss the point entirely. Government must be based on correct principles to be valid. The issue with Sharia and Islam is that they hold certain principles which are antithetical to natural law. That is why a government based on Sharia is a problem. There have been governments all throughout history which have been very successful and very powerful all based on a variety of religious creeds.
"The attack that targeted a nightclub for homosexuals in Orlando, Florida and that left more than 100 dead and wounded was carried out by an Islamic State fighter," ISIS said in a statement.
However, the gist of my message in this thread has been ISIS is Islam, Islam is ISIS. It doesn't matter who claims what. We're not being attacked by a country, we're being attacked by a tribe of people known as Muslims.
For those who have time, I suggest "Jihad" by Fregosi, a fairly complete history of Islamic conquest from almost the dawn of Islam, complete with the details Molyneux hinted at but, left out for lack of time like, the horrific Muslim execution of Marco Antonio Bragadin after promising him and his troops free passage. This follows the Muslim habit of deceit in negotiation. Muhammad said "war is deceit" and Muslims have used it thus ever since.
This will answer all of the questions and novels written in this thread!!!
I ask people for information because the world is too big, there is too much for anyone to know it all. The Bible is over 800,000 words and, it was written in different languages. I'm not going to read it and in particular, I'm not going to learn Greek to read it. Latin was enough.
I'm still not convinced the Bible condemns gays and, even if somewhere someone who wrote one of the books of the Bible claims gays won't get into heaven, he still doesn't order them to be killed. A Christian telling me I can't get into heaven would hurt me only as much as if I were to tell you you're pigheaded would hurt you. These are insults, not assaults. They only hurt as much as we let them.
I suggest you read this, by a gay theologian who claims Christianity does not condemn homosexuals: He may be right, or may be wrong but, even he can't find a clear cut call for Christians to kill gay people. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-ni...
I'd say his case supports my assertion, Christianity is a passive religion that condemns violence. Islam is a code of conquest that demands violence.
That is all I have asserted and so far, no one has been able to prove it wrong. They always resort to altering my premises to fit their arguments. Looking at you bud.
Don't know why I bother, but WRT the catholic (and christians of convenience) view of gays, it is a derivative of various passages from roamans, corinthians and leviticus. Interesting choice for christian organized religions where the rules of the old testament are considered "guidelines" in deference to the new light of the new testament.
The rest is more unsupported assertions....convenient, but irrelevant. Somehow you found your way here, with your new special ideas, but starting with "four names of people killed in the inquisition", I feel like I'm arguing with a nine year old.
Please do present your new ideas in a new post.
No one ever claimed the Bible to be the literal word of God. Questioning and debating the truth of Christ's life and works was and still is the order of the day. That's why humans could spend 300 years writing and rewriting it before it ended up as we know it now.
Muhammad claimed to be delivering the exact, unaltered, undiluted word of Allah via the angel Gabriel so, it can't be changed. An Islamic reformation isn't possible because, suggesting any change at all is apostasy, punishable by death.
I try to be precise about my premises. I'm not talking about churches, I'm talking about religions. People who represent themselves as Christians but commit murder are lying so, for my argument, they don't count. People who call themselves Muslims but don't commit murder are lying so, for my argument, they don't count. Additionally, when Muslims that do murder get the chance, they kill the Muslims that don't. Even Muslims agree with me, they must murder or else, they're not Muslims.
I don't advocate any of the things you mention. I don't think they'd be effective. Actually, they've been tried already and haven't worked. My idea is very different. After wandering around the Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, and animist worlds for decades I've learned people are the same, especially young people. They do what they grow up learning to do. That's where I see an opportunity, young people.
I've done a little treatment on the idea but, friends have given mixed signals on the treatment. Some want me to cut it short, some want it expanded. It needs editing either way. Give me a few days to revise it and I'll give you the URL or post it here so you can read it.
As to the first two statements, you do say them over and over, but, and have been wrong about the facts over and over, and you have not otherwise supported your assertions.
Yet another example: "...those who condemn gays aren't following their christian religion". The catholic church still condemns gays via essentially excommunication. Perhaps you mean something than "condemn", like "murder". However, the catholic church will come around soon enough, to keep their roles up, just like it recently supported socialism to gather more support in the third world (laughable for the richest religious institution in the world). None of this has anything to do with the word of their invisible friend. It is about power.
Here is something entertaining to help you understand the evil in the church. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nCa...
Here are my points on bad religion.
1. They are all bad, because they exclude the ability to openly discuss, debate and change with that which is sacred.
2. We have to have them around for now, because some people need them...may always be a few, but thank goodness there are fewer now than 50 or 100 years ago.
3. Because of point 1, religion can NEVER be allowed to be the basis of government. This is a big problem for muslims, perhaps THE problem for muslims.
The next step in your assertion that muslims must kill to be muslims, is that they can not be allowed to fall into the category outlined in point 2 above. Why are muslims not allowed to modernize their religion, making allegory from the words of Muhammed, just like the christians and jewish have done with the words of Jesus and god. Are jewish still jewish if they do not keep kosher?
It is wholly acceptable to tell the muslims to cut this killing out (or else) and to police their own ranks (or else). It is not acceptable to tell them they are not allowed to become part of the modern world, just like the christians did many times over when they accepted basic science or natural rights instead of rote dogma. (e.g. heliecentrisism, creationism, slavery, women's place, on and on).
I agree muslim behavior is bad, and the violence is unacceptable. The Government and O-dumbassl should call a spade a spade, and either require these countries governments to fix their practices, or remove them, only when they trespass, in a manner reimbursing us for the need to do so. However, only one conclusion can come from your assertion that muslims must kill. We either eliminate muslims by isolation (ineffective), conversion (maybe with a lot of education and $) or extermination (effective, but immoral). I think telling them they can only be a part of the real world and trade with those that have real $ and technology when they moderate (just like our nutty religions) and police their own (just like we do) is the only reasonable path forward.
I realize the Bible describes many acts of violence and war but, I don't know of any command from the God of the Christians to do violence to nonChristians.
I could send you excerpts from old & new testaments that would make your hair curl. Mostly old. They're downright silly.
Load more comments...