Try to look at Islam academically.

[vegas giants]

Obviously Islam is not a religion of peace. I never claimed that it was. But so what? Is it any surprise that a conquering warlord would start a militaristic faith? What's the problem?

Christian armies killed for centuries

 

[Irredentist]

Christian armies killed for centuries

True, but Christianity didn't initially expand via military victory the same way that Islam did. I say this not as a condemnation of Islam but as a reading of history.

 

[vegas giants]

True, but Christianity didn't initially expand via military victory the same way that Islam did. I say this not as a condemnation of Islam but as a reading of history.

I dont know the distinction matters to the dead

 

[ecofarm]

True, but Christianity didn't initially expand via military victory the same way that Islam did. I say this not as a condemnation of Islam but as a reading of history.

Christianity displaced native religions via brutal force and the decree of monarchs. What denomination a country observed was a result of its conquerors.

 

[stevecanuck]

Obviously Islam is not a religion of peace. I never claimed that it was. But so what? Is it any surprise that a conquering warlord would start a militaristic faith? What's the problem?

So what???? Tens of thousands of terrorist attacks is so what. The death penalty for leaving Islam is so what. The death penalty for 'insulting Islam' is so what. The rape of Yazidi sex slaves is so what. ISIS is so what. Al Qaeda is so what. Boko Haram is so what. Utter destabilization of the ME and much of Africa is so what. Honor killing is so what. Subjugation of women is so what. Billions of dollars of security costs is so what. Hatred of non-Muslims is so what. And worth mentioning again, tens of thousands of terrorist attacks is so what.

 

[Irredentist]

Christianity displaced native religions via brutal force and the decree of monarchs. What denomination a country observed was a result of its conquerors.

Yes, but the history I'm talking about is much earlier than that. Christianity didn't initially start out as a religion which enforced the authority of Kings and Emperors. Quite the opposite, it was originally a radical, apocalyptic sect of Judaism which was itself persecuted.

 

[vegas giants]

Yes, but the history I'm talking about is much earlier than that. Christianity didn't initially start out as a religion which enforced the authority of Kings and Emperors. Quite the opposite, it was originally a radical, apocalyptic sect of Judaism which was itself persecuted.

Then came the holy Roman empire

 

[ArtemisBarca]

He (according to Christian belief) said, "Forgive them father.....". He was NOT talking to himself.

I am not making up the fact the trinity is a staple of every mainstream branch of Christianity, lol..

For sure there is more than a few contradictions in Christianity, but they are not my doing ..

The actual real world mainstream scholarly views are that in life Jesus thought he was the Jewish version of a messiah.. aka someone who would throw off the yoke of Rome but not a “son of god”, but his followers did not start thinking of Jesus as divine until after his crucifixion.

They believed god adopted Jesus at his death and made him divine then , not that he was born that way..

In the ancient Roman world adoption was superior to your natural children. Your kids were a crap shoot, you only adopted people because they were already outstanding..


So the nativity story was a fabrication that was added as society shifted to consider natural birth superior to adoption.


So Jesus was referring to god EXACTLY as every other jew to this day would have....all Jews refer to god as “father” and every time the Bible has god speaking to Jews it says “my sons”.


Then Later Greek christians who did not seem to understand that began to site those passages as proof Jesus was the natural child of god.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ArtemisBarca]

The salient difference being that the Qur'an added many more explicit calls to "fight fee sabil allah", but the NT didn't. So, again you miss the mark.

Ok...

So the Bible calls for atrocities 7 times and the Quran 10 times...

For sure the problem is with the Koran...
Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ArtemisBarca]

The salient difference being that the Qur'an added many more explicit calls to "fight fee sabil allah", but the NT didn't. So, again you miss the mark.

This isn’t gonna make any friends on the Muslim side o things, but if we assume that...

technology = civilization

Then the western world is 50-100 years ahead of the 3rd world. If we look at what Christians we’re doing 100 years ago... not too different from what Muslims are doing today..


So honestly it seems to me that it is really the growing pains of entering the modern world.


The conservative side, the side trying to uphold the traditions of the past ALWAYS have to resort to craziness to stop progress..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ecofarm]

Yes, but the history I'm talking about is much earlier than that. Christianity didn't initially start out as a religion which enforced the authority of Kings and Emperors. Quite the opposite, it was originally a radical, apocalyptic sect of Judaism which was itself persecuted.

Rome forces it upon Europe through conquest. It spread by decree, not popularity.

 

[Irredentist]

So what???? Tens of thousands of terrorist attacks is so what. The death penalty for leaving Islam is so what. The death penalty for 'insulting Islam' is so what. The rape of Yazidi sex slaves is so what. ISIS is so what. Al Qaeda is so what. Boko Haram is so what. Utter destabilization of the ME and much of Africa is so what. Honor killing is so what. Subjugation of women is so what. Billions of dollars of security costs is so what. Hatred of non-Muslims is so what. And worth mentioning again, tens of thousands of terrorist attacks is so what.

Alright, that's a lot of bad stuff you just listed. What do we do about it? If we get rid of Islam is it all going to magically disappear? How would we even do that? What's your practical solution other than endlessly posting "ISLAM BAD"

 

[ChezC3]

Studying Islam from an academic viewpoint, also known as studying the Islamic Sciences, is done every day the world over by countless Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It is called Islamic Sciences because the effects are demonstrable and reproducible. Meaning, follow or don't follow the prescripts assigned, and the benefits or averse effects can be shown and repeated no matter who is participating.

Attempting to use the Quran and or hadith in and of itself without the prerequisite knowledge of when that particular verse was transmitted or having an understanding of the times and situations at hand when the Prophet (saw) acted as a case for or against Islam quite simply put is a fools errand. One committed quite frequently by both Muslim and non-Muslim fools alike.

Islam doesn't have a priestly class and therefore gives the appearance of lacking an authority on tradition to follow. Allowing all sorts of interpretations to take place and be made. Sort of like Protestantism. The thing of it is, Islam (and Protestantism) do have an authority, and that authority is it's scholars. In the case of protestantism, unfortunately they have scholars too, in the form of pastors or ministers but what they study is an incomplete, errant interpretation of scriptures which came with the break from the Catholic Church. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches as well while being closer to authorities find themselves lacking each respectively from certain levels of knowledge due to their schisms and incorrect interpretations.

When you study Islam, academically without the opinions of fools, both Muslim and non-Muslim alike, you will find it isn't as disagreeable as you perhaps originally thought.

 

[ArtemisBarca]

Nope. What's your point?

Did they start a warrior religion? Mohamed did. The don't-blame-Islam club has clearly dug their heels in to the extent of scraping the bottom of the barrel for 'arguments'. Why can't you just let this stupid comparison go and simply look at Islam for what it teaches and how it affects today's world?



Absolutely. And by doing so in the name of AND ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES of the religion he invented, gives up any right to claim his is a religion of peace. The logic is unassailable if you were to look at it honestly and forget this ridiculous both-feet descent into whataboutism.

Christianity has been a warrior religion for 1900 years.. lol

It just seems crazy to negate 99% of Christian history by claiming “they were not real Christians... “

Religion is based on things being perfect at the beginning and getting worse.....

So how did every Christian before the modern era have it wrong?!?!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stevecanuck]

Studying Islam from an academic viewpoint, also known as studying the Islamic Sciences, is done every day the world over by countless Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It is called Islamic Sciences because the effects are demonstrable and reproducible. Meaning, follow or don't follow the prescripts assigned, and the benefits or averse effects can be shown and repeated no matter who is participating.

Attempting to use the Quran and or hadith in and of itself without the prerequisite knowledge of when that particular verse was transmitted or having an understanding of the times and situations at hand when the Prophet (saw) acted as a case for or against Islam quite simply put is a fools errand. One committed quite frequently by both Muslim and non-Muslim fools alike.

I agree with most of that, which is why I am rereading the Qur'an in chronological order. That way it's possible to add historical context into the mix, which gives a much clearer picture of how Islam evolved. However, without any of that, it's still possible to read the Qur'an in compilation order and easily find the hate and calls to arms.

Islam doesn't have a priestly class and therefore gives the appearance of lacking an authority on tradition to follow. Allowing all sorts of interpretations to take place and be made. Sort of like Protestantism. The thing of it is, Islam (and Protestantism) do have an authority, and that authority is it's scholars. In the case of protestantism, unfortunately they have scholars too, in the form of pastors or ministers but what they study is an incomplete, errant interpretation of scriptures which came with the break from the Catholic Church. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches as well while being closer to authorities find themselves lacking each respectively from certain levels of knowledge due to their schisms and incorrect interpretations.

When you study Islam, academically without the opinions of fools, both Muslim and non-Muslim alike, you will find it isn't as disagreeable as you perhaps originally thought.

Reading the Qur'an with historical context AND by paying very close attention to every verse has made it much more disagreeable to me than before.

 

[ArtemisBarca]

Christ started a warrior religion. Millions picked up weapons and killed in his name for centuries.


Are you kidding?

I think it is fairer to say , “it is Irrelevant and unknowable what Jesus of Nazareth wanted” , period full stop.

Most likely he had no desire to spawn a new religion and was just trying to help free his people from the yoke of Rome...maybe even through peaceful protests..


The beliefs and desires of Jesus have nothing to do with Christianity..

Jesus was a Jew.. who wanted what the jews of the day wanted theologically and that liiidrbooks NOTHING like Christianity..


Ever want to see how well a religion can play our? Look at the Jews. You will have a brand new respect for how decent a religion can be lol.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ArtemisBarca]

True, but Christianity didn't initially expand via military victory the same way that Islam did. I say this not as a condemnation of Islam but as a reading of history.

WHAT?!??

Rome...... Christianity spread via Rome’s military conquests to become the worlds dominant religion.

There are some fair disclaimers with that though...

Believe it or not the church usually opposed conversion by the sword.. it was your Christian Kings who did most of that.. that said the church wasn’t excommunicating any of them for it though lol.. so......


The real life base, fundamental , end of the day problem with religions, is that once you start believing in fairy tales, it is way easier to keep doing it.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ArtemisBarca]

Yes, but the history I'm talking about is much earlier than that. Christianity didn't initially start out as a religion which enforced the authority of Kings and Emperors. Quite the opposite, it was originally a radical, apocalyptic sect of Judaism which was itself persecuted.

Yes but for 90% of its life time, and including 90+% of its supporters did do it that way....

So I’m sure you can see why claiming the 5% on each end of the time line is the fair representation is questionable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stevecanuck]

Alright, that's a lot of bad stuff you just listed. What do we do about it? If we get rid of Islam is it all going to magically disappear? How would we even do that? What's your practical solution other than endlessly posting "ISLAM BAD"

My goal here is education. When a terrorist attack occurs we frequently hear that we must "find the root causes" behind such acts. This is always followed by suggestions using empty words and phrases like "marginalized youth" might be the problem. No. That sort of BS is just PC nonsense. The root cause of Islamic terrorism is Islamic teachings. Period. I just want people to know that so we at least understand the problem.

 

[Kiwimac]

My goal here is education. When a terrorist attack occurs we frequently hear that we must "find the root causes" behind such acts. This is always followed by suggestions using empty words and phrases like "marginalized youth" might be the problem. No. That sort of BS is just PC nonsense. The root cause of Islamic terrorism is Islamic teachings. Period. I just want people to know that so we at least understand the problem.

And once again you make the same mistake over and over again. The root cause of Islamic terrorism is a modernistic interpretation of Islam which attempts to assert that only it is "true Islam." The entanglement of Abd-al-Wahhab's theology with that of the nascent hunger for land and power of the Saud family set the scene for today's problems.

 

[stevecanuck]

And once again you make the same mistake over and over again. The root cause of Islamic terrorism is a modernistic interpretation of Islam which attempts to assert that only it is "true Islam." The entanglement of Abd-al-Wahhab's theology with that of the nascent hunger for land and power of the Saud family set the scene for today's problems.

That doesn't explain the caliphate of 1400 years ago. Same ideology. Same goals.

 

[Kiwimac]

That doesn't explain the caliphate of 1400 years ago. Same ideology. Same goals.

Not at all. The earlier caliphate was generally content to coexist with other "people of the book." Unlike Wahabiyah which simply dismisses them as 'infidel.' ; Alone among the Madhabs of Islam, Wahabiyah insists that it's interpretation is the sole correct one and goes so far as to declare all other forms of Islam as haram insisting that Jihad can carried out against other Muslims for the unforgiveable sin of not considering Abd-al Wahab as entirely correct.

 

[vegas giants]

My goal here is education. When a terrorist attack occurs we frequently hear that we must "find the root causes" behind such acts. This is always followed by suggestions using empty words and phrases like "marginalized youth" might be the problem. No. That sort of BS is just PC nonsense. The root cause of Islamic terrorism is Islamic teachings. Period. I just want people to know that so we at least understand the problem.

A billion muslims have not gotten the message.

 

[ArtemisBarca]

That doesn't explain the caliphate of 1400 years ago. Same ideology. Same goals.

BWAHAHAHAHA

The Ottoman Empire was one of the most tolerant places in the world?!?!

I mean damn....this is not a secret history lol..

TPTB start spouting about how “they have been doing that for thousands of years!!” and not one republican in America says “wait a minute... I’m a history teacher/buff/professor/exc, that just isn’t right...”


The present issues in the ME goes all the way back in antiquity to WW1, lol. When the Ottoman Empire fell it was divided up by the western powers.

Britain had the colonization game down pat by then. So as they colonized a region they would redraw the boarders to create conflict as part of a divide and conquer strategy... just like countless other empires over history..


Most of the present problems go back to the boarders the British/French and Spanish set up during colonization..


For example the Tutsi/(man I forget the other tribe) conflict from the Rwandan genocide...

1) One faction was the bigger and dominant faction..

2) The British show up and decide X tribe is the “whitest” so they should be in charge and back the minority faction seizing power....

The whitest part is not me reaching or trying to pry in some social commentary.. That is literally how they decided who should run an area, even though neither side was anywhere near white.. they might decide , “hey they are too short to be “white” so the regular height ones must be “whiter”.


3) animosity builds over the minority being put over the majority..

4) the British leave and the larger faction decides,

“remember all that crap you were talking with your British buddies behind you???? They ain’t behind you now....”


And then they started slaughtering everyone..





The ME is the same way...



PS) those tactics are not unique to Europeans..


Europeans just had the most recent empires, thus the ones where the effects still more felt.












Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Irredentist]

WHAT?!??

Rome...... Christianity spread via Rome’s military conquests to become the worlds dominant religion.

There are some fair disclaimers with that though...

Believe it or not the church usually opposed conversion by the sword.. it was your Christian Kings who did most of that.. that said the church wasn’t excommunicating any of them for it though lol.. so......


The real life base, fundamental , end of the day problem with religions, is that once you start believing in fairy tales, it is way easier to keep doing it.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rome was already an empire by the time they adopted Christianity. They weren't doing much conquering by that point, mostly just trying to preserve what they had. But the adoption of Christianity by Rome was still tremendously important in that it turned Christianity from a persecuted cult into a state religion.

You are quite correct about Kings perpetrating atrocity against pagans. Charlemagne and the Saxons being a notable example. But Christianity actually did not have a concept of holy war until the time of the crusades. Which I believe differentiates it somewhat from Islam.