• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Types of Worship?

Gladiator

Verifier
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
4,653
Reaction score
643
Location
Suburbia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Parishioners often think of Worship as going to a religious worship service, listening to religious leaders speak of prophets recognized by the religion, and encouraging religious devotion to religion and/or a Deity.

For the Muslims who murdered the satirical cartoon publishers of Charlie Hebdo magazine, Worshiping Mohammad took a different form. The Hebdo assassins decided to worship by identifying some public critics of Islam, and carrying out a public execution of the published critics of Islam.

Worshiping a religion, by hating the critics of the religion seems to be anti-religious, since the purpose of most religions is to bring enlightenment to the followers of the religion.

"Police said arrest warrants had been issued for Cherif Kouachi, 32, and his brother Said, 34, who they said were believed to be "armed and dangerous". Another suspect, Hamyd Mourad, 18, was named earlier in a police document, according to media reports.
However, unnamed officials said that Mr Mourad handed himself in to police after seeing his name circulating on social media. He was arrested and taken into custody, AFP reported."

As it happened: Charlie Hebdo attack - BBC News


This is a Link to the thread under Breaking News.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...muhammad-cartoons-magazine-paris-w-157-a.html


Can Murder be a form of Religious Worship?


There are discussion of wars and violent punishments by God in the Old Testament. So Violence is a part of some religious teachings. Jihad is considered a holy undertaking in Islam. Catholics and other religions ex-communicate members into former members. I am just trying to better understand this violent type of worship. What are all the religious justifications of violence in the name of Religion?



//
 
Last edited:
The Aztecs thought so.

That was a long, long time ago.
 
Can Murder be a form of Religious Worship?

//

Not really. Worship is an act of dedication toward God itself. You don't worship a religion. The God symbol itself is the object of love.
Killing CAN be done because of religion, but it isn't an act of worship itself.
 
I have no idea how the OP reached the conclusion that the assassination was a worship ritual, but it strikes me as a stretch that even Armstrong couldn't have pulled off
 
I have no idea how the OP reached the conclusion that the assassination was a worship ritual, but it strikes me as a stretch that even Armstrong couldn't have pulled off

I suppose that the idea is that followers of Islam might be led astray by satirical cartoons, and other unfavorable published works. So to avoid devotees of Islam from being led astray, it is a duty for at least some Muslims, to perpetrate violence and other intimidation against those who publish satire of the Prophet Mohammad.

The basis seems to be a lack of faith in the believers of Islam to be able to fend for themselves in a flood of competing ideas.


//
 
I suppose that the idea is that followers of Islam might be led astray by satirical cartoons, and other unfavorable published works. So to avoid devotees of Islam from being led astray, it is a duty for at least some Muslims, to perpetrate violence and other intimidation against those who publish satire of the Prophet Mohammad.

The basis seems to be a lack of faith in the believers of Islam to be able to fend for themselves in a flood of competing ideas.


//

I think the idea of terrorism is to scare the hell out of people, and they are succeeding. This was an assassination. They went to the wrong office first, when they got to the right one, they spared the women and looked specifically for the male cartoonists. The idea as I understand it is not that Muslims fear a cartoon, but that it is sacrilegious to create any image purporting to be the Prophet Mohammad. At the end of the day, there are Christian extremists as well, so it is not an issue of religious doctrine but in why people become radicalized in the first place,
 
There are discussion of wars and violent punishments by God in the Old Testament. So Violence is a part of some religious teachings. Jihad is considered a holy undertaking in Islam. Catholics and other religions ex-communicate members into former members. I am just trying to better understand this violent type of worship. What are all the religious justifications of violence in the name of Religion?

War in the OT was never a part of worship.
 
War in the OT was never a part of worship.

Esther

9 Triumph of the Jews

"The Jews struck down all their enemies with the sword, killing and destroying them, and they did what they pleased to those who hated them. 6 In the citadel of Susa, the Jews killed and destroyed five hundred men. 7 They also killed Parshandatha, Dalphon, Aspatha, 8 Poratha, Adalia, Aridatha, 9 Parmashta, Arisai, Aridai and Vaizatha, 10 the ten sons of Haman son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews"


"20 Mordecai recorded these events, and he sent letters to all the Jews throughout the provinces of King Xerxes, near and far, 21 to have them celebrate annually the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month of Adar 22 as the time when the Jews got relief from their enemies, and as the month when their sorrow was turned into joy and their mourning into a day of celebration. He wrote them to observe the days as days of feasting and joy and giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor. "


Esther 9 - NIV - Online Bible Study


Religions sometimes have enemies, real, or genuinely perceived as enemies. If a religious community has enemies, then part of the well being of the religious community is dealing with its enemies. Under what circumstances is murder of enemies justified?





//
 
Esther
9 Triumph of the Jews
"The Jews struck down all their enemies with the sword, killing and destroying them, and they did what they pleased to those who hated them. 6 In the citadel of Susa, the Jews killed and destroyed five hundred men. 7 They also killed Parshandatha, Dalphon, Aspatha, 8 Poratha, Adalia, Aridatha, 9 Parmashta, Arisai, Aridai and Vaizatha, 10 the ten sons of Haman son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews"
"20 Mordecai recorded these events, and he sent letters to all the Jews throughout the provinces of King Xerxes, near and far, 21 to have them celebrate annually the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month of Adar 22 as the time when the Jews got relief from their enemies, and as the month when their sorrow was turned into joy and their mourning into a day of celebration. He wrote them to observe the days as days of feasting and joy and giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor. "
Esther 9 - NIV - Online Bible Study

Religions sometimes have enemies, real, or genuinely perceived as enemies. If a religious community has enemies, then part of the well being of the religious community is dealing with its enemies. Under what circumstances is murder of enemies justified? //

Did you phrase that with Murder on purpose? Killing your enemies in war is not usually categorized as murder, but as killing.
There is a difference between perceived religious duty and religious worship. I think that might be the crux of your confusion.

Christ gave us examples of how to live with our enemies. His early followers were put to death regularly without a fight. This still goes on in many parts of the world where there are those who hate God and love innocent blood.

You are of your father the Devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of liars.
 
Did you phrase that with Murder on purpose? Killing your enemies in war is not usually categorized as murder, but as killing.
There is a difference between perceived religious duty and religious worship. I think that might be the crux of your confusion.

Christ gave us examples of how to live with our enemies. His early followers were put to death regularly without a fight. This still goes on in many parts of the world where there are those who hate God and love innocent blood.

You are of your father the Devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of liars.

War is usually a geographic entity fighting against another geographically defined organization.

The killing of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists presents a moral question.

Clearly under French law, the killing of the cartoonists was murder, without any of the exceptions for justified homicide.

Many religions preach to be kind to others. Clearly, satire on any particular religion is not kind. Under Western law, satire is not punishable by civil remedies unless the satire contains falsehoods.

So the only punishment available to those offended by satirical cartoons, or satirical publications, is some means outside the law.

Should publishers and authors who deliberately insult the prophets of other religions enjoy the full protection of the Law, providing for penalties of Murder, to protect publishers from the anger which the authors deliberately and knowingly created?

What are the other moral options?


//
 
For the Muslims who murdered the satirical cartoon publishers of Charlie Hebdo magazine, Worshiping Mohammad took a different form. The Hebdo assassins decided to worship by identifying some public critics of Islam, and carrying out a public execution of the published critics of Islam.
I too object to calling that as worship.

The Western Countries have created a hostility and warfare against people who are Islamic and so the Muslims are simply defending their selves against the bombardments.

The Qur'an actually tells the people how to act in such violent situations, and the Qur'an is so relevant that it really looks like the author of the Qur'an was really inspired by knowing exactly what was to happen in the future and how to respond to that.

The Qur'an tells the followers of God to first be merciful, as they are to first give warnings to the unbelievers and they are to explain to the infidels and especially to inform those in control, and only after all that fails then they are to strike, and to only strike the guilty.

As such everything took a morally righteous step by step procedure:

1) They told the religious bigots to stop their blasphemy.
2) There were worldwide nonviolent protest against the ugly cartoons and the slander.
3) They made widely publicized threats against those who did such things.
4) The place was fire-bombed as they made it known that the threats were real.
5) Then they only assassinated those guilty of the crimes and then left the scene.
6) At last they gave their lives as martyrs, blood for blood - life for life.
7) Their cause and point and purpose is all made clear and reasonable.

The deed was executed perfectly, and the prophetic message was delivered to the infidels.
All religious people have the right to defend their self against evil, and lots of different ways to defend, but to self defense is a right by every standard throughout humanity.
 
War is usually a geographic entity fighting against another geographically defined organization.
The killing of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists presents a moral question.

Clearly under French law, the killing of the cartoonists was murder, without any of the exceptions for justified homicide.

Many religions preach to be kind to others. Clearly, satire on any particular religion is not kind. Under Western law, satire is not punishable by civil remedies unless the satire contains falsehoods.

So the only punishment available to those offended by satirical cartoons, or satirical publications, is some means outside the law.
Should publishers and authors who deliberately insult the prophets of other religions enjoy the full protection of the Law, providing for penalties of Murder, to protect publishers from the anger which the authors deliberately and knowingly created?
What are the other moral options?
//


I too object to calling that as worship.

The Western Countries have created a hostility and warfare against people who are Islamic and so the Muslims are simply defending their selves against the bombardments.

The Qur'an actually tells the people how to act in such violent situations, and the Qur'an is so relevant that it really looks like the author of the Qur'an was really inspired by knowing exactly what was to happen in the future and how to respond to that.

The Qur'an tells the followers of God to first be merciful, as they are to first give warnings to the unbelievers and they are to explain to the infidels and especially to inform those in control, and only after all that fails then they are to strike, and to only strike the guilty.

As such everything took a morally righteous step by step procedure:

1) They told the religious bigots to stop their blasphemy.
2) There were worldwide nonviolent protest against the ugly cartoons and the slander.
3) They made widely publicized threats against those who did such things.
4) The place was fire-bombed as they made it known that the threats were real.
5) Then they only assassinated those guilty of the crimes and then left the scene.
6) At last they gave their lives as martyrs, blood for blood - life for life.
7) Their cause and point and purpose is all made clear and reasonable.

The deed was executed perfectly, and the prophetic message was delivered to the infidels.
All religious people have the right to defend their self against evil, and lots of different ways to defend, but to self defense is a right by every standard throughout humanity.




Here we have two apologists for murderous Muslim operatives.
Based on what? A moral right not to be offended by some others opinion?
Murder is a viable remedy for a temporal offense?
It is the pride of man to seek such a remedy. God needs no such remedy to defend truth.
When we think we are very strong, we are indeed the weakest of the weak.
 
Here we have two apologists for murderous Muslim operatives.
No, no, no.

Not an apology nor any apologist.

It is declaring the justification of the action.

Not an apologist but giving justification.

The first is defensive while the latter is taking the offensive.

When we think we are very strong, we are indeed the weakest of the weak.
And why would we view throwing insults at another religion to be strength or strong?

And how can anyone see throwing religious insults as their freedom?

Both strength and freedom means to live in peace with other people and respect the beliefs of each other.

It is the mentality of the Bullies who think they can publish insults as their right.
 
No, no, no.
Not an apology nor any apologist.
It is declaring the justification of the action.
Not an apologist but giving justification.
The first is defensive while the latter is taking the offensive.
And why would we view throwing insults at another religion to be strength or strong?
And how can anyone see throwing religious insults as their freedom?
Both strength and freedom means to live in peace with other people and respect the beliefs of each other.
It is the mentality of the Bullies who think they can publish insults as their right.

Certainly good points. But it is the law that we can insult if we like others we disagree with. It is surely a human arrogance and little to do with God.
And I think those at C Hebdo might agree that far.
But this is exactly why we see these murderous Muslim operatives through the camera of a quickly descending guided explosive.
They insist on converting others to their way of thinking, first as you indicate, by persuasion, last by a gruesome beheading with a dullish knife.
They feel they have a right to dish out death in support of their interpretation of God's will. Others feel the same although slightly disagreeing on some Godly points.
Someone must die in this paradigm.
Christ died for this reason, from an earthly perspective, but from a heavenly perspective he died for a much different reason.
We are the better for it, and we need not kill to be with Him, in Spirit and in Truth.
He will prevail, in spite of all would be posers.
Remember Peter? Christ scolded him for taking matters into his own hands for God's sake:

51And lo, one of those with Jesus, having stretched forth the hand, drew his sword, and having struck the servant of the chief priest, he took off his ear. 52Then saith Jesus to him, ‘Turn back thy sword to its place; for all who did take the sword, by the sword shall perish; 53dost thou think that I am not able now to call upon my Father, and He will place beside me more than twelve legions of messengers? 54how then may the Writings be fulfilled, that thus it behoveth to happen?’
 
They insist on converting others to their way of thinking, first as you indicate, by persuasion, last by a gruesome beheading with a dullish knife.
They feel they have a right to dish out death in support of their interpretation of God's will. Others feel the same although slightly disagreeing on some Godly points.
Someone must die in this paradigm.
In the case of that French magazine then all they were told is to stop the hate speech and the hateful religious pictures and cartoons, and that is not asking too much, as it is telling them to stop doing wrong, and they refused.

No one had to die, except that the evil-doers refused to listen to morality and refused to listen to reason and refused to listen to righteous threats.

Maybe such people will listen now?

Christ died for this reason, from an earthly perspective, but from a heavenly perspective he died for a much different reason.
We need to understand that the Holy Qur'an and the religion of Islam is also a message from God and God gave those people the power and the duty to protect their selves, and I honestly see this reality as a proof that the Qur'an was indeed inspired because Islam has been transformed into the most powerful religion on the entire planet earth, and the Muslims need only read their scriptures from God to know how to defeat the super powers of man and of infidels.

If Christians did as Christ tells us to do, then we would be the best of friends with our sister religion of Islam.
 
In the case of that French magazine then all they were told is to stop the hate speech and the hateful religious pictures and cartoons, and that is not asking too much, as it is telling them to stop doing wrong, and they refused.
No one had to die, except that the evil-doers refused to listen to morality and refused to listen to reason and refused to listen to righteous threats.
Maybe such people will listen now?
We need to understand that the Holy Qur'an and the religion of Islam is also a message from God and God gave those people the power and the duty to protect their selves, and I honestly see this reality as a proof that the Qur'an was indeed inspired because Islam has been transformed into the most powerful religion on the entire planet earth, and the Muslims need only read their scriptures from God to know how to defeat the super powers of man and of infidels.

If Christians did as Christ tells us to do, then we would be the best of friends with our sister religion of Islam.

Religion is of men. The most powerful is but a shadow compared to the truth of God. That is the huge difference between what Christ taught and what the Qur'an teaches. Both messages can't be from God. They are opposing views. We would never be the best of friends, we could not be. Likely we will never be able to get along with each other for this reason.
We can respect to a point the others views. But when they come to convert me or take my head, I won't convert. God is greater than any man's religion.
" 28‘And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna."
 
Religion is of men. The most powerful is but a shadow compared to the truth of God. That is the huge difference between what Christ taught and what the Qur'an teaches. Both messages can't be from God. They are opposing views. We would never be the best of friends, we could not be. Likely we will never be able to get along with each other for this reason.
We can respect to a point the others views. But when they come to convert me or take my head, I won't convert. God is greater than any man's religion.
" 28‘And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna."
The religion of Islam is promoting righteousness which means that God is on their side.

Now Islam has become the most powerful force in the entire world.

Us Christians could learn a lot about righteousness from our sister religion of Islam.
 
Here we have two apologists for murderous Muslim operatives.
Based on what? A moral right not to be offended by some others opinion?
Murder is a viable remedy for a temporal offense?
It is the pride of man to seek such a remedy. God needs no such remedy to defend truth.
When we think we are very strong, we are indeed the weakest of the weak.


There are a number of instances in the Holy Bible an the Holy Quran in which killing is justified.

There have been many Jihadist killings in the last 50 years. Are all those Jihadist killings unjustified? Is the extra-judicial Killing by non-Muslims, of Jihadists who supported the actions by militant jihadists, justified?


//
 
There are a number of instances in the Holy Bible an the Holy Quran in which killing is justified.
There have been many Jihadist killings in the last 50 years. Are all those Jihadist killings unjustified? Is the extra-judicial Killing by non-Muslims, of Jihadists who supported the actions by militant jihadists, justified?
//

Who of us can stand before God and say Lord, I did exactly what you wanted me to do my whole life. ?

None
 
The religion of Islam is promoting righteousness which means that God is on their side.
Now Islam has become the most powerful force in the entire world.
.....

Fascinating. But again, I don't follow men, I follow God.
 
A good argument can be made that Islamic jihadism has nothing to do with legitimate religion, but is instead just a death cult, something like thugee once was in India. The thugs believed the goddess Kali required them to murder innocent people as sacrifices to her. And they may have murdered a million or more during the centuries the cult is thought to have existed before the British put an end to it.
 
Esther

9 Triumph of the Jews

"The Jews struck down all their enemies with the sword, killing and destroying them, and they did what they pleased to those who hated them. 6 In the citadel of Susa, the Jews killed and destroyed five hundred men. 7 They also killed Parshandatha, Dalphon, Aspatha, 8 Poratha, Adalia, Aridatha, 9 Parmashta, Arisai, Aridai and Vaizatha, 10 the ten sons of Haman son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews"


"20 Mordecai recorded these events, and he sent letters to all the Jews throughout the provinces of King Xerxes, near and far, 21 to have them celebrate annually the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month of Adar 22 as the time when the Jews got relief from their enemies, and as the month when their sorrow was turned into joy and their mourning into a day of celebration. He wrote them to observe the days as days of feasting and joy and giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor. "


Esther 9 - NIV - Online Bible Study


Religions sometimes have enemies, real, or genuinely perceived as enemies. If a religious community has enemies, then part of the well being of the religious community is dealing with its enemies. Under what circumstances is murder of enemies justified?

//

That's commemoration ... not worship ....

Veterans day is not worship.
 
Who of us can stand before God and say Lord, I did exactly what you wanted me to do my whole life. ?

None
No one is making such a claim.

But here and now we do have a duty to God to judge righteously, John 7:24



========================================


A good argument can be made that Islamic jihadism has nothing to do with legitimate religion, but is instead just a death cult, something like thugee once was in India. The thugs believed the goddess Kali required them to murder innocent people as sacrifices to her. And they may have murdered a million or more during the centuries the cult is thought to have existed before the British put an end to it.
In the case of the French publishers then they were not innocent as they were pushing an ugly hateful message and refused to stop after being rightfully told and warned.

And in that attack they did not kill everyone as they only killed those who were deemed to be guilty, and then they left the scene.

As to those in India then I doubt that to be accurate because the British made up their own lies as excuses to conquer the subcontinent, and now today we just make up our own lies in our immoral warfare against the powerful religion of Islam.
 
In the case of the French publishers then they were not innocent as they were pushing an ugly hateful message and refused to stop after being rightfully told and warned. And in that attack they did not kill everyone as they only killed those who were deemed to be guilty, and then they left the scene . . . and now today we just make up our own lies in our immoral warfare against the powerful religion of Islam.

Thank you for making your sympathies even more clear to everyone.


As to those in India then I doubt that to be accurate because the British made up their own lies as excuses to conquer the subcontinent

What an uninformed person doubts is irrelevant. The history and practice of thuggee are well documented, and the facts are available to anyone.

As a small contribution to the lies I make up in my personal "immoral warfare against the powerful religion of Islam," let me offer just one comment by one of the heroes of modern jihad. It is from a 1954 speech in Cairo to a large meeting of the Muslim Brotherhood given by Muhammad Navab-Safavi, an early conspirator in murder with Ruhollah Khomeini and a guiding light for the 1978-79 Islamist revolution in Iran:


We know of no absolute values besides total submission to the will of the Almighty . . . People say "don't kill!" But the Almighty Himself taught us how to kill . . . shall we not kill when it is necessary for the triumph of the Faith? We say that killing is tantamount to saying a prayer when those who are harmful [to the Faith] need to be put out of the way. Deceit, trickery, conspiracy, cheating, stealing, and killing are nothing but means . . . Look at the kitchen knife. Is it either good or bad? With it a housewife can cut the meat she needs for her daily stew . . . and a soldier of Islam could use it to pierce the black heart of a harmful one. (my italics)

Muhammad Navab-Safavi, Collected Speeches, Messages, and Edicts, Tehran, 1983, p. 51, quoted by Amir Taheri in Holy Terror: The Inside Story of Islamic Terrorism, London, Sphere Books, 1987, p. 24.
 
Thank you for making your sympathies even more clear to everyone.
You are welcome.

I am happy to do that.

What an uninformed person doubts is irrelevant. The history and practice of thuggee are well documented, and the facts are available to anyone.

As a small contribution to the lies I make up in my personal "immoral warfare against the powerful religion of Islam," let me offer just one comment by one of the heroes of modern jihad. It is from a 1954 speech in Cairo to a large meeting of the Muslim Brotherhood given by Muhammad Navab-Safavi, an early conspirator in murder with Ruhollah Khomeini and a guiding light for the 1978-79 Islamist revolution in Iran:


We know of no absolute values besides total submission to the will of the Almighty . . . People say "don't kill!" But the Almighty Himself taught us how to kill . . . shall we not kill when it is necessary for the triumph of the Faith? We say that killing is tantamount to saying a prayer when those who are harmful [to the Faith] need to be put out of the way. Deceit, trickery, conspiracy, cheating, stealing, and killing are nothing but means . . . Look at the kitchen knife. Is it either good or bad? With it a housewife can cut the meat she needs for her daily stew . . . and a soldier of Islam could use it to pierce the black heart of a harmful one. (my italics)

Muhammad Navab-Safavi, Collected Speeches, Messages, and Edicts, Tehran, 1983, p. 51, quoted by Amir Taheri in Holy Terror: The Inside Story of Islamic Terrorism, London, Sphere Books, 1987, p. 24.
I see no problem with that. They were at war against the American invaders.

Let us not forget the words of General Patton on the famous movie:

"Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

I see no logic in the view that there is anything wrong with other people fighting back against us, especially since we are the violent aggressors.
 
Back
Top Bottom