Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: Kadhafi calls for jihad against Switzerland over minaret ban

  1. #31
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,011

    Re: Kadhafi calls for jihad against Switzerland over minaret ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    Their religion isn't corrupt. The few radicals, however, are.

    That's like saying Christianity is corrupt because of a few crazies.

    You don't think of these matters beyond the politicially correct. What ultimately defines the religion? The creators?

    Christianity: Jesus was a pacifist. He preached "Turn the other Cheek." He preached equality and love.

    Islam: Muhammad preached much the same thing. However, he was a politician, a general and a soveriegn. He authorized the shedding of blood and justified as a defense of Islam.


    Now, it is entirely appropriate to label Christianity corrupt because history has shown Christians behave very unlike what Jesus prescribed. The Crusades and so on were not in keeping with Jesus' example. But what about Islam? Are Muslims really that wrong when they shed blood in the name of Islam as Muhammad did? Can we call Islam corrupt? Or is Islam exactly what the creator prescribed? People after the fact have interpretaed their religions in accordance to local tradition or personal want and desire. But there is no arguing about what the creators had in mind for their movements. The Bible came later and has been accepted to have been written by multiple men and women across time. However, the Qur'an has been accepted as absolute word of God handed down to Muhammad through Gabriel. Killing in the "defense" of Islam is very Muslim.


    What you call corrupt Islamic radicals, I call Muhammad's followers. Those Muslims who choose to prescribe themselves a more Jesus like Islam may be the corrupt (or weak) ones. I would call them necessary reformers. All religions must reform. But Christians have been struggling to turn Christianity back into what Jesus had in mind for centuries. What are Muslims trying to do?
    Last edited by MSgt; 02-27-10 at 05:44 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  2. #32
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,982

    Re: Kadhafi calls for jihad against Switzerland over minaret ban

    So is Kadhafi making a statement of war or just rallying Muslim extremists to violence? I don't support what Switzerland did, but they have the freedom to do so and there really isn't any harm done in banning Minarets. However, for nations like Libya to proclaim Jihad over the banning of Minarets they should evaluate their own religious policies. It's hypocrisy for them to scream about Muslim rights when they restrict the rights of non-Muslims in their countries. I commend the Swiss for standing up against the barbaric jihadists though, much of Europe just caters to them and turns a blind eye.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Kadhafi calls for jihad against Switzerland over minaret ban

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    You don't think of these matters beyond the politicially correct. What ultimately defines the religion? The creators?

    Christianity: Jesus was a pacifist. He preached "Turn the other Cheek." He preached equality and love.

    Islam: Muhammad preached much the same thing. However, he was a politician, a general and a soveriegn. He authorized the shedding of blood and justified as a defense of Islam.


    Now, it is entirely appropriate to label Christianity corrupt because history has shown Christians behave very unlike what Jesus prescribed. The Crusades and so on were not in keeping with Jesus' example. But what about Islam? Are Muslims really that wrong when they shed blood in the name of Islam as Muhammad did? Can we call Islam corrupt? Or is Islam exactly what the creator prescribed? People after the fact have interpretaed their religions in accordance to local tradition or personal want and desire. But there is no arguing about what the creators had in mind for their movements.


    What you call corrupt Islamic radicals, I call Muhammad's followers. Those Muslims who choose to prescribe themselves a more Jesus like Islam may be the corrupt (or weak) ones.
    First of all, don't use platitudes like "politically correct" around me. It's inaccurate and, frankly, bypasses everything I'm saying. I don't care what "sounds good" or "sounds bad". I care about the truth. If you aren't interested in discussing that and would rather label me as some vague political ideologue, then go debate with someone else.

    Second, there is barbarity in any scripture you look at, from the far West to the far East. It is written from a time when wars over resources, philosophical and spiritual ideologies, and human slavery were the staples of existence. Just because scripture contains those aspects of the past does not mean that all modern followers subscribe to it.

    There is plenty in the Bible, for example, that is now obsolete. Also, I disagree that every teaching of Jesus was loving. Assuming that the words in the Bible are even his and not the product of editorial purview over the centuries, he says some pretty rotten things about types of people such as homosexuals.

    The Prophets weren't saints. They were flawed people just like you and I. The Quran is more than just what Mohammed said. If you talk to any practicing Muslim they will tell you that.

    People do whatever they want these days and try to justify it with religion. There are Hindus that now eat beef, Christians that murder over political views, and Muslims who bomb airlines. We live in degenerate times. Blaming the scripture is too easy. Human fallacy is the source.

  4. #34
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,011

    Re: Kadhafi calls for jihad against Switzerland over minaret ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    First of all, don't use platitudes like "politically correct" around me. It's inaccurate and, frankly, bypasses everything I'm saying. I don't care what "sounds good" or "sounds bad". I care about the truth. If you aren't interested in discussing that and would rather label me as some vague political ideologue, then go debate with someone else.
    I'm not debating. I'm discussing. But point taken. But refrain from defaulting to politically correct statements.


    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    Second, there is barbarity in any scripture you look at, from the far West to the far East. It is written from a time when wars over resources, philosophical and spiritual ideologies, and human slavery were the staples of existence. Just because scripture contains those aspects of the past does not mean that all modern followers subscribe to it.

    There is plenty in the Bible, for example, that is now obsolete.
    Aaah. I mentioned quite clearly that Jesus and Muhammad were the creators of their movements. Not the Bible and not the Qur'an. Jesus wrote nothing of the Bible. And Muhammad was an illiterate. What we have is their legendary examples in life. Both books were written later. The Islamic Hadiths were written by caliphs (and their scholars) to interpret the Qur'an in order to create law.

    The source of both religions go directly to the inventors. And today's pacifist reflect on Jesus as much as today's Islamic extremists reflect on Muhammad. Are either wrong in accordance to their religious movements?



    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    Also, I disagree that every teaching of Jesus was loving. Assuming that the words in the Bible are even his and not the product of editorial purview over the centuries, he says some pretty rotten things about types of people such as homosexuals.
    Depends on what Gospel you read. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all report on the events of Jesus from four different perspectives. But a mention of homosexuals in the Bible as reported by a "witness" is a very far cry from the examples of violence by Muhammad.


    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post

    The Prophets weren't saints.
    And this would be a politicially correct statement. It is meant to equalize the exmaples so that one doesn't have to be less or more. It's like not recognizing the worse team in the league and giving them a trophy for playing so as not to make them feel bad.

    Flipping over banker tables in a temple and a reported remark about homosexuals in no way leads civilizations into violence. Muhammad's examples of leading armies and establishing himself as his own Ceaser does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post

    Blaming the scripture is too easy. Human fallacy is the source.
    Human example is the source. Namely....Muhammad and Jesus. Scripture is a source that came after the fact. But the Qur'an reflects Muhammad's example in life. The vast majority of the Bible does not reflect on the Christian movement.
    Last edited by MSgt; 02-27-10 at 06:07 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Kadhafi calls for jihad against Switzerland over minaret ban

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Aaah. I mentioned quite clearly that Jesus and Muhammad were the creators of their movements. Not the Bible and not the Qur'an. Jesus wrote nothing of the Bible. And Muhammad was an illiterate. What we have is their legendary examples in life. Both books were written later. The Islamic Hadiths were written by caliphs (and their scholars) to interpret the Qur'an in order to create law.
    There is no concrete evidence that either existed except in allegory.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    The source of both religions go directly to the inventors. And today's pacifist reflect on Jesus as much as today's Islamic extremists reflect on Muhammad. Are either wrong in accordance to their religious movements?
    That's not what we're debating though. I'm confronting you on the fact that you seem to think that the actions of extremism are a reflection of the majority's unwillingness to protest their own religion. And I'm telling you that people relate to religion in many different ways and so you can't hold the entire world of Islam responsible for what a few sections of the Quran say about violence and infidels.

    The vast majority of Muslims in the modern world are peaceful and civil, and the violent past of the Quran is obsolete to them, just like the violent parts in the Bible are obsolete to most Christians.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Depends on what Gospel you read. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all report on the events of Jesus from four different perspectives. But a mention of homosexuals in the Bible as reported by a "witness" is a very far cry from the examples of violence by Muhammad.
    Oh right, so it depends on the reading? Which means it depends on who is reading it? Which means it depends on modern relevance? This is exactly what I'm talking about.

    There are peaceful parts and damning parts, just like there are in the Quran. It is not the responsibility of Muslims to protest against their own religion (which, frankly, is a ridiculous notion), but to relate to their faith in the way that they think is true. Most people choose to do so in a peaceful way.

    The whole world of Islam is not responsible for the actions of a minority that are using the faith for political purposes.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Flipping over banker tables in a temple and a reported remark about homosexuals in no way leads civilizations into violence. Muhammad's examples of leading armies and establishing himself as his own Ceaser does.
    Now you are equivocating. The fact that you think Islam is somehow more inherently violent than Christianity just goes to show you don't really have an objective view of either. There has been plenty of bloodshed in the past in the name of Christianity, or are you going to get upset because I'm mentioning the Crusades, like so many do?

    Christianity's violence in the West simply became tempered by the rise of the rational institutions. The same was happening in the Middle East before the Cold War powers decided to play chess with the governments and put radicals in power who endorsed violent ideas about religion. If some power were to come into the U.S., destroy it, and then place the minority of radical Christians in power, you would get the same result. Places like Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq were flourishing, modernist cultures before sponsored coups.

    The reason why it appears that radicals have the bigger audience is only because they have the louder voice at the moment, and that is because they have the military behind them, and that in turn is because of meddling from imperalist powers.


    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Human example is the source. Namely....Muhammad and Jesus. Scripture is a source that came after the fact. But the Qur'an reflects Muhammad's example in life. The vast majority of the Bible does not reflect on the Christian movement.
    No, politics is the source. You haven't learned to separate religion from politics and see how the former is used and abused by the latter. Even if you take the bloodiest epics in history caused by either Christianity or Islam, you will only be finding minority cases caused by minority radicals, while the rest of the religious world was going about their daily business.

    The radicals use the violent context of either faith to carry out their deeds; in which case, maybe the violent parts should be edited out for the sake of peace within these faiths? But upon whose authority is that supposed to happen if the Quran is the "word of God"?
    Last edited by Orion; 02-28-10 at 05:49 PM.

  6. #36
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Kadhafi calls for jihad against Switzerland over minaret ban

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    You don't think of these matters beyond the politicially correct. What ultimately defines the religion? The creators?

    Christianity: Jesus was a pacifist. He preached "Turn the other Cheek." He preached equality and love.

    Islam: Muhammad preached much the same thing. However, he was a politician, a general and a soveriegn. He authorized the shedding of blood and justified as a defense of Islam.


    Now, it is entirely appropriate to label Christianity corrupt because history has shown Christians behave very unlike what Jesus prescribed. The Crusades and so on were not in keeping with Jesus' example. But what about Islam? Are Muslims really that wrong when they shed blood in the name of Islam as Muhammad did? Can we call Islam corrupt? Or is Islam exactly what the creator prescribed? People after the fact have interpretaed their religions in accordance to local tradition or personal want and desire. But there is no arguing about what the creators had in mind for their movements. The Bible came later and has been accepted to have been written by multiple men and women across time. However, the Qur'an has been accepted as absolute word of God handed down to Muhammad through Gabriel. Killing in the "defense" of Islam is very Muslim.


    What you call corrupt Islamic radicals, I call Muhammad's followers. Those Muslims who choose to prescribe themselves a more Jesus like Islam may be the corrupt (or weak) ones. I would call them necessary reformers. All religions must reform. But Christians have been struggling to turn Christianity back into what Jesus had in mind for centuries. What are Muslims trying to do?
    I would go a lot farther. Mohammad was a warlord. The only peace he preached was between Muslims. He considered everyone outside of Islam an infidel. As much as he was at odds with "people of the book aka Christians and Jews he hated pagans and Hindus even more.

    This was not a man of peace. He used war to spread his religion and his teachings justify that approach which is why its so easy to justfy it for Muslims today.

    There have been Muslim terrorists attacks from all races, backgrounds social structure and countries. The only thing that unites them is their religion.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •