Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on December 19, 2005, 02:22:45 PM
-
Hi All,
I know that posting this will evoke a hearty "no duh" from one portion of the board, and get me in trouble with the rest. But there are finally signs that the Pentagon is beginning to face the fact that Jihad is an inseparable part of Islam rather than an unrelated addendum.
The Pentagon Breaks the Islam Taboo
By Paul Sperry
Washington's policy-makers have been careful in the war on terror to distinguish between Islam and the terrorists. The distinction has rankled conservatives who see scarce difference.
A little-noticed speech by President Bush in October gave them some hope. In a major rhetorical shift, he described the enemy as "Islamic radicals" and not just "terrorists," although he still denies that radicalism has anything to do with their religion.
Now for the first time, a key Pentagon intelligence agency involved in homeland security is delving into Islam's holy texts to answer whether Islam is being radicalized by the terrorists or is already radical. Military brass want a better understanding of what's motivating the insurgents in Iraq and the terrorists around the globe, including those inside America who may be preparing to strike domestic military bases. The enemy appears indefatigable, even more active now than before 9/11.
Are the terrorists really driven by self-serving politics and personal demons? Or are they driven by religion? And if it's religion, are they following a manual of war contained in their scripture?
Answers are hard to come by. Four years into the war on terror, U.S. intelligence officials tell me there are no baseline studies of the Muslim prophet Muhammad or his ideological or military doctrine found at either the CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency, or even the war colleges.
But that is slowly starting to change as the Pentagon develops a new strategy to deal with the threat from Islamic terrorists through its little-known intelligence agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity or CIFA, which staffs hundreds of investigators and analysts to help coordinate Pentagon security efforts at home and abroad. CIFA also supports Northern Command in Colorado, which was established after 9/11 to help military forces react to terrorist threats in the continental United
States.
Dealing with the threat on a tactical and operational level through counterstrikes and capture has proven only marginally successful. Now military leaders want to combat it from a strategic standpoint, using informational warfare, among other things. A critical part of that strategy involves studying Islam, including the Quran and the hadiths, or traditions of Muhammad.
"Today we are confronted with a stateless threat that does not have at the strategic level targetable entities: no capitals, no economic base, no military formations or installations," states a new Pentagon briefing paper I've obtained. "Yet political Islam wages an ideological battle against the non-Islamic world at the tactical, operational and strategic level. The West's response is focused at the tactical and operation level, leaving the strategic level -- Islam -- unaddressed."
So far the conclusions of intelligence analysts assigned to the project, who include both private contractors and career military officials, contradict the commonly held notion that Islam is a peaceful religion hijacked or distorted by terrorists. They've found that the terrorists for the most part are following a war-fighting doctrine articulated through Muhammad in the Quran, elaborated on in the hadiths, codified in Islamic or sharia law, and reinforced by recent interpretations or fatwahs.
"Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)," concludes the sensitive Pentagon briefing paper. And "no one is looking for its off switch."
Why? One major reason, the briefing states, is government-wide "indecision [over] whether Islam is radical or being radicalized."
So, which is it? "Strategic themes suggest Islam is radical by nature," according to the briefing, which goes on to cite the 26 chapters of the Quran dealing with violent jihad and the examples of the Muslim prophet, who it says sponsored "terror and slaughter" against unbelievers.
"Muhammad's behaviors today would be defined as radical," the defense document says, and Muslims today are commanded by their "militant" holy book to follow his example. It adds: Western leaders can no longer afford to overlook the "cult characteristics of Islam."
It also ties Muslim charity to war. Zakat, the alms-giving pillar of Islam, is described in the briefing as "an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism." Which in English translates to: combat support under the guise of tithing. Of the eight obligatory categories of disbursement of Muslim charitable donations, it notes that two are for funding jihad, or holy war. Indeed, authorities have traced millions of dollars received by major jihadi terror groups like Hamas and al-Qaida back to Saudi and other foreign Isamic charities and also U.S. Muslim charities, such as the Holy Land Foundation.
According to the Quran, jihad is not something a Muslim can opt out of. It demands able-bodied believers join the fight. Those unable -- women and the elderly -- are not exempt; they must give "asylum and aid" (Surah 8:74) to those who do fight the unbelievers in the cause of Allah.
In analyzing the threat on the domestic front, the Pentagon briefing draws perhaps its most disturbing conclusions. It argues the U.S. has not suffered from scattered insurgent attacks -- as opposed to the concentrated and catastrophic attack by al-Qaida on 9-11 -- in large part because it has a relatively small Muslim population. But that could change as the Muslim minority grows and gains more influence.
The internal document explains that Islam divides offensive jihad into a "three-phase attack strategy" for gaining control of lands for Allah. The first phase is the "Meccan," or weakened, period, whereby a small Muslim minority asserts itself through largely peaceful and political measures involving Islamic NGOs -- such as the Islamic Society of North America, which investigators say has its roots in the militant Muslim Brotherhood, and Muslim pressure groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are on record expressing their desire to Islamize America.
In the second "preparation" phase, a "reasonably influential" Muslim minority starts to turn more militant. The briefing uses Britain and the Netherlands as examples.
And in the final jihad period, or "Medina Stage," a large minority uses its strength of numbers and power to rise up against the majority, as Muslim youth recently demonstrated in terrorizing France, the Pentagon paper notes.
It also notes that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam advocates expansion by force. The final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. The defense briefing adds that Islam is also unique in classifying unbelievers as "standing enemies against whom it is legitimate to wage war."
Right now political leaders don't understand the true nature of the threat,\ it says, because the intelligence community has yet to educate them. They still think Muslim terrorists, even suicide bombers, are mindless "criminals" motivated by "hatred of our freedoms," rather than religious zealots motivated by their faith. And as a result, we have no real strategic plan for winning a war against jihadists.
Even many intelligence analysts and investigators working in the field with the Joint Terrorism Task Forces have a shallow understanding of Islam.
"I don't like to criticize our intelligence services, because we did win the Cold War," says a Northern Command intelligence official. "However, all of these organizations have made only limited progress adjusting to the current threat or the sharing of information."
Why? "All suffer heavily from political correctness," he explains.
PC still infects the Pentagon, four years after jihadists hit the nation's military headquarters.
"A lot of folks here have a very pedestrian understanding of Islam and the Islamic threat," a Pentagon intelligence analyst working on the project told me. "We're getting Islam 101, and we need Islam 404."
The hardest part of formulating a strategic response to the threat is defining Islam as a political and military enemy. Once that psychological barrier has been crossed, defense sources tell me, the development of countermeasures -- such as educating the public about the militant nature of Islam and exploiting "critical vulnerabilities" or rifts within the Muslim faith and community -- can begin.
"Most Americans don't realize we are in a war of survival -- a war that is going to continue for decades," the Northcom official warns.
It remains to be seen, however, whether our PC-addled political leaders would ever adopt such controversial measures.
-
Yes, the world would be a better place without this religion.
-
no duh
sorry had to :aok
-
Originally posted by mora
Yes, the world would be a better place without this religion.
Would it? Some people need something to believe in, if not religion something else would take its place. Look at the horrors done in the name of communism (ie USSR, Cambodia, etc) and at the hands of other dictators. Iraq, the wests greatest enemy the Middle East, was the least extreme of Islamic countries.
-
"no one is looking for its off switch."
wonder whats the key then to eliminate the whole islam religion & the people
from this planet?
Good luck.
-
Jihad is a pillar of Islam, but it is not neccessarily holy war. It's direct translation is struggle, and most moderate Muslims would talk about personal struggle to live a life in accordance with their religion.
Charity is another pillar. To intimate that Islamic charity is restricted to funding extremist activity is a gross distortion of the truth. To present the undoubted presence of this activity as a norm is a distortion of the truth.
Seagoon, after reading this and other posts, I'm come to the conclusion that you're little more than scare-monger, cherry picking from various sources to present a particular picture. Your bias is a clear as day as is your lack of balance. Posting editorialized interpretations of classified reports, that reveal no clue as to their scope or context is tantamount to propaganda. Given your background as an evangelical Christian, this comes as little surprise.
The report that is supposedly being described talks about 'political Islam'. That is an important distiction that you have failed to highlight.
Paul Sperry is a writer for WorldNetDaily (which you also seem to have failed to point out). Even a cursory examination of the (limited) quotes Sperry provides points to the conclusion that a particular interpretation of Islam has been a central feature of radicalized doctrine. This is not news.
Your contention is that violent, radical jihad is an inseparable part of Islam. This is untrue, given the number of peaceful Muslims inhabiting out respective countries. The distinction is key and your omission of it sign-posts your own agenda.
-
Originally posted by mora
Yes, the world would be a better place without all religion.
Fixed
-
Originally posted by mora
Yes, the world would be a better place without this religion.
World would be better off without pretty much all religions, especially Christianity.
It's funny how the bible thumpers fail to recognize they are nothing more than the American version of the Taliban.
ack-ack
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Jihad is a pillar of Islam, but it is not neccessarily holy war. It's direct translation is struggle, and most moderate Muslims would talk about personal struggle to live a life in accordance with their religion.
Good point Dowding. The rest is rubbish. ;)
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Seagoon, that is ALMOST as stupid as this:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/19/iran.music.ap/index.html
I'm glad I live in America.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
World would be better off without pretty much all religions, especially Christianity.
It's funny how the bible thumpers fail to recognize they are nothing more than the American version of the Taliban.
ack-ack
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
World would be better off without pretty much all religions, especially Christianity.
It's funny how the bible thumpers fail to recognize they are nothing more than the American version of the Taliban.
ack-ack
Please name off some recent Christian terror groups that have bombed, attacked or maimed innocents in, oh, the last 50 years?
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
Maybe one day you'll realize the rhetoric the bible thumpers spew is really no different than the rhetoric spewed by the jihadists or any other religious fanatic.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Gryffin
Fixed
You'd have alot of poor people worse off than they are now if no religion existed.
-
there are many people in our society with the same feelings as expressed by ack ack. Its a genuine american tragedy that so many people feel that way.
-
(here we go again...Seagoon's hate of anything or anyone not following his religion makes me say bad things again...)
He's got a nice agenda indeed:
From Seagoon's sermons:
What's worse is our inability to call EVIL, EVIL in regards to Islam. (http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/911.html)
Islam: Jihad Against the Truth (http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/islam.html)
While he is accusing Islam to be violent, he is not ashamed to use war, combat and armament analogies....quite ironic to say the least: The Whole Armor Of God (http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/eph614.html)
And finally: if you aren't a christian, you're doomed (hence you don't deserve any respect) He who is not with Christ is against Him (http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/53004morn.mp3) (too bad that the html version is gone)
Oh, this one is quite educating too (don't be a moderate): Above All be Zealous for christ (http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/rev3_14-22.html)
-
wow defend islam by bashing christianity. Great tactic guys.
What's funny is none of you have anything to add (with the exception of dowding) to the discussion other than to attack the thread starter and his views. Most of you have a rather fascist view when it comes to religion.
-
I will not quote anyone in this thread as I may have misinterpreted their meaning.
I would point out that religion is the bane of mankind and has always been so. The slaughter of our fellow man in the name of, whatever name by which we call god, is well documented both world and history wide.
If each man kept his faith in the goodness of whomever he names god, by whatever name he calls him, and quit banding into sects of us against all outsiders, all this crap would cease.
There is little profit, in that kind of faith, to be exploited by those who seek power ... hence leaders/groups will always offer their own version of the golden calf (religion) to exploit the masses ... for both power and profit.
-
Hello DeSelys,
Looks like I have a few posts to respond to on this topic, looks like my original expectations have turned out to be accurate...
Originally posted by deSelys
(here we go again...Seagoon's hate of anything or anyone not following his religion makes me say bad things again...)
He's got a nice agenda indeed:
From Seagoon's sermons:
What's worse is our inability to call EVIL, EVIL in regards to Islam. (http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/911.html)
Islam: Jihad Against the Truth (http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/islam.html)
While he is accusing Islam to be violent, he is not ashamed to use war, combat and armament analogies....quite ironic to say the least: The Whole Armor Of God (http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/eph614.html)
And finally: if you aren't a christian, you're doomed (hence you don't deserve any respect) He who is not with Christ is against Him (http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/53004morn.mp3) (too bad that the html version is gone)
Oh, this one is quite educating too (don't be a moderate): Above All be Zealous for christ (http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/rev3_14-22.html)
It's difficult to know how to begin in responding because our worldviews are so dramatically different. You see I simply believe the message of the Bible, that the world really is fallen and that God sent His only begotten Son into it to redeem fallen mankind, and that the only way one can be saved from "the wrath to come" (1 Thess 1:10) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%201:10;&version=50;) is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and that if mankind could have been saved by any other means, but by the atonement of Christ, then God would certainly have done that rather than have his own beloved Son endure judgment in our place. I know how "foolish" that message sounds, it sounded foolish in the first century to the sophisticated Greeks to whom Paul preached (1 Cor. 1:23), it sounded utterly idiotic to me as well for the first portion of my life. But like Paul, I was converted by the power behind that foolish gospel message, and went from hating it, to loving it and proclaiming it. I am a sinner saved by Grace, and for that grace I am eternally grateful.
So why do I preach the gospel? I don't preach it for gain, and I certainly don't preach it out of hate. I actually preach it out of love, I preach it for the same reasons I would seek to awaken someone sleeping in a burning building and lead them to the exit. The message that I preach is the same simple but admitedly exclusive gospel message that Christ and the apostles proclaimed "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6) If you read the sermons you quoted, you'll notice that I am simply expositing either the words of Christ or the Apostles, rather than publishing abroad my own opinions and in essence what I preach is no different in substance from what John Bunyan procalimed in the classic Pilgrim's Progress (http://www.johnbunyan.org/text/bun-pilgrim.htm) or what men like Spurgeon, or Jonathan Edwards preached.
As for unbelievers "not deserving respect" far from it, I have always endeavored to follow Peter's admonition: But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15) So if you feel I have treated you or any other member of this community disrespectfully, please tell me so that I might apologize and repent. As far as not being a "moderate" in ones Christianity, that too is what Christ commanded. He himself stated that it would be better to hate him outright than to be "lukewarm" in following him (Rev. 3:15-16). Again if you disagree, and feel that the bible teaches us to be lukewarm in our faith, rather than zealous, by all means feel free to contradict what I preached in the sermon you put a pointer too.
Finally, yes I use armor and combat analogies, because Paul did in Ephesians 6. But unlike so many Imams, I don't teach men to hate unbelievers, Muslim or otherwise, and certainly do not teach men to take up the sword and kill them for Christ. Quite the opposite. Just this past Sunday, I preached on Luke 22:47-53 where Jesus is arrested in Gethsemane and Peter wrongly attempts to defend Him by striking off an ear with a sword, and I included the following application. Keep in mind that almost every man in the congregation is either a member of the Special Forces or the82nd Airborne or retired military:
"Here I particularly want to speak, to the men of the congregation. It has been my great privilege to get to know many of you well. You are men of courage, conviction, sacrifice and zeal. And partially because of that, I have no doubt that many of you would find it difficult not to react exactly the same way that Peter did when you see Jesus and his gospel threatened. But I implore you never to do that. Be bold for the gospel in your speaking and writing and living, but never think for a moment that you can defend Christ or advance the gospel by striking with the sword. The sword is given to the magistrate and it is intended to be used in punishing the evil-doer and defending the citizens.
In many ways Magistrate makes it easier to advance the gospel. We worship freely because the sword arm of the magistrate suppresses those who would love to close our church, kill our officers, and scatter the sheep and we can see that in the fact that that is exactly what happens in places like Iran and Indonesia. But don’t cross the line into thinking you can strike a blow with the sword for Jesus. So Never, ever, think that it we should become Christian Jihadis.
Also, as a number of men have pointed out, it is much easier to be a crusader than a martyr. Much easier to fight for Christ, than to suffer for him. And in some cases men who would gladly storm the gates of hell will not take up the cross and follow Christ. And that tendency can become very sour. For instance, I know of men who are always fighting tooth and nail in the public arena for Christ, and yet whose own practice of piety, of self-denial, of Sabbath keeping, of turning the other cheek, of esteeming others more highly, of all the personal disciplines of grace, are a shambles. I know of one young man who confronted his own father, after his dad had once again carried on a personal crusade, who said essentially “Dad, I’ve seen you attacking the men you think are the enemies of Christ again and again, but as we were growing up, you know I can’t recall ever seeing you just sit down to read the word of God by yourself.”
DeSelys, I know you will find this difficult to believe, but hating people was something that I will confess to my shame that I did a lot prior to becoming a Christian (in fact, Christ and Christians were near the top of my "most hated" list), today however, one of the things that I try to be zealous about is loving and serving people and esteeming others more highly than myself. I will admit however that I do try to obey the biblical command to hate lies and love the truth, and that obeying that will necessarily cause me to condemn not people, but any ideology that the word condemns as a lie.
Anyway, my life is an open book, if you think I really could do what I do week by week simply by being consumed by hate, then you've obviously not spent much time counseling or at hospital bedsides.
- SEAGOON
-
Good stuff Seagoon,keep up the good work.
Don't let the Ignorant wear ya down !;)
-
Very classy response.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Maybe one day you'll realize the rhetoric the bible thumpers spew is really no different than the rhetoric spewed by the jihadists or any other religious fanatic.
ack-ack
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
I concur Karaya
Oh yes...and akak..shouldnt you be removing the second Quote in you sig?
-
Hello Dowding,
Originally posted by Dowding
Jihad is a pillar of Islam, but it is not neccessarily holy war. It's direct translation is struggle, and most moderate Muslims would talk about personal struggle to live a life in accordance with their religion.
Yes some would, just as many liberal Christians redefine Christianity into being entirely about social justice. The critical question is what does Islam actually teach? Certainly the practice of its founder, Mohammed was not that Islam is a "personal struggle" but rather he led the faithful in the first Jihads of military struggle and conquest and his successors continued that practice. So when the Wahabbis, the Mullahs of Iran, the Taliban, and so on deny and condemn the idea that Jihad is not primarily an armed struggle, they are on solid ground because they are backed up by the Quran, the Hadiths, and the early history of Islam.
Charity is another pillar. To intimate that Islamic charity is restricted to funding extremist activity is a gross distortion of the truth. To present the undoubted presence of this activity as a norm is a distortion of the truth.
To not notice that a large proportion of the Zakat (especially the massive Saudi and Emirate Zakat) is going to fund terrorism and Wahabbism would be to distort the truth. If an equal proportion of tithe checks going into offering plates were going either to terrorism or training in terrorism, don't you think the world would be to condemn "so-called Christian charity" in a heart-beat? As I've pointed out elsewhere, its odd how if these religions are "equally bad" Christian charity ends up funding relief efforts such as the Tsunami recovery, but Islamic charity doesn't seem to be able to find its way to Hurricane victims on this side of the Atlantic.
Seagoon, after reading this and other posts, I'm come to the conclusion that you're little more than scare-monger, cherry picking from various sources to present a particular picture. Your bias is a clear as day as is your lack of balance. Posting editorialized interpretations of classified reports, that reveal no clue as to their scope or context is tantamount to propaganda. Given your background as an evangelical Christian, this comes as little surprise.
Dowding, you'll have to forgive me. Studying the history of Islam in University prior to becoming a Christian, and then being in constant contact with the men actually fighting the "war on terror" for the last 4 years and speaking often with missionaries and Christians who live in Muslim countries has given me a rather different perspective on Islam than Westerners whose only general contact with Muslims is via occasional contact with Muslim moderates and businessmen living and working in the West. [If I can make an analogy, it would rather be like a Muslim drawing a conclusion about Christians and Christianity having worked with a couple of Church of England members on an oil-field in Bahrain.]
You speak as though I am working from a few politicized reports generated perhaps by "Zionists" and anti-Arabs and placed in Conservative media, when in fact I've been reading Islamic material first hand since 1988, and commentary from both sides, as well as speaking with the men who have to live and work in the 10/40 window, or fight against the Jihadis. Now I know you put my contention that Islam is inherently a violent, rather than a peaceful religion, down to my being an Evangelical, but I can tell you honestly that I would have been surprised at the idea that Islam was "peaceful" during my time studying it as non-Christian in University "Where on earth did you get that idea?" I probably would have asked (in fact at that time I admired it because it wasn't all "sissified" like Christianity). Additionally, you may not have noticed this, but I don't accuse other religions with which I don't agree of being inherently violent and Jihad oriented.
Let me make that absolutely clear, I don't believe Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Judaism, and most of the other biggies in the world religions to be inherently violent or bent on world conquest.
Paul Sperry is a writer for WorldNetDaily (which you also seem to have failed to point out). Even a cursory examination of the (limited) quotes Sperry provides points to the conclusion that a particular interpretation of Islam has been a central feature of radicalized doctrine. This is not news.
Actually, I found a link to the article on an Islamic website, which pointed me back to the article in Front Page magazine, which I believe is his actual main magazine (since its also conservative, that will hardly help from your perspective). Ultimately what does it matter? Liberal news sources run scared from any suggestion that Jihad and Islam are inseparable so I was hardly likely to find it in the Guardian (although I read that as well). The point is, the American military is actually beginning to institutionally wake up to what many American fighting men already realize...
Europe won't of course, especially because they have no means of combatting the Muslim revival and are slowly but surely being overwhelmed so instead they'll continue pointing out that the real problem is America and that if America would just become more like Europe then everything would get better. Not too different from the men in the 30's who maintained that the problem wasn't National Socialism but rather warmongers like Churchill.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Please name off some recent Christian terror groups that have bombed, attacked or maimed innocents in, oh, the last 50 years?
IRA for example.
If to look across, it seemed to be correct. But. In that esse there is nothing about relations of real life muslims to haddats for example. I'v read both Quran and Shariat. And I'v read a lot of haddats. Some of them are in use by sunnits, some of them by sheets amd some of them by both main streams of Islam.
The main mistake: Djihad (as it written in Quran) is a war against an aggressor who invaded your country. Djihad can be only a selfdefence war. Another variants such as Gazavat and others, appeared later.
-
Originally posted by Estel
IRA for example.
If to look across, it seemed to be correct. But. In that esse there is nothing about relations of real life muslims to haddats for example. I'v read both Quran and Shariat. And I'v read a lot of haddats. Some of them are in use by sunnits, some of them by sheets amd some of them by both main streams of Islam.
The main mistake: Djihad (as it written in Quran) is a war against an aggressor who invaded your country. Djihad can be only a selfdefence war. Another variants such as Gazavat and others, appeared later.
Arent the IRA Catholics?
-
LOL another US nut who thinks catholocs arent christians....
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
World would be better off without pretty much all religions, especially Christianity.
It's funny how the bible thumpers fail to recognize they are nothing more than the American version of the Taliban.
ack-ack
Werd. I'd add political fanaticism to that list too.
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
I concur Karaya
Oh yes...and akak..shouldnt you be removing the second Quote in you sig?
Why? I have no problems with God or Jesus, it's his messengers that I think are total and complete idiots.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
LOL another US nut who thinks catholocs arent christians....
LOL! Do you want to say, that there were another? Oh my.... And these people wanna discuss about deep religious problems of Islam?!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
wow defend islam by bashing christianity. Great tactic guys.
What's funny is none of you have anything to add (with the exception of dowding) to the discussion other than to attack the thread starter and his views. Most of you have a rather fascist view when it comes to religion.
Who's defending Islam? I'm sure not. I simply pointed out that the rhetoric coming from some in the fundamentalist Christian side is no different than the rhetoric coming from the mullahs spewing the jihadist drivel. One wears a suit and a tie and the other a towel on his head, other than that, no difference. *shrug*
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Who's defending Islam? I'm sure not. I simply pointed out that the rhetoric coming from some in the fundamentalist Christian side is no different than the rhetoric coming from the mullahs spewing the jihadist drivel. One wears a suit and a tie and the other a towel on his head, other than that, no difference. *shrug*
ack-ack
So you think Seagoon is a fundamentalist who preaches hate and disdain for non-beleivers? You think he justifys to his congregation the killing of innocent civilians who don't beleive? He tells his members to behead captives?
Sorry but not even close to being the same.
you may not be defending islam but you are trying to change the subject away from it.
Then you go on to compare christians to the taliban? When was the last time there was a public flogging or a stoning in the name of Jesus held in America?
-
"Religion is the opiate of the masses."
it should be
"Religion is the pcp of the masses."
-
"ignorance is bliss"
-
organized ignorance. a man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle.
I dismiss any organized ignorance, any faith based arguments. And I hate that word 'religion'. Spirituality is an individual decision/process and should not be forced upon anyone else. very libertarian; go about your own ****, without flinging **** at anyone else. Random statistic, 90.34% of all conflicts result from one group ****ing with another group. Keep your hands inside the ride at all times, dont touch anyone, and we can get along just fine, with 8 billion different spirtualities or inner convictions.
wanna be spiritual? great! I hope you find happiness, I hope it brings balance, I hope you keep it to yourself.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
wanna be spiritual? great! I hope you find happiness, I hope it brings balance, I hope you keep it to yourself.
Where can I place a sign? Perfect!
-
Originally posted by Octavius
organized ignorance. a man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle.
I dismiss any organized ignorance, any faith based arguments. And I hate that word 'religion'. Spirituality is an individual decision/process and should not be forced upon anyone else. very libertarian; go about your own ****, without flinging **** at anyone else. Random statistic, 90.34% of all conflicts result from one group ****ing with another group. Keep your hands inside the ride at all times, dont touch anyone, and we can get along just fine, with 8 billion different spirtualities or inner convictions.
wanna be spiritual? great! I hope you find happiness, I hope it brings balance, I hope you keep it to yourself.
If we meet at this year's Con, I'll buy you a drink Oct. Good post.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Gryffin
Fixed
I'd have gotten into that later... But I do rank this as the worst one.
-
I think islam is stupid. Its like a religious trap, you become islamic and it sucks the life out of you. I mean how much does a god need you to pray to him.
-
John Lennon probably said it best.....
"Imagine"
Mac
-
I think all religious fanatics are nuttz.
-
Oh look, a religious representative is bashing another religion... this is realy surprising.
BUY MY BRAND!!! IT'S BETTER THAN THE NEIGHBOUR'S !!!111
bleh...
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Jihad is a pillar of Islam, but it is not neccessarily holy war. It's direct translation is struggle, and most moderate Muslims would talk about personal struggle to live a life in accordance with their religion.
Nope , it is not one of the 5 pillar.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Arent the IRA Catholics?
aren't the catholics christians ?
-
Seagoon, once again you misrepresent for your own ends the concept of jihad as it is understood by the vast majority of muslims on the planet.
So you studied comparative religion and history at university? So what? Reproducing the junk you come up with would get you a swift U grade at any decent establishment.
So, to the nitty gritty:
Statement in response to the 9/11 attacks by Mustafa Mashhur, General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt; Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Pakistan; Muti Rahman Nizami, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, Bangladesh; Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Palestine; Rashid Ghannoushi, President, Nahda Renaissance Movement, Tunisia; Fazil Nour, President, PAS - Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia; and 40 other Muslim scholars and politicians:
“The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an: 'No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another' (Surah al-Isra 17:15).”
Fatwa by Shaykh Muhammed Sayyid al-Tantawi, imam of al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, Egypt
“Attacking innocent people is not courageous, it is stupid and will be punished on the day of judgement. ... It’s not courageous to attack innocent children, women and civilians. It is courageous to protect freedom, it is courageous to defend oneself and not to attack.”
Wrote Abdel-Mo'tei Bayyoumi, al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy, Cairo, Egypt:
“There is no terrorism or a threat to civilians in jihad ...”
Statement by the Egyptian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in refrence to 9/11
We strongly condemn such activities that are against all humanist and Islamic morals. ... we condemn and oppose all aggression on human life, freedom and dignity anywhere in the world.”
Shaykh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a leading shia imman in Lebanon wrote in reference to 9/11:
“Beside the fact that they are forbidden by Islam, these acts do not serve those who carried them out but their victims, who will reap the sympathy of the whole world. ... Islamists who live according to the human values of Islam could not commit such crimes.”
Abdulaziz bin ‘Abdallah Al-Ashaykh, chief mufti of Saudi Arabia wrote in reference to 9/11:
"..the recent developments in the United States including hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood, constitute a form of injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts. Secondly: any Muslim who is aware of the teachings of his religion and who adheres to the directives of the Holy Qur'an and the sunnah (the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad) will never involve himself in such acts, because they will invoke the anger of God Almighty and lead to harm and corruption on earth”, and also.."You must know Islam’s firm position against all these terrible crimes. The world must know that Islam is a religion of peace and mercy and goodness; it is a religion of justice and guidance…Islam has forbidden violence in all its forms. It forbids the hijacking airplanes, ships and other means of transport, and it forbids all acts that undermine the security of the innocent."
Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, chairman of the Sunna and Sira Council, Qatar, wrote, in response to the 9/11 attacks:
Islam holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack against innocent human beings a grave sin, this is backed by the Qur’anic verse which reads: ‘Who so ever kills a human being [as punishment] for [crimes] other than manslaughter or [sowing] corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind’
Dr. Abdelouahed Belkeziz, Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference wrote in response to the 9/11 attacks:
Following the bloody attacks against major buildings and installations in the United States yesterday, Tuesday, September 11, 2001, Dr. Abdelouahed Belkeziz, secretary-general of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), stated that he was shocked and deeply saddened when he heard of those attacks which led to the death and injury of a very large number of innocent American citizens. Dr. Belkeziz said he was denouncing and condemning those criminal and brutal acts that ran counter to all covenants, humanitarian values and divine religions foremost among which was Islam.”
Statement from the Organization of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers following the 9/11 attacks:
“The Conference strongly condemned the brutal terror acts that befell the United States, caused huge losses in human lives from various nationalities and wreaked tremendous destruction and damage in New York and Washington. It further reaffirmed that these terror acts ran counter to the teachings of the divine religions as well as ethical and human values, stressed the necessity of tracking down the perpetrators of these acts in the light of the results of investigations and bringing them to justice to inflict on them the penalty they deserve, and underscored its support of this effort. In this respect, the Conference expressed its condolences to and sympathy with the people and government of the United States and the families of the victims in these mournful and tragic circumstances.”
The Islamic author Nuh Ha Mim Keller wrote thus:
Muslims have nothing to be ashamed of, and nothing to hide, and should simply tell people what their scholars and religious leaders have always said: first, that the Wahhabi sect has nothing to do with orthodox Islam, for its lack of tolerance is a perversion of traditional values; and second, that killing civilians is wrong and immoral.”
Bernard Haykel, assistant professor of Islamic law at New York University said:
“According to Islamic law there are at least six reasons why Bin Laden's barbaric violence cannot fall under the rubric of jihad: 1) Individuals and organizations cannot declare a jihad, only states can; 2) One cannot kill innocent women and children when conducting a jihad; 3) One cannot kill Muslims in a jihad; 4) One cannot fight a jihad against a country in which Muslims can freely practise their religion and proselytize Islam; 5) Prominent Muslim jurists around the world have condemned these attacks and their condemnation forms a juristic consensus (ijma') against Bin Laden's actions (This consensus renders his actions un-Islamic); 6) The welfare and interest of the Muslim community (maslaha) is being harmed by Bin Laden's actions and this equally makes them un-Islamic.”
That's just a fraction of the quotes I can supply. Now, you can persist in portraying radical islam as a threat to the west on the scale of the Nazis or the communists, but in my view you will never be able to substantiate that claim because it is a position rooted in fantasy made easier to swallow by a large helping of fear heaped on by people like yourself who should know better.
The only argument you have is to point at the actions of a relative few on the lunatic fringe and claim falsely that they represent the majority. That really is all you have.
-
Well he also has his bigotry doesn't he?
-
momus et al the moslems feel free to lie to you and I. you euros strike me as a wad of neville chamberlains waving l'il pieces of papers up on blustery days. you'll never get it, you never have gotten it. the religion is rotten to the core.
-
Originally posted by storch
you euros strike me as a wad of neville chamberlains waving l'il pieces of papers up on blustery days.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by joowenn
I think all religious fanatics are nuttz.
How long did it take you to come to this "obvious" conclusion?
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Wall of Lip Service Text
Why post that?!! OF COURSE THEY'LL DENOUNCE IT in public!!!!!
Karaya
-
Originally posted by storch
momus et al the moslems feel free to lie to you and I. you euros strike me as a wad of neville chamberlains waving l'il pieces of papers up on blustery days. you'll never get it, you never have gotten it. the religion is rotten to the core.
Apart from a single off-topic WW2 reference what else have you got? I mean, if the central hypothesis under discussion that one and a half billion muslims do indeed support violent struggle against non-believers is actually true, you should be knee deep in examples to support your case. What are they?
Oh, and by the way, Chamberlain may have got it wrong at first but he still saw the light a full 4 years before your bunch. Funny that isn't it?
Why post that?!! OF COURSE THEY'LL DENOUNCE IT in public!!!!!
I'm sure you believe they are insincere but what actual evidence do you have support that view?
-
Originally posted by Momus--
I'm sure you believe they are insincere but what actual evidence do you have support that view?
a millinea and a half of on the job training isn't enough for you? amazing!!!
-
Time to start up the internment camps again...this time for the followers of Islam (I'd say "the evil followers of Islam", but that would be redundant, wouldn't it?). Storch, you'd make a good warden, so can I pencil you in? GOD BLESS AMURRIKAH! DEATH TO THE INFIDELS!!!
-
Can I be a cook? I can make one helluva shiv cake.
-SW
-
So we agreed that Christians are good and Muslims are bad?
They didn't bother anyone 'till CCCP-Afghan war,and yeah, they never had crusades........
-
Originally posted by AWMac
John Lennon probably said it best.....
"Imagine"
Mac
he sure did like the idea of his socialist "eden"
-
Originally posted by Momus--
I'm sure you believe they are insincere but what actual evidence do you have support that view?
The Egyptians held the Hebrews as slaves for 5,000+ years. Now go on another "Forum Obscurity Lull".
Karaya
-
Errr... I don't think those were muslims Karaya :)
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Errr... I don't think those were muslims Karaya :)
I know, just dousing his "Egyptian banter" from the wall of text post he made.
Karaya
-
Anyway, if this info, coming from the Pentagon, is as reliable as the 'WMDs in Iraq' thing...
-
lol i didnt read most of posts, but i would say, that so called "holy books"
served to political ideas well in the past and it will server political ideas well in the future.
Yet there are some dumb who belive in god :D
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Errr... I don't think those were muslims Karaya :)
indeed you never think... coz you are missing some sort of equipment to do so :D
what are doing during xmas mate ? What about littla orel ganging saw in brusel..
can you imagine dinner and breakfast with ME ? :eek:
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Would it? Some people need something to believe in, if not religion something else would take its place. Look at the horrors done in the name of communism (ie USSR, Cambodia, etc) and at the hands of other dictators. Iraq, the wests greatest enemy the Middle East, was the least extreme of Islamic countries.
good point... so i guess we ended at usual end...
World would be better place w/o politics :D
-
Seagoon,
Did you know that you as a christian worship the god of islam..
how does that feel?
(a walken true romance moment when hopper lets walken know that his bloodline has been changed by the moor invasion of sicily.)
just curious if you knew that..
:lol
Seagoon = :furious
DoctorYo
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Seagoon, that is ALMOST as stupid as this:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/19/iran.music.ap/index.html
I'm glad I live in America.
Karaya
lol that made me laugh today on BBC.
I duno, but when i was there in 2003, 2004, almost everybody were telling me that this law is in place since revolution (even when you apply for Visa, you will get big paper, whitch say, that import of "western music, books is prohibited" .... so basicaly our news have some 30 years of delay or i had to miss something :D
Even when we were listening Turkish music in the car, guys always put it off when we were closing the checkpoint.
im glad not to live in US (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/20/findlaw.analysis.hilden.jackson/) ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You'd have alot of poor people worse off than they are now if no religion existed.
If you look at the brutal history of many religions, (and I am thinking of christianity during the middle ages), it is much harder to make the claim that people are better off. It is true that people in religious organisations today do a lot of good in the world, but why can't those same people get together to help others without associating themselves with organisations that have the kind of history that religions do. It would be like going out and getting a group of people together who are going to help the poor ... then calling it the nazi party.
I have heard your statement many times before, and I think one of the main assumptions behind it is that the only way people will help others is if they are religious, which flat out isn't true. People can be moral, upstanding members of their community whether they follow a religion or not. Religious people think they have the market cornered on what is good behaviour, but if they would step back for 2 seconds they would see that usually the opposite is true. What is the reaction of most religious people when they find out that someone doesn't believe in their religion? Even if that person is a law-abiding person who has never done anything to harm anyone. "So and so just moved in next door, and he is a muslim/hindu/different form of christian/athiest/whatever!!1!!1!"
All religion adds is insecurity and intolerance ... and the current argument that I see over and over is that Islam is the evil religion because its followers express their intolerance with violence. On the other hand christianity which (generally) expresses its intolerance in less violent ways, is somehow the good religion?
-
Godwin's Law... I know, I lose :)
(http://fusionanomaly.net/killingjokemaliciousdamage.jpg)
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
Seagoon,
Did you know that you as a christian worship the god of islam..
do you know that is completely untrue?
-
Originally posted by Octavius
Godwin's Law... I know, I lose :)
(http://fusionanomaly.net/killingjokemaliciousdamage.jpg)
LOL nice work
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
do you know that is completely untrue?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Abrahamic_conceptions
Judaism
Islam
and
Christianity
all worship the god of abraham...
I know it may be a "walken, true romance moment" for you but its the truth.. truth sometimes hurts those who do not know history and have been living his - story that some of these so called preachers and holymen claim..
Multiple religions of the same god dillute power. and when your pompous arse depends on market share no wonder these three hate and redicule eachother as much as they do...
rebuttal..... or am i completely untrue...... (you may insert foot in mouth at anytime with no additional charge... :cool: )
DoctorYo
-
yep, christians, jews and muslims are all united under one God. Well....united might not be the word of choice........:cry
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Abrahamic_conceptions
yup.
got me there.
wikipedia is the final say in religious dogma.
forgot about that one.
sorry about that.
that really opened my eyes.
yup, i can see clearly now.
that's amazing how correct wikipedia is on everything.
you also impress me with you extensive knowledge on most any matter.
thank you for showing me the way.
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
that's amazing how correct wikipedia is on everything.
Yes it is. I were surprised as well.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/12/15/wikipedia.ap/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
I guess its final blow for your ego, isnt it ? :)
-
(..an aside: Mustaine - with respect, but I think you're gonna' be wrong on this one. I'm pretty certain that Christians, Jews and Muslims do, in fact, all worship the same God, as all are the 'Children of Abraham'. Just watched a very reasonable and intelligent discussion on the subject with three theologians...one from each bunch...and they universally agreed on the point. Which makes these internicine conflicts both more tragic and more repetitive than I like to think about.)
I have a serious question: I was informed on more than one occasion that Islam is the only religion whose dogma mandates the killing of any person who wishes to leave the practice of Islam. That is, only the Q'uran exhorts it's believers to visit punishment and death on any who 'stray'. Some theologians have argued that this situation actually negates the definition of 'religion' as pertains to Islam, and makes it merely a very durable cult.
NOTE: I AM NOT PRESENTING THESE STATEMENTS AS TRUE. I simply ask in the hope that someone with very specific knowledge (not opinion) might be able to comment on the veracity of these ideas, and the realities behind them. Best would be an actual Muslim person. I suspect that these statements are accurate, provided you choose a specific interpretation of the Q'uran. Like Christianity and Judaism, I think Islam has many 'sects', each with differing interpretations of meaning. Does the Q'uran make such statements? Are they subject to interpretation? Are they from some discredited aspect of the faith? Are there Islamic apologists who work to rationalize these ideas, or is the whole thing a fallacy?
I have a feeling that the only 'truths' any of us are sure of is that a) we don't really understand these people at all, b) they really don't understand us, c) there are enough lunatics to bathe everyone in blood for the forseeable future, and d) I'm running out of patience for every last bit of suffering and death meeted out in the name of someone else's God, and I'm fed up with being measured by my religious choices.
Oh, yeah...I forgot one truth I'm sure will be pointed out by someone on this board...It's all our fault.
-
Originally posted by USHilDvl
Some theologians have argued that this situation actually negates the definition of 'religion' as pertains to Islam, and makes it merely a very durable cult.
Well .. can you bring that "definition" overhere so we can discuss it.
Its quite wide spread in history of religions, that those who interpret it in "wrong" way shall be punished.
Just one of thousands of local sutch cases.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07584b.htm
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
Did you know that you as a christian worship the god of islam..
DoctorYo
actually you are wrong......again. allah is batardization of the name of the sumarian moon god aliyah. in reality as in worship of anything but the true God it is merely satanic worship that is being practiced.
-
Lada...No, I won't "bring that definition here", since the question is 'How does Islam view those who would depart from the practice of the religion', not 'What is the definition of religion?'
More to the point, is how does the dogma of Islam treat this particular situation?
I'm also not really interested in rehashing all the ways that people use 'God' to justify their personal or national agendas. I'm really as clear as I need to be on the history of brutality and vengence wreaked on 'wrong-thinkers' under the guise of religious purity.
The link you provided to the bio of Jan Hus is...interesting...but, I fail to see the relevance to my actual question. Maybe I'm kinda' stupid, but what does he have to do with Q'uranic interpretation and dogma? How does a Catholic Encyclopedia have any relevance to understanding Islamic motivation? No offense to Catholics, but that's the last place I'd consider an unbiased and objective source on Islamic thought.
No...back to the actual point. Does anyone have any practical and pertinent information as to this particular question? I don't like being guilty of the same lack of understanding and bias that clearly leads so much suffering to begin with.
Rather than just haring off on another, unrelated tangent...I'd like to understand this particular issue.
Actually, this all kind of points to my self-described 'truths'...we really don't get each other much at all.
-
It would be too easy to copy and paste a bunch of verses from the Quran that abvocate violence to infidels. The fact of the matter is that you don't have to dig too deep into the Olde Testament to find lots of violence too. The best thing to do is to read it for yourself and draw your own conclusion...
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/HolKora.html
The first one is neat because it offers 3 different translations which probably draws you closest to the true meaning of each verse.
-
actually you are wrong......again. allah is batardization of the name of the sumarian moon god aliyah. in reality as in worship of anything but the true God it is merely satanic worship that is being practiced.
Sumerians (thats how its spelled) and Arabs are not the same people ... lets clear that up... their gods are different also.. Sumerians are mesopotamian, Arabs are desert nomads of the Saudi peninsula. Very different people.. Its like calling latin / iberians = germanic...
Storch I think your just had your "walken moment"
I didn't mean to offend you.. just the facts here.. are you rebutting what I have described.
trash in english is "trash"..
trash in spanish is "basura".
they both mean the same thing.. though do to language they are not pronounced the same..(tower of babel) this can be said of a multitude words in many languages..
Just as yahweh, allah and god.. mean supreme creator or all powerful one to those who study monotheism.
if you dont see that, your a nutjob like these Immans putting out fatwas and other jibberish.. I think your above statement lends to why the religious right in america need to be kept in check as per the US constitution.. Your blunt style of reasoning our forefathers knew all too well from the church of england hence their seperation of church and state in our current form of governence over its people..
If it makes you feel better you could put out a AH fatwa for my destruction Rushdie style as some heathen..
Seagoon didn't bite...
:lol :O
but Storch....
Storch = :furious
DoctorYo
BTW this wasn't a fishing expedition or a hijack.. but when i see people so blatantly wrong I have to correct them.. you all worship the same god, what he's not big enough or powerful enough to quench your pious thirst as a whole, or do you claim exclusive ownership over him.. curious?
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
do you know that is completely untrue?
It's not. They even consider Jesus to be a prophet.
ack-ack
-
This is a neat little page from one of the links above. It is supposed to refute common misconceptions of Islam but in doing so it exposes a lack of understanding of freedom and equality as well as a lack of tolerance of other religions.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/misconceptions.html#HEADING1
It seems to me this article is full of double-speak and half-truths. And much of the time is deliberately misleading. For example, it proclaims that the Quran does not tolerate the killing of innocent women and children. However, it doesn't explain that infidels (those outside of Islam) cannot be innocent.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Arent the IRA Catholics?
Don't go there. It may looks like it was between differant member of Christian Churchs, but it was not that.
It divided that way from the simple fact that the Irish are Catholics. The Protantants are desenants of those who came over from Britain. It could almost be looked at like a race war. But the modern IRA is not the old IRA who took on the Brits for Independance in the '20s. The modern IRA is mostly an Communist group.
And how do I know this? I lived in Ireland for 2 years in the 70's. I've seen written demands posted in Dublin. And talking to a couple of people who were involved till they had an change of heart. The IRA were also involve in undercover activites against the Republic of Ireland. Again talking from same friends.
-
Originally posted by lada
indeed you never think... coz you are missing some sort of equipment to do so :D
what are doing during xmas mate ? What about littla orel ganging saw in brusel..
can you imagine dinner and breakfast with ME ? :eek:
Please leave the gay innuendos outside... I no longer live in Brussels, and I answered you by email. The only point in my answer here is that I want to make a point about the breakfast thing... :)
-
"Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)," concludes the sensitive Pentagon briefing paper. And "no one is looking for its off switch."
So our answer is to take down the only secular government in the middle of the problem so that it can be replaced by a theologically motivated one?
By this logic, no matter how horrible a dictator Sadam was, the US had no coice but to support him as the non-Islamic force in the region.
There is a pure hypocrisy at play here:
Do American interests trump the self determination of those in the middle east, and is Islam itself a threat? If so, the Iraq war was a complete mistake - even if there were WMDs. We should have continued to do every thing in our power to strengthen Sadam's stabilizing influence on the region.
You cannot simultaneously support the war in Iraq based on ultruistic arguments ("Sadam was an evil dictator") AND hold the position that Islam is fundamentally evil.
If Islam is, at it's core, evil and a threat to the US, then both the people of Iraq and the world at large were all better off under Sadam.
Which is it, Seagoon? Did Bush make a colosal mistake that served to undermine Christianity, or is an Islamic Iraq more likely to be peacefull and supportive of the US than a secular dictator?
-
Originally posted by storch
a millinea and a half of on the job training isn't enough for you? amazing!!!
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Egyptians held the Hebrews as slaves for 5,000+ years. Now go on another "Forum Obscurity Lull".
Karaya
All mouth and no trousers as usual. Why argue the point when you can resort to non-sequiturs?
Answer me this. If mainstream Islam and every one of a billion and a half muslims on the planet are a such an impending threat to your security and way of life to the extent characterised in the OP, and if indeed the government is increasingly aware of the threat to the degree portrayed in the article above, then why is your administration happy to tip billions in cash down the u-bend in Iraq creating a largely islamic government yet can't even spend a small fraction of that amount in securing your southern border which year on year continues to leak like a sieve to the benefit of economic migrants or potential terrorists alike?
Either your national security apparatus is dangerously incompetent or they do not share your assessment of the threat.
-
Don't go there. It may looks like it was between differant member of Christian Churchs, but it was not that.
It divided that way from the simple fact that the Irish are Catholics. The Protantants are desenants of those who came over from Britain. It could almost be looked at like a race war. But the modern IRA is not the old IRA who took on the Brits for Independance in the '20s. The modern IRA is mostly an Communist group.
And how do I know this? I lived in Ireland for 2 years in the 70's. I've seen written demands posted in Dublin. And talking to a couple of people who were involved till they had an change of heart. The IRA were also involve in undercover activites against the Republic of Ireland. Again talking from same friends.
Catholics were still killing protestants and vice versa for ideological, sectarian reasons. That can't be denied.
-
Originally posted by storch
actually you are wrong......again. allah is batardization of the name of the sumarian moon god aliyah. in reality as in worship of anything but the true God it is merely satanic worship that is being practiced.
Source for this claim?
AFAIK christians and jews native to the middle-east have all at one time or another used the term Allah to refer to the judeo-christian god. Etymologically speaking, it literally just means "the God", i.e. the one god, a specifically montheistic construct.
The sumerian moon god was called Nanna by the way.
-
Some of you religion hating atheists are funny.
You have your own religion, called atheism, and you are just as intolerant as or more so then what you appear to despise so much.
People will find reasons to kill each other, its a human problem. There is no way to know if a world without religion would be any safer.
I personaly think it would be far worse. Most people of faith, (all religions) are good people.
A bad person is a bad person, it does not mater if he calls himself a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or atheist.
I am not religious by the way. I was even a religion hating atheist at one time too. (When I was 14)
-
Who? gimme some names.
-
Calling atheism a religion is like saying bald is a hair colour.
The only thing atheists need to have in common is either lack of belief in a deity or all deities (weak atheism) or a belief that a deity or deities do not exist (strong atheism). A poll on alt.atheism newsgroup indicated a division of about 80% weak to 20% strong atheists in that particular subgroup of the population.
Atheists may be religious. Certain strains of Buddhism for instance do not have god or gods, lacking a belief in such entities. But, this philosophical stance is separate from the atheism - atheism is simply a descriptive word used to say "No god(s) for this dude".
Nothing more should be inferred or deducted from it because they one would be on shaky grounds considering the great diversity amongst atheist (from Buddhists, to Stalinists, fascists, democrats, republicans, swimmers, skydivers, poets etc etc).
If some dude walks up to you and says "Hi. I am an atheist." you can conclude two things:
a) he either disbelieves in gods, lack belief in them or believes they do not exist.
b) he's a total weirdo you should stay away from. An atheist saying "I am an atheist" is equivalent to a Catholic saying "I've eaten". Big deal. It's a non issue.
Making the inference:
atheist->communists were atheists->communism is a religion, sort of->this mans religion is communism->therefore, he is a communist is stretching things. I'm sure the guy will wonder what he had done in past lives to warrant such Karma, as he performs ritual Buddhistic meditation.
Wordnet says:
religion
n 1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that
control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his
morality" [syn: faith, religious belief]
2: institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was
raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own
faith contradicted him" [syn: faith]
There are other definitions out there, but in common they have:
Rituals or rites to be observed
A dogma
A recognition of the divine
More often than not, a god or gods
With atheism fundamentally not having any of these, it is hard to classify it as a religion.
Now, if you take some behaviour of some atheists, they do attack certain issues with a religious fervor. I am still waiting for the time a Save_The_Whaleist will be knocking on my door, asking if they can tell a little about the Great Blue One though. The issues are separate from the descriptive term.
-
I meant it more about the fanatical need to spread it, to convince people or tell people they are stupid for believing, and hating all religion.
Sure most Atheists are normal good people as well.
But some can be just the like the nutty religious guys who take it to far.
You want names? Just read this thread, all the ones bagging on Christianity being evil, or all religions being bad for mankind.
-
When religious dogmas enter the brain, all intellectual activity ceases.
Read my first post in this thread. Any dogmatic belief is extremely ignorant. The refusal to question and look for answers is beyond foolish. Atheism also qualifies. Arthur C. Clark said religion, atheism included, is a disease of infancy. In 3001, the final oddyssey, religion has become taboo, a product of man's early ignorance which resulted in hatred and mass bloodshed. Absolutes suck. My objection to religion is that it prevents the search for a god, if it exists.
To label me an athiest is ignorant. There's a lot of grey out there, nothing is black and white. Start dealing with things in terms of possibility and probability.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
When religious dogmas enter the brain, all intellectual activity ceases.
Read my first post in this thread. Any dogmatic belief is extremely ignorant. The refusal to question and look for answers is beyond foolish. Atheism also qualifies. Arthur C. Clark said religion, atheism included, is a disease of infancy. In 3001, the final oddyssey, religion has become taboo, a product of man's early ignorance which resulted in hatred and mass bloodshed. Absolutes suck. My objection to religion is that it prevents the search for a god, if it exists.
To label me an athiest is ignorant. There's a lot of grey out there, nothing is black and white. Start dealing with things in terms of possibility and probability.
I was not talking about you Oct.
I agree with your posts in this thread as a mater of fact.
This last one very much so.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Some of you religion hating atheists are funny.
You have your own religion, called atheism, and you are just as intolerant as or more so then what you appear to despise so much.
LMAO! Damn, give me a minute to clean up my monitor. Your comment made me kind of laugh a little too hard.
Yes, I am an atheist but unlike my "religious" brethren, I do have tolerance for other faiths. I honestly don't give a crap what someone believes, as it's their personal choice. But when they start to spew fundamentalist rhetoric that effects me, I'm gonna stand up and fight back.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
LMAO! Damn, give me a minute to clean up my monitor. Your comment made me kind of laugh a little too hard.
Yes, I am an atheist but unlike my "religious" brethren, I do have tolerance for other faiths. I honestly don't give a crap what someone believes, as it's their personal choice. But when they start to spew fundamentalist rhetoric that effects me, I'm gonna stand up and fight back.
ack-ack
LOL now you made me laugh.
You have sure shown a remarkable amount of tolerance up here. :rolleyes:
-
Hello Momus,
Originally posted by Momus--
Seagoon, once again you misrepresent for your own ends the concept of jihad as it is understood by the vast majority of muslims on the planet.
So you studied comparative religion and history at university? So what? Reproducing the junk you come up with would get you a swift U grade at any decent establishment.
So, to the nitty gritty:
Statement in response to the 9/11 attacks by Mustafa Mashhur
Well first off, not that it matters, but I didn't study comparative religion and history at University, I studied Arabic History which is taught by the Middle Eastern Studies department at the University of St. Andrews in Fife, Scotland. One of the guys I roomed with went on to become the Arabic studies prof at another Scottish University, so I've had the opportunity to discuss Jihad and Sharia Law, for several years now. I realize that no amount of reading or discussion will help if the person in question is fundamentally an idiot, which I apparently am. But I hope you will indulge the idiot's eye view for a little while longer.
In any event, quoting supposed repudiations of the 9/11 attack from groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, indicates that you are either being disingenuous or excessively credulous. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was the source of much of the modern Jihadi philosophy, first via its founder Hassan Al-Banna and then via the highly influential Sayyid Qutb. It's "peaceful anti-terrorist" members include Omar Abdel-Rahman, the Muslim Cleric who organized the 1993 bombing of the WTC. For the Muslim Brotherhood to repudiate acts of terrorism would be like me repudiating acts of Christian evangelism.
As Ahmad Al Rabbi put it an article responding to a similar Muslim Brotherhood repudiation as blatantly deceptive:
"If we were to go according to the logic of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood movement then we shouldn't condemn the Sharm Al-Sheikh crime, nor other terrorist crimes!
"The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has its own justifications for violence. In a statement by the movement, in which it 'condemned' the Sharm Al-Sheikh crime, it laid out its justification for the crime. The statement said: 'the colonialist policies that the world's strong countries pursue, as well as the aggression against the peoples – they are what engender the culture of violence.'
"The Muslim Brotherhood's problem is that it has no shame. The beginnings of all of the religious terrorism that we are witnessing today were in the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology of takfir [apostasy]. Sayyid Qutb's book Milestones was the inspiration and the guide for all of the takfir movements that came afterwards.
"The founders of the violent groups were raised on the Muslim Brotherhood, and those who worked with Bin Laden and Al-Qa'ida went out under the mantle of the Muslim Brotherhood. ...
The Muslim Brotherhood's statement is an example of total shamelessness. It is a continuation of the Brotherhood's self-contradictory and deceitful language which it has long been employing in the name of Islam."
So for groups which are themselves dedicated to the principles of Jihad and the imposition of Sharia law to "repudiate" the second successfull attack on the WTC reminds me of a counseling session I had a little while ago. In it a woman who had been put in the hospital twice by an abusive boyfriend, plaintively said "But he loves me, he always tells me he loves me, and he usually apologies after he hits me." To which I asked her, which do you believe? What he says to you, or what he does to you? In the end, like so many others she chose goes to go with the comforting but empty words, and she'll end up in the hospital again, or worse. Unfortunately, many Westerners are willing to make the same decision in regard to Islam. We'll take the words, even against the evidence of our own black eyes and busted lips.
As for "the violence" being minor and the extremists being almost non-existant, tell that to some of my friends in Sudan who have worked with villages that have almost been wiped out by the Janjaweed, or Pastors in Pakistan whose congregants have had daughters kidnapped and married off to Muslims against their wishes in accordance with Sharia law (the same thing happens to Hindu girls BTW). I have spoken with men and women who have to live in societies where the female members of their family had to wear the Hijab even though they weren't Muslims and couldn't go out without a male relative escorting them, where if they admitted they had converted to Christianity and were baptized, their own relatives would kill them. Would you call that "moderate?"
Finally Momus, lets just get down to the root shall we? Did Mohammed practice the "liberal inner struggle" or did he practice the violent subjugation of unbelievers? Would you call the history of Islam during the Medina period of the Prophet's life "peaceful?"
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Source for this claim? The sumerian moon god was called Nanna by the way.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/554692/posts
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm nananananaaaaaaaaaaa well ok also nana but primarily aliyah.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
When religious dogmas enter the brain, all intellectual activity ceases.
I thought only TV had this effect but I've too agree with you it's "l'opium du peuple"
-
Hi Guys,
No matter how I cut it, I'm running out of time, so please forgive me if I answer points raised in several posts at once. I'm answering in reverse chronological order...
Originally posted by Octavius
When religious dogmas enter the brain, all intellectual activity ceases.
I see. So Augustine, Calvin, Johannes Kepler, Luther, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Sir Isaac Newton, John Witherspoon, John Jay, George Mason, Alexander Hamilton, Noah Webster, Gregor Mendel, Roger Bacon, Lord Kelvin, G.K. Chesterton etc. etc. etc. where all utterly devoid of intellectual activity because they were also devout, even dogmatic, Christians?
Originally posted by MomusAFAIK christians and jews native to the middle-east have all at one time or another used the term Allah to refer to the judeo-christian god. Etymologically speaking, it literally just means "the God", i.e. the one god, a specifically montheistic construct.
Merely using the name "god" does not necessarily mean one is referring to the same being. For instance, are you the same being as all the other beings with the same name? When it comes to God, when Christians refer to Him, they are referring to the Triune God of both testaments of the Bible, when the Muslims refer to Allah they are referring to a being who is neither Triune and who is essentially different from the God of the bible in many of his qualities. He commands different things of his worshippers, calls different things from the God of the Bible "good" and "evil," and offers salvation through a system that contradicts the message of the gospel. These are clearly not the same being.
One would immediately see the difference if one were comparing Yahweh with Vishnu, but because Islam has only one God in its pantheon we assert that all monotheists must be worshiping the same god and that therefore the god of Muhammad and the God of Jesus are the same even though they are as different as it is possible to be.
The falacy of this "all monotheists worship the same god" position can be seen more sharply when one considers that Zoroastrians and Sikhs are also monotheists. As far as the "God of Abraham" is concerned, while Mohammed did attempt to imply that Allah was the God of Abraham, he essentially redefined who Abraham was as well, asserting that the Jews had altered the story of Abraham, he then set about revising the story himself and introducing the idea that the true son of the promises was Ismael and not Isaac. So yes, Muhammad started by pairing the Arabian pantheon down to one (and cleansing the Kaaba of the others) god named Allah and then redefining this god incorporating bits and pieces of the Bible, but finishing with a wildly different "god" from the one of the Old and New Testaments. For ease of translation, many Arabic bibles do use the word Allah for God, but many missionaries to the Islamic world are increasingly using Raab (Arabic for LORD) in place of "Allah" in order to distinguish them.
More later....
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
I see. So Augustine, Calvin, Johannes Kepler, Luther, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Sir Isaac Newton, John Witherspoon, John Jay, George Mason, Alexander Hamilton, Noah Webster, Gregor Mendel, Roger Bacon, Lord Kelvin, G.K. Chesterton etc. etc. etc. where all utterly devoid of intellectual activity because they were also devout, even dogmatic, Christians?
Rather loaded question. Fanatics and literal fundamentalists fit the category, those on your list do not. I don't believe any on that list went on a jihad or inquisition. Fighting over that one true god is gonna kill all of us.
Luther - Reformation based on justification by faith alone. Too bad the catholic church no longer controls dogmatic authority.
Aquinas - Perfect! Thomism, yay. Catholicism, yay.
Calvin - predestination? lol.
Bacon dabbled in the occult and alchemy.
Newton, Kelvin, Kepler - no explanation needed.
Hamilton was a gifted rake. Played lip service to religion for political means where appropriate, and ignored it when convenient. Sounds like a guide for modern christians today.
All of these men have made great contributions and throwing them into my category does not negate their work. Do we celebrate the man or the idea?
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Merely using the name "god" does not necessarily mean one is referring to the same being. For instance, are you the same being as all the other beings with the same name? When it comes to God, when Christians refer to Him, they are referring to the Triune God of both testaments of the Bible, when the Muslims refer to Allah they are referring to a being who is neither Triune and who is essentially different from the God of the bible in many of his qualities. He commands different things of his worshippers, calls different things from the God of the Bible "good" and "evil," and offers salvation through a system that contradicts the message of the gospel. These are clearly not the same being.
One would immediately see the difference if one were comparing Yahweh with Vishnu, but because Islam has only one God in its pantheon we assert that all monotheists must be worshiping the same god and that therefore the god of Muhammad and the God of Jesus are the same even though they are as different as it is possible to be.
The falacy of this "all monotheists worship the same god" position can be seen more sharply when one considers that Zoroastrians and Sikhs are also monotheists. As far as the "God of Abraham" is concerned, while Mohammed did attempt to imply that Allah was the God of Abraham, he essentially redefined who Abraham was as well, asserting that the Jews had altered the story of Abraham, he then set about revising the story himself and introducing the idea that the true son of the promises was Ismael and not Isaac. So yes, Muhammad started by pairing the Arabian pantheon down to one (and cleansing the Kaaba of the others) god named Allah and then redefining this god incorporating bits and pieces of the Bible, but finishing with a wildly different "god" from the one of the Old and New Testaments. For ease of translation, many Arabic bibles do use the word Allah for God, but many missionaries to the Islamic world are increasingly using Raab (Arabic for LORD) in place of "Allah" in order to distinguish them.
More later....
As educational a play on words that was, what this is really is an example on semantics.
Mind you most differing christian faiths can hardly agree at times and they supposedly worship the same god too, I doubt anyone would accept Muslims could worship their god too...
Tronsky
-
Seagoon,
In any event, quoting supposed repudiations of the 9/11 attack from groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, indicates that you are either being disingenuous or excessively credulous. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was the source of much of the modern Jihadi philosophy, first via its founder Hassan Al-Banna and then via the highly influential Sayyid Qutb. It's "peaceful anti-terrorist" members include Omar Abdel-Rahman, the Muslim Cleric who organized the 1993 bombing of the WTC. For the Muslim Brotherhood to repudiate acts of terrorism would be like me repudiating acts of Christian evangelism.
Qutb died 40 years ago, Hassan Al-Banna 55 years ago. You can't label me as disingenous while at the same time basing your case on arguments made half a century ago can you? Yes Qutb was a MB figure. Yes, his philosophy inspired later generations of extremists. Not all the MB bought into that philosophy. Today, within the muslim community some of the most visible supporters of increased secularisation are figures associated with the Brotherhood, for example Gamal al-Banna (Hassan Al-Banna's brother) and Tariq Ramadan (Hassan Al Banna's grandson).
As Ahmad Al Rabbi put it an article responding to a similar Muslim Brotherhood repudiation as blatantly deceptive...
I've read a number of articles by Dr. Al-Rab'i including the one you partially quote here. His argument is that since past MB figures like Qutb inspired certain extremist movements, then is it hypocritical for today's MB to criticise acts of violence. That's a pretty weak case. One could argue that by the same token it is hypocritical for the USA to condemn human rights abuses in certain countries having tacitly supported the same behaviour in other spots in the past. Is this really a road we want to go down?
So for groups which are themselves dedicated to the principles of Jihad and the imposition of Sharia law to "repudiate" the second successfull attack on the WTC reminds me of a counseling session I had a little while ago. In it a woman who had been put in the hospital twice by an abusive boyfriend, plaintively said "But he loves me, he always tells me he loves me, and he usually apologies after he hits me." To which I asked her, which do you believe? What he says to you, or what he does to you? In the end, like so many others she chose goes to go with the comforting but empty words, and she'll end up in the hospital again, or worse. Unfortunately, many Westerners are willing to make the same decision in regard to Islam. We'll take the words, even against the evidence of our own black eyes and busted lips.
You're setting up a straw man here. Few if any of the authorities that I quoted are dedicated to the principal of jihad as you would portray it. You're welcome to try and demonstrate that though.
As for "the violence" being minor and the extremists being almost non-existant, tell that to some of my friends in Sudan who have worked with villages that have almost been wiped out by the Janjaweed, or Pastors in Pakistan whose congregants have had daughters kidnapped and married off to Muslims against their wishes in accordance with Sharia law (the same thing happens to Hindu girls BTW). I have spoken with men and women who have to live in societies where the female members of their family had to wear the Hijab even though they weren't Muslims and couldn't go out without a male relative escorting them, where if they admitted they had converted to Christianity and were baptized, their own relatives would kill them. Would you call that "moderate?"
In backwards places like Sudan or the tribal areas of Pakistan, people use religion as the excuse to do bad things. One could look at christians killing muslims in Lebannon as an equal case in point, or Christian violence against muslims in Nigeria. The problem is as I see it that you want to tar them all with the same brush.
Finally Momus, lets just get down to the root shall we? Did Mohammed practice the "liberal inner struggle" or did he practice the violent subjugation of unbelievers? Would you call the history of Islam during the Medina period of the Prophet's life "peaceful?"
The Koran as I understand it is ambivalent on this issue but much the same could be said of the Bible. You might as well point at the violent subjugation of the Canaanites by the Israelites and say that the modern occupation of Palestine by Israel has roots in the words and actions of Joshua. Of course it is a stupid argument because it takes no account of historical context.
Apart from arguing the toss about the Muslim Brotherhood and "what would Muhammed have done?", what other evidence have you got to support your position that violent jihad is not the philosophy of an extremist minority but of the mainstream majority of muslims across the globe?
-
Originally posted by storch
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/554692/posts
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm nananananaaaaaaaaaaa well ok also nana but primarily aliyah.
I'll rephrase the question. Have you got a link from a source with verifiable footnotes and not fundie christian sites rehashing Jack Chick comic strips?
-
OK,
my brain turned off at about page 2 but i'll ask anyway. The question I have is this: when do the guns get turned toward Mecca, or is it even necessary for that to happen?
Or is the more likely event to be a civil war in SA and keeping the muslim center off kilter?
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
OK,
my brain turned off at about page 2 but i'll ask anyway. The question I have is this: when do the guns get turned toward Mecca, or is it even necessary for that to happen?
Or is the more likely event to be a civil war in SA and keeping the muslim center off kilter?
it will never happen.
-
momus, any source dedicated to the study of ancient sumer will note that allah, aliah, aliyah etc. was a demigod worshipped by people in what is now southern iraq. are you a moslem?
-
Originally posted by storch
it will never happen.
You should pray for it.
-
Originally posted by Estel
You should pray for it.
why?
-
Originally posted by storch
momus... ...are you a moslem?
If he is shouldn't he yell "Allahu Akbar" and preaching how Islam will conquer the world and how all infidels will be killed?
Naah; he can't be a muslim.
-
Originally posted by Staga
If he is shouldn't he yell "Allahu Akbar" and preaching how Islam will conquer the world and how all infidels will be killed?
Naah; he can't be a muslim.
:lol there are moslems that are are moslem the same way I'm christian, I'm not such a good christian.
-
Originally posted by storch
:lol there are moslems that are are moslem the same way I'm christian, I'm not such a good christian.
Does it mean that you accept that there are moslems who aren't dangerous then?
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Does it mean that you accept that there are moslems who aren't dangerous then?
as I have stated many times before. the solution to the moslem problem is American pop culture. This is a multicultural/ethnic society which has successfully intergrated people from all over the planet. the "moslems" that I know here are Americans, they came here for the same reason I did, the same reason we all did going back 386 years now. We know how to make better people, now if the euros will just get out of the way .
-
Originally posted by storch
... We know how to make better people....
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Aaaahhhh....that's good. Now if you could explain your theory to your local christian fundamentalist warmongers?
BTW we are getting out of the way every time you're making fools of yourselves. Remember Iraq?
-
lol!
-
Originally posted by deSelys
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Aaaahhhh....that's good. Now if you could explain your theory to your local christian fundamentalist warmongers?
BTW we are getting out of the way every time you're making fools of yourselves. Remember Iraq?
you needn't overly concern yourself. there is no such thing as a christian warmonger, fundamentalist or otherwise. the true true true christian typically is not present in the political forum. typically they believe that (and I agree) the end was known from the beginning and that the battle is already won. the good guys win. what the rest of us call "christians" are more people who are at best pseudo-christians. some true Christians, like seagoon engage the culture around them hopefully with thought provoking dialog in an effort to win some away from certain damnation, others like myself are gaping a-holes I (much to my shame) feel like all of us who have ever lived have earned eternal damnation and we should receive it. the difference between myself and most that I truly truly truly believe that Jesus was who he said he was, that he was born of immaculate conception, that he walked the earth among us and commited no sin, that he died a human death and that he returned to life at the appointed time and that he did it all for me, and you if you are willing to accept that simple story.
-
Storch:
in reality as in worship of anything but the true God it is merely satanic worship that is being practiced.
now we got...
as I have stated many times before. the solution to the moslem problem is American pop culture. This is a multicultural/ethnic society which has successfully intergrated people from all over the planet. the "moslems" that I know here are Americans, they came here for the same reason I did, the same reason we all did going back 386 years now. We know how to make better people, now if the euros will just get out of the way .
Quite a about - face ..... So are these people satanic or not..?
:rolleyes:
Seagoon:
That was a great writeup.. but what were you saying again.. :huh
I know it hurts but again I going to say..
"You as christians worship the god of islam.. "
I know this most likely goes against your whole education that you have been taught by your respective faction but its the truth..
Religion is big business.. its a no holds barred wwf cage match for souls. (and money) and neither faction is going to cut the other some slack at expense of market share...
So lets all give a Ric Flair "Woooooooooooooooo" and get ready to rumble..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ric_Flair
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8c/Recent_Ric_Flair_pic_half_size.jpg/200px-Recent_Ric_Flair_pic_half_size.jpg)
DoctorYo
PS: Wooooooooooooooo :lol
-
I knew aryan brotherhood members who weren't very dangerous and... were nice to their families.
lazs
-
Oh btw, that damnation remark leads me to make a blatant hijack:
As I don't believe in this God-JC-Holy stuff trio, I'll be damned. Well that's just too bad. All jews, moslems, atheists, jedis... are damned too btw (according to Seagoon and his sermon
He who is not with christ is against him (http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/53004morn.mp3) )
If a depressed christian commits suicide (without physically hurting anybody): damned!
If a terrorist flies an airliner with passengers into a skyscraper: let me add...damned for the murders + damned for the suicide +...ooooh but he was already damned as a moslem. It doesn't hurt that much to be a terrorists, as it seems.
Wow that is neat. As I'm damned anyway, I should begin to have fun during my stay on earth: sell drugs and make big bucks to bang a lot of chicks and drive ferraris like an idiot, just like in GTA.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
For ease of translation, many Arabic bibles do use the word Allah for God, but many missionaries to the Islamic world are increasingly using Raab (Arabic for LORD) in place of "Allah" in order to distinguish them.
wow .. i spent several months in several islamic countries and never ever heard of "Raab"
Did you mean increase like: 20 years ago there were 2 people useing, today i can post at least 6 links on www" ?
Thats so funny how all those believers belive that their god is the right one :D
Its nice example.. the Zoroastrians. Here you can see their symbol (http://stat.el-cha.cz/zoroastrian.jpg) ... well i guess that you can tell us about begginings of this religion. Because i also belive, that this religion and its begginings were huge inspiration for other political... err.. i mean religion parties.
[how do you like their symbol ? :cool: ]
-
Originally posted by storch
:lol there are moslems that are are moslem the same way I'm christian, I'm not such a good christian.
infidel .. shot him!
.. ooohhh christian ?..
ehmm sorry ....
SATANIST get the stake ready!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by deSelys
He who is not with christ is against him
He, who is not with XXXXXXXXXXX is agains YYYYYYYYYYYYYYY .
Wtf did i read that ? ... cannt remember, it has to be some pseudo secular country indeed ;)
no no no ... religion is not politic..... im just on LSD, like usualy
-
Originally posted by storch
momus, any source dedicated to the study of ancient sumer will note that allah, aliah, aliyah etc. was a demigod worshipped by people in what is now southern iraq. are you a moslem?
Damn you Storch, you skeeered him off by asking him a legitimate question!!! Shall you suffer in pergatory, by being repetatively shot down by Shane.
Karaya
-
Hi Momus,
Please forgive me again for cutting to the chase, I'm running out of energy, time, and unfortunately inclination...
Originally posted by Momus--
Apart from arguing the toss about the Muslim Brotherhood and "what would Muhammed have done?", what other evidence have you got to support your position that violent jihad is not the philosophy of an extremist minority but of the mainstream majority of muslims across the globe?
You are attempting to argue against over 1300 years of history on this one. Jihad has been a constant in Islam's dealing with the West since it's inception, it ran out of gas briefly during the military ascendence of the West and while we were literally sitting on top of them during the colonial period, but since that time the engine has been refueled (not in small part by the vast petrochemical wealth of the Middle-East).
If you want "evidence" contained in a scholarly introduction to the history and practice of Jihad, written in understandable language, then I would recommend Jihad by Paul Fregosi
Here is the Amazon Link (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1573922471/ref=sib_rdr_dp/002-2659830-1992861?me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&no=283155&st=books&n=283155)(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1573922471.02._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg)
You'll find that I'm not arguing anything that Fregosi doesn't document in the work.
Of course, if you are looking for a far more inflammatory and less scientific approach to that question, which will regretably offend enlightened Europeans and "moderates" to no end, along with an updated Jihad deaths since 9/11 list and counter, then you could check out:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Regardless, I don't think "evidence" is going to change the life experience of the guys I work with. But then again, few people really care if they think Jihad is unrelated to Islam, they just have to deal with the answer day after day...
-
yo YO, not an about face. they are not mutually exclusive. you are probably not a worshiper of the true God. anything that is not worship of the true God is by default satanic worship as there can be no other. you are an American. I hope this explanation clears it up a bit.
-
A few final thoughts...
I'm going to have to bow out of this and a few other threads, I'll try to explain why elsewhere.
Samiam asked: Which is it, Seagoon? Did Bush make a colosal mistake that served to undermine Christianity, or is an Islamic Iraq more likely to be peacefull and supportive of the US than a secular dictator?
The objective of the Bush administration is not to create Christian states in the middle-east, it is attempting to create Democracies in the Islamic world. They are doing this out of the belief that totalitarian states in the Middle East with WMDs or the ability and willingness to sponsor and train Jihadis are too dangerous to the existence of the Western Democracies to be allowed to continue. The theory is that they will establish Democracy in a few in places like Afghanistan and Iraq and the natural desire for freedoms they have never had and envy of these states will do the rest of the work. A recent Freedom House report indicated that this theory might be working: Freedom House 2006 Global Survey Data Available: Middle East Progress Amid Global Gains in Freedom (http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/pressrel/122005.htm) But obviously Democracy will take a long time to take root over there, and be fiercely resisted. Does this undermine Christianity? Well in the short term, my missionary buddies tell me that it is now harder to get into some states because the State Department is particularly paranoid. But in the long run if the states become truly democratic, who knows? Turkey is Democratic, but evangelizing over there is still a nightmare. The middle-east will for the foreseeable future always be the toughest place for Christianity regardless of what happens in the political arena.
As for supporting the US? Samiam, the world isn't going to support the US unless they get with the program and depending on what your objective is: become Muslims/become Socialists/Allow them unrestricted immigration, etc. Besides, Sam even Jihadis would have a tall order hating the USA more than Saddam did from 1991 onwards.
Regarding the concept that Christians and Muslims worship the same God
A theologian by the name of Geerhardus Vos made the following salient observation:
From the definition of Theology as the science concerning God follows the necessity of its being based on revelation. In scientifically dealing with impersonal objects we ourselves take the first step; they are passive, we are active; we handle them, examine them, experiment with them. But in regard to a spiritual, personal being this is different. Only in so far as such a being chooses to open up itself can we come to know it. All spiritual life is by its very nature a hidden life, a life shut up in itself. Such a life we can know only through revelation. If this be true as between man and man, how much more must it be so as between God and man. The principle involved has been strikingly formulated by Paul: “For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.” [1 Cor. 2:11]. The inward hidden content of God’s mind can become the possession of man only through a voluntary disclosure on God’s part. God must come to us before we can go to Him.
In other words, in order to know anything about him, God has to tell us. Now in the Bible, which describes itself as given by the inspiration of God, literally "God breathed" God describes Himself, His Attributes, and His Commands in certain specific ways that do not contradict themselves. In this Bible for instance, Jesus is described as "His only begotten Son" and that in order to know the Father, we must know Him through faith in His Son.
A little under 600 years after this self-revelation of God was completed, a man by the name of Muhammed began to dictate the Quran, which also purported to be a revelation of god. In this revelation, god contradicted much if not most of what is written in the Bible about him. For instance, this god, named Allah, does not have an only begotten son named Jesus, in fact it calls the very idea Blasphemy. The Quran says that the earlier revelation (not the new stuff from Muhammad) was largely a fabrication. So while Allah, in the Quran, claims to be the God of Abraham and of Issa (Jesus) he is radically different. Now both of these Revelations can be bogus (as many of you no doubt think) but they cannot both contradict one another and both be true. God cannot have AND not have a son, we cannot go to him only through Jesus AND be condemned for blasphemy by believing we must. Either way you look at it, Allah and the God of the Bible cannot be the same being.
Now you may continue to say, "As non-believers, we won't allow you to make that distinction. We insist that you realize you are worshipping the same God as the Muslims despite the myriad of contradictions" but Muslims are not obliged to believe in the God of the Bible anymore than I am obliged to believe in Allah. If you want to test this theory, go find an Orthodox Jew and a devout Muslim and tell them "Christians believe Jesus is God. I insist that Muslims, Jews, and Christians are all worshipping the same God, therefore you worship Jesus!" and tell me about their reaction.
Finally, Ack-Ack made the comment he likes God and Jesus but dislikes his messengers, and DeSelys is offended that I preached on the declaration of Christ "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters." (Luke 11:23, also Matt. 12:30)
Well, actually as the case has always been, people really aren't offended so much with his messengers as the message of the Gospel. It is and always has been an offense. When Christ himself first preached that He was the Messiah in the synagogue at his home town, the congregation tried to throw Him over a cliff. Throughout His time on earth, Christ emphasized the need to believe in Him for salvation. His message was "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 4:17) And after commissioning His messengers to go and preach salvation to the cities by believing in Him he warned them: "And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!" He described Himself as the only way to God and the path of salvation not as broad, but Narrow and told His messengers to do likewise.
Now if Man isn't fallen, if Jesus isn't God, and if all paths either lead to heaven or heaven doesn't even exist, this is all either madness or intolerable arrogance. It has always been about truth claims. I believe the truth claims Christ made, and therefore I seek to preach only what he and his apostles preached.
Ack-Ack and DeSelys, I readily understand that none of this Islam and Christianity stuff makes sense because you dismiss the truth claims of both Jesus and Muhammad. Its all so many fairy tales, and what fool preaches, believes, or dies for fairy tales? But you see, although I once did not, I believe the Gospel, I have seen the good fruit and the visible change it produces and have "tasted and seen" that it is good. Had I not done so, I have no doubt I would have continued on in my former ways, and that if I was still alive today I'd be divorced, a hopeless father, a detriment to society, a danger to women and no real good to anyone, lest of all God.
You see me as dangerous, but that is after all only if the truth claims of Christ are really all bunk. Irregardless, by God's grace, I have lived a far better life to date than I would have otherwise. I know that you won't believe this, but the only thing I'm really a danger to are people's comfort zones.
-
Seagoon; how does it feel when you know there's 300 million Muslims out there trying to conquer your christian world and, most likely, kill you and your followers?
-
Staga they've been around for a millenia attempting the same old tired tricks. we will win American pop culture will rule the world.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
.....Had I not done so, I have no doubt I would have continued on in my former ways, and that if I was still alive today I'd be divorced, a hopeless father, a detriment to society, a danger to women and no real good to anyone, lest of all God.....
Too heavy handed with the pathos, SG...
It looks like you can only live at the extremes: according to you, you were a complete and militant atheist. Now you are a fundamentalist. Probably one of your psychology trait. I really wouldn't care if you weren't at the same time preaching that moslems are evil. How can you expect your audience to be open to their fellow men who aren't sharing the same belief? How can you expect the situation to improve? Aren't you supposed to love your enemy? Shouldn't you teach your 'herd' to try and find a non-violent solution to this inter-religion war that you're predicting? I'll repeat my accusation: you're no better than the jihadists. And before you go back to the i'm-not-ordering-them-to-strap-a-bomb-to-themselves cliché that you seem to affectionate so much, I'll say again that, as a man of cloth, telling to soldiers that it's ok to bomb, shell or shoot people because of their religion is TOTALLY MORALLY WRONG!
Mind you, I don't remind having had such discussions with catholics here in Europe. Most are moderate (lukewarm, as you like to call them) but as long as they don't try to convert me or my kids (or mess with their education), I respect their faith and won't try to convince them that they are putting a lot of time and energy in fairy tales.
I did like you said and read a lot of your sermons. I tried to keep an open mind. I agree with some, some others look useless but inoffensive to me. A few ones are an attempt to bring mankind back to the darkest middle ages. Don't expect your efforts to force upon others the fantasies that you've imprisoned your mind with to be unchallenged.
SG I've just read your other thread and if there is something that I try to put above anything, it is the family. I stopped online gaming for the same reasons: I was irritable and impatient after a bad online session, and I caugjht myself venting on the kids more than once. Take your time to answer if you feel the need to, I won't ever think that you chickened away.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Finally, Ack-Ack made the comment he likes God and Jesus but dislikes his messengers, and DeSelys is offended that I preached on the declaration of Christ "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters." (Luke 11:23, also Matt. 12:30)
Well, actually as the case has always been, people really aren't offended so much with his messengers as the message of the Gospel.
It's not the Bible at all but how people like you interpret it to fit your own agenda. So you might believe you're better than some Jihadist but the drivel you spout in here and from a pulpit is the same thing the Jihadist spew in the mosques. It's too bad actually, considering you worship the same God as they do.
ack-ack
-
how can you have a bad enuff time ...playing video games...to vent it on others?..wow..that statement to me says alot about you and the way you live life
AKAK...what can you NOT UNDERSTAND
The stuff preachers say on Sunday is not even close to to a Jihadist "sermon"....
How many videos do you need to see of non beleivers SAWING OFF THE HEAD of some poor soul as they yell ALL ACKBAR!!
I think you have never seen it...and have closed your eyes to the jihadist scum blowing up Public Busses and Danceclubs..restaraunts,,,ect
Breaka leg
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
I think you have never seen it...and have closed your eyes to the jihadist scum blowing up Public Busses and Danceclubs..restaraunts,,,ect
Breaka leg
Like Tim McVeigh? Oh yeah, he isn't muslim, just a bad person
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
how can you have a bad enuff time ...playing video games...to vent it on others?..wow..that statement to me says alot about you and the way you live life
AKAK...what can you NOT UNDERSTAND
The stuff preachers say on Sunday is not even close to to a Jihadist "sermon"....
How many videos do you need to see of non beleivers SAWING OFF THE HEAD of some poor soul as they yell ALL ACKBAR!!
I think you have never seen it...and have closed your eyes to the jihadist scum blowing up Public Busses and Danceclubs..restaraunts,,,ect
Breaka leg
Oh so Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of a head of state of another country doesn't count? I see, it only counts if you're a non-Christian and your words incite violence.
ack-ack