Originally posted by PsychoPawn These individuals represent themselves and depending on who they do associate with, represent those sects that hold to their beliefs.[/b]
Bingo!! But if they do this in the name of Christ they then become false representatives. However, they are representatives just the same. That is why Christ was so ardently opposed to hypocrisy. All the world has are his representatives.
Originally posted by whodey Yes I am hoping to find Muslims who condemn such aggretion. How else can we expect there to be change? So if I hear no condemnation, I can only presume that there will be more of the same.
In short, all we have are representatives from various religious people. So if some of the representatives go bisirk and there is no response about their actions from ...[text shortened]... bout regarding such atrocities? That will tell you in large part where the religion is heading.
You are hoping to find them, but how hard do you look?
The above links were after less than a minute of searching for "muslims against extremism".
Did you even spend a minute looking for this kind of thing or do you just think muslims who are against violence need to come looking for you in order for you to believe that they exist?
Originally posted by whodey Bingo!! But if they do this in the name of Christ they then become false representatives. However, they are representatives just the same. That is why Christ was so ardently opposed to hypocrisy. All the world has are his representatives.
So the muslims who commit violence are also false representatives - but you haven't portrayed them as such here. You've portrayed them as true representatives.
I'm trying to promote a more nuanced view that there are extremist and idiotic groups within pretty much all the religions (especially the 3 monotheistic biggies).
Originally posted by divegeester Well we have witnessed a lot of Islamic maniacs doing their thing over the last decade, and these are just "another" three. That is fact not bigotry. And yes if a "Christian" blows up innocent people then they too are a maniac - religious insanity is endemic.
I'm struggling to fathom what part of 'maniac' you don't understand. Perhaps if you had a ...[text shortened]... nclined to occupy the pious position which you are now.
That is the only stench here.
Surely somewhere in the far recesses of your mind you must realize that it is not the word "maniac" that is at issue. Not that I'd normally choose that word, but all intentional killing is done by "maniacs". They are "maniacs" first and only. Why don't you just leave it at that?
The above links were after less than a minute of searching for "mu ...[text shortened]... are against violence need to come looking for you in order for you to believe that they exist?
No I did not go on line to find them, but you rarely hear from them in the media for whatever reason. Perhaps they need to do some PR? All you see in the press are radical Islamic groups like Al Qaeda killing people off. Again, the numbers are telling as to the severity of the problem.
Having said that, if the religions leaders do not speak out against this or continue to speak out against this within Islam, it will continue.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn I'm trying to promote a more nuanced view that there are extremist and idiotic groups within pretty much all the religions (especially the 3 monotheistic biggies).[/b]
Originally posted by PsychoPawn [b]So the muslims who commit violence are also false representatives - but you haven't portrayed them as such here. You've portrayed them as true representatives.
Well as to whether they are false representatives depends on who you ask. How is one to tell, especially in light of their prophet Mohammad who converted with the sword at times? Lets be clear about one thing, Islam is all about following Mohammad and his teachings and Christianity is about following Christ and his teachings. Do we agree? If so, we must carefully assess as to whether or not the followers are following the examples set before them. So in the case of Christ we have the teaching to love your enemies and do good to them who despitefully use you. However, with Mohammad, we do have the teaching of jihad against those who oppress and persecute you. They are kind of contradictory don't you think? Of course, as has already been indicated by our Islamic friend, there is great debate as to the meaning of such things as jihad. So who am I to tell someone in Islam that their interpretation is wrong? In fact, who cares what I think? All that matters are the results at hand. How much violence is being done in the name of a particular religion and why? That is all that matters when it is all said and done whether it be done in the name of Christ or Mohammad.
Originally posted by whodey No I did not go on line to find them, but you rarely hear from them in the media for whatever reason. Perhaps they need to do some PR? All you see in the press are radical Islamic groups like Al Qaeda killing people off. Again, the numbers are telling as to the severity of the problem.
Having said that, if the religions leaders do not speak out against this or continue to speak out against this within Islam, it will continue.
If it bleeds it leads. The press in this country only cares about headlines. No one turns in to the headline "Islamic leader says violence is bad!" because it's blah.
Again you reference numbers. What are these numbers and where do you get them from? I ask this because it's easy to have a perception that most muslims are in favor of this kind of violence because you just see the news of the violent acts, but unless you have some objective way of measuring how many do then you don't have a factual basis to make that claim.
There are religious leaders who do speak out against this - you just only hear of those that say the opposite because that is what makes the news.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn [b]If it bleeds it leads. The press in this country only cares about headlines. No one turns in to the headline "Islamic leader says violence is bad!" because it's blah.
So are you suggesting that other religions have just as much violence within it, or even more so, but the press chooses to ignore it? I thought that if it bleeds it leads? In short, is there an active plot to attack Islam by the press in your view?
Originally posted by whodey Well as to whether they are false representatives depends on who you ask. How is one to tell, especially in light of their prophet Mohammad who converted with the sword at times? Lets be clear about one thing, Islam is all about following Mohammad and his teachings and Christianity is about following Christ and his teachings. Do we agree? If so, we must c ...[text shortened]... name of a particular religion and why? That is all that matters when it is all said and done.
How is one to tell, especially in light of their prophet Mohammad who converted with the sword at times?
Just like Charlemagne who gave tribes the choice to accept Jesus into their hearts or have their heads chopped off. Ironically enough, Charlemagne did some good things like increase the value of education.
Most religions have been spread by the sword at some point.
So in the case of Christ we have the teaching to love your enemies and do good to them who despitefully use you. However, with Mohammad, we do have the teaching of jihad against those who oppress and persecute you. They are kind of contradictory don't you think?
I have no problem of having a jihad against those that oppress you. The question is the form it takes.
Religion is mostly in how people interpret it. There are some INSANE rules that are set out in Deuteronomy, but 99.9999999% of Jews would never advocate them.
I've heard christians say that the old testament rules are irrelevant after jesus came to town, but then use leviticus to advocate hatred/intolerance against gays.
Originally posted by whodey So are you suggesting that other religions have just as much violence within it, or even more so, but the press chooses to ignore it? I thought that if it bleeds it leads? In short, is there an active plot to attack Islam by the press in your view?
I'm not suggesting that at all.
I'm suggesting that a religious leader that says "Death to all the Jews!" will get a headline where as a religious leader that says "I like everyone! Let's all be friends!" won't get an inch of press.
This can easily lead to the perception that there aren't any people condemning the people who say "Death to all the jews" - when there are, but they just aren't getting any headlines.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn [b]I'm not suggesting that at all.
I'm suggesting that a religious leader that says "Death to all the Jews!" will get a headline where as a religious leader that says "I like everyone! Let's all be friends!" won't get an inch of press.
So the question begs as to why it seems only Islam has religious leaders like this.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn [b]How is one to tell, especially in light of their prophet Mohammad who converted with the sword at times?
Just like Charlemagne who gave tribes the choice to accept Jesus into their hearts or have their heads chopped off. Ironically enough, Charlemagne did some good things like increase the value of education.
As I said, the Christian SHOULD be driven by the teachings and examples of Christ as where the Muslim is equally influenced by Mohammad, or at least, should be.
I can't speak for Charlemagne but I think we can both agree that during that time there was great ignorance regarding what Jesus actually taught, that is if they could even read. This was in large part due to the church wanting to control the masses by telling them they could buy their way out of purgatory and other such nonsense as well as a lack of education. Could the same be said for Islam? Well perhaps the education part is a bit lacking for a few, but I think they are ardent readers of the Quran and what Mohammad said and taught.
08 Sep '09 01:34
Another 3 Islamic maniacs locked up
Back to Top