Late night flight with a strange request...

[Mr_Creepy]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, read it again.

Middle East politics center on religion. The insurgents and Al Queda are using religion to further their politcal war on the west.

[ QUOTE ]
Do mulisms condemn christians? Or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not anymore than Christians comdemn Muslims. Islam teaches a more or less "live and let live" philosophy. I'll refer you to my previous example of when the Mulsims took control of Jerusalem. They allowed Christians and Jews to continue practicing their religions openly. If they really, seriously condemned them, you would have seen Christianity and Judaism banned.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I believe this took a war. I'm not totally sure on the history, but one of you history buffs will correct me I'm sure.

Kell, no disrespect to you, but Islam does not teach a "live and let live" philosophy. Very few religions do. A good case could be made that Christianity does not either (Rom 1:25:28 basically saying God hates perversion, Rev 1:20 "I wish that you were hot or cold, if you are luke warm I will spit you out of my mouth." and you can find tons of places in the Old Testament where the Jews were told to kill EVERYONE in the city.) However, the Koran is a relatively young document, written in the 5th or 6th century I believe (parts of it anyway - other books came later.) If you look up the word "infidel" you will find some pretty violent suggestions. Look up the word "reward" or "rewards in heaven." There is a lot of suggestion that your reward in heaven may be dependent on how many infidels you take with you when you die.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there no original religion? Or do they all copy the Bible and the God Jehovah?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, you're assuming that the Bible and Jehovah are original. They're not. Every religion dating back to ancient times has a holy book. There are even a lot of monotheistic religions that pre-date Christianity. I said that ISLAM (not all religions) copied SOME aspects of Christianity, including some of the ten commandments and Christian/Jewish traditions. A lot of religions will often incorporate practices of other religions to aid in transition. For example, historical facts cross referenced with Biblical writings point that Jesus was NOT born in December, yet Christmas is celebrated then. The Winter Solstice (a popular holiday celebrated by numerous religions) IS in December, a mere two or three days prior to Xmas often. Christmas was set in December in order to allow an easier transition from pagan religions to Christianity. Same thing with "All Saints Day" following Halloween.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not arguing with you about any of that, although the Bible is undisputably the oldest book around. No other book has been reliably proven to pre-date the book of Job for example. On Christmas, well I knew that when you were in short pants youngster!

Some people even think it's supposed to be a Christian Holiday! (it's not)

Christmas was put in by the Vatican sometime in the middle ages, no?

Back to my point. You said all religions were a copy. My question is this: A copy of WHAT? Since the Bible is the oldest book around, I thought maybe you meant it.

 

[SteveC]

I think it is important to be accurate when discussing topics such as this, so:

"indisputably" not "undisputably "

 

[SteveC]

[ QUOTE ]
.....On Christmas, well I knew that when you were in short pants youngster!

Some people even think it's supposed to be a Christian Holiday! (it's not)

Christmas was put in by the Vatican sometime in the middle ages, no?


[/ QUOTE ]

Then what actually constitutes a Christian Holiday? And what factor(s) dictate that Christmas is not?

 

[Mr_Creepy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
.....On Christmas, well I knew that when you were in short pants youngster!

Some people even think it's supposed to be a Christian Holiday! (it's not)

Christmas was put in by the Vatican sometime in the middle ages, no?


[/ QUOTE ]

Then what actually constitutes a Christian Holiday? And what factor(s) dictate that Christmas is not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Easter? I call that a real Christian Holiday - after all that's the birthday that counts!

 

[kellwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually I believe this took a war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Took a war to capture the city, but the terms of the peace agreement were implemented to prevent another war inside the city.

[ QUOTE ]
but Islam does not teach a "live and let live" philosophy. Very few religions do.

[/ QUOTE ]

It all goes to interpretation. Some Muslims believe in a live and let live philosophy and use the Koran to back it up. Some think all infidels need to be wiped out and use the Koran to back it up. Same with Christians and the Bible. There are radicals on both fronts. From what I've witnessed, the numbers of Muslims that think "live and let live" outnumber the radicals, they just tend to be less vocal due to the nature of their philosophy. It's hard to condemn fellow Muslims while not rocking the boat.

[ QUOTE ]
You said all religions were a copy. My question is this: A copy of WHAT? Since the Bible is the oldest book around, I thought maybe you meant it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, John. Since when do you need a BOOK to have religion? You're gonna tell me that man didn't have religions until the Bible was written? Cave drawings, primitive ceremonies and oral histories all prove that there were religions that pre-date Chrisitanity. If not, who would they convert? Even the Greeks and Roman's religion was around before Christianity. Just because the Bible is the oldest known book (in publication, it's not necessarily the oldest BOOK) doesn't mean it was the first religion.

 

[Pooch]

<font color="black">Wow. This subject is striking nerves.

Kellwolf-- "That's cause you only look to the Middle East. Apparently, all Christians can't speak properly, listen to country music a lot, drink heavily and are extreme hypocrites. At least, that's the whay I see when I look at the Christians in my area......"

Actually, no. True, the Muslims I've personally known here in the States have been seemingly peaceful and relatively tolerant; however, predominately Muslim countries encompass many more areas than just the Middle East. And due to the wonders of modern technology, we are able to observe the goings-on in these other countries without having to actually be there.
And I could go on about some Christian hypocrites I know, but I do know they aren't trying to kill non-believers.


"And by the way, McVeigh in Ok City really wasn't an attack against non-Christian-believers, was it? It was an attack against our gov't. "
"Ok. That makes it better, then doesn't it. "

No, not better. It does make it accurate, though. And that's important when you're using that for one of your points.

As for your list of links...I, too, could have come up with a list of these infrequent condemnations. And there are several seemingly legitimate websites on your list. But you're missing the point. They are infrequent and they do not happen 'daily.' They are RARE. They do not get media coverage because they simply do not happen often. If you honestly think that CNN, CBS, ABC, etc., would ignore condemnations like this then that is a little incredible. CNN, for example, would have pounced on some anti-war rhetoric if given half a chance, because they are against the war. Always have been. And yeah, Fox News probably would NOT show something like that, because they are on the opposite sides of the coin.


"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it.
Kinda like god telling Christians they are doomed to be persecuted but will be rewarded in the end, huh? Define "fighting." I fight with my wife, but that doesn't mean I behead her. Fighting can range from a disagreement (like what we've got hear) to dropping a smart bomb on someone's porch. "

There's a difference between someone being persecuted and someone fighting (in whatever context) against an infidel. And are we fighting? I thought this was merely a debate. And I don't know that I'd call a simple disagreement a 'fight' anyway. Tell you what, I'll look it up and get back to you...


"Obviously this guy has done the same think terrorists groups have, cherry picked verses to prove a point. His point is Muslims are evil and all out to get us, after all it says so in the Koran, right? The terrorists point is that Allah wants all Muslims to slay unbelievers to secure their right to heaven, after all it says so in the Koran, right? BTW, you should check out the rest of that guy's site. There's some pretty good stuff against Christians, too. He's a former newspaper editor that is on some kind of crusade to prove people pray to "invisible dieties." You sure can pick 'em to prove your point. "

These 'cherry-picked verses' are relatively important, since THEY are what's causing people (directly or indirectly) to kill and be killed...And yeah, I picked the website from a 'net search, first one I came to, and I probably could have picked a better, more "reputable" source...But I'll spare you from having to read from my own 'list of links'---you get the point, and there are many other sites that have the same information.


" 'Cause it's okay for Jews to kill Muslims in the name of religion, but it's not cool to go the other way, huh? Or is it whoever has the lowest bodycount is more righteous?
And by defininf "a whole lot" as tens of thousands, are you saying that tens of thousands of Muslims are out there killing? I didn't think we had accurate numbers on the insurgents. Do you work in intelligence? I still didn't see the credentials of who translated that site, either. I looked. Basically, I saw a lot of quotes taken out of context and listed to inflame the uneducated. Try this one:
http://www.infidels.org/deskshtml#islam "

Jews killing Muslims in the name of religion? Are you talking about them defending their country and killing terrorist leaders? That's a little different from killing innocent civilians for not believing the same way. And I don't work in government intelligence; the same information is available to anyone willing to simply look it up: Experts (gov't AND non-gov't) believe that more than 20,000 terrorists were trained in Afghan training camps alone. This doesn't count camps in Iraq, Iran, Africa, etc. And obviously they're not all out killing people this very minute, but it's safe to say that if they haven't already put their training to use somewhere, then they are probably planning to.
And by the way, I found your 'infidel' website interesting. Really, no sarcasm. I did like, as well, that they had the spine to admit to a little bias..."Our expertise is primarily in Christian studies (many of our contributors are ex-Christians), the essays that are contributed to the Internet Infidels are very often about issues caused or brought about by Christianity..."


"Middle East politics center on religion. The insurgents and Al Queda are using religion to further their politcal war on the west."

<font color="black"> </font> I don't think so. In an al-Qaeda house in Afghanistan, New York Times reporters found a brief statement of the “Goals and Objectives of Jihad”:
- Establishing the rule of God on earth
- Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God
- Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity
In 1998, several al-Qaeda leaders issued a declaration calling on Muslims to kill Americans—including civilians—as well as “those who are allied with them from among the helpers of Satan.”
Little, if any, of this has anything to do with politics.</font>

 

[kellwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, no. True, the Muslims I've personally known here in the States have been seemingly peaceful and relatively tolerant; however, predominately Muslim countries encompass many more areas than just the Middle East. And due to the wonders of modern technology, we are able to observe the goings-on in these other countries without having to actually be there.
And I could go on about some Christian hypocrites I know, but I do know they aren't trying to kill non-believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case, then why do you constantly focus on Middle Eastern extremist Muslims and assume they represent the majority? My example was focusing on extremist Christians in one geographical area: the South. The are neither the majority nor representative of all Christians.

[ QUOTE ]
But you're missing the point. They are infrequent and they do not happen 'daily.' They are RARE.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already said that I jumped the gun on "daily," so you can drop that one. My point was that they do happen. I wouldn't call them rare, infrequent possibly. Volcanic eruptions and tsunamis are rare.

[ QUOTE ]
CNN, for example, would have pounced on some anti-war rhetoric if given half a chance, because they are against the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, CNN and all major news networks (including Fox) are for ratings, doesn't really matter their ideologies. Let's look at this for a minute. CNN starts talking about Muslim leaders condemning their fellow Muslims, the war ends due to popular outrage since we discover that not all Muslims hate Americans. CNN's ratings drop since they can't keep a daily body count going to slam Bush anymore. They have to go back to reporting on the plight of the American farmer or some parade in Iowa since there's not much else newsworthy. Not exactly a barn burner in the ratings category. Now, if they sit on the Muslim outcries, they can milk the war for all it's worth in ratings. CNN, and most news channels, are at their hearts a business. No news network really goes on the air to change the world, that might be a by-product. I'm not saying that this IS happening, but it could be. Considering it took me all of fifteen minutes to find Muslims speaking out, I don't see it as too far fetched.

Now, let's jump across the globe to Falluja. You're a Muslim living in war torn Iraq. You know what the extremists are doing is wrong, and you'd like to say something about it. But, you have a wife and three kids. Sure, you could go on television and say how wrong Al Queda is and how they are ruining your good name. When you come home, your house is burned and the charred remains of your family are on the front lawn. So, was it worth it to you? That's the decision people in Iraq have to face. Personally, I'm not brave enough to sacrifice my family for a television statement. I have nothing but admiration and respect for those Muslims in the area (not the ones across the world who will remain pretty much untouched, that's like codemning Hitler from Canada) who do speak out. But since they do it "rarely" in your opinion, I guess their sacrifice doesn't count.....

[ QUOTE ]
There's a difference between someone being persecuted and someone fighting (in whatever context) against an infidel. And are we fighting? I thought this was merely a debate. And I don't know that I'd call a simple disagreement a 'fight' anyway. Tell you what, I'll look it up and get back to you...

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point. Translations are tricky things, and word choice is what makes it so tricky. The word "fight" or "fighting" is one of those tricky words. Technically, according to Webster, we are fighting since it's defined as " A quarrel or conflict." It's also used to describe "A confrontation between opposing groups in which each attempts to harm or gain power over the other, as with bodily force or weapons." That's probably the most used term. How about this one: " To make (one's way) by struggle or striving." That sounds an awful lot like prevailing over persecution. My point was that one word mistranslated or translated out of context can alter the meaning of the entire phrase. Were the Muslims meant to struggle and survive persecution like the Christians, or were they meant to wipe out all other religions on the planet? Depends on who you ask and what translation they use.

[ QUOTE ]
These 'cherry-picked verses' are relatively important, since THEY are what's causing people (directly or indirectly) to kill and be killed..

[/ QUOTE ]

So do you agree that he cherry picked those to inflame people against Muslims in the way Al Queda uses them to further their cause? My point was that they're taken out of context (like many Christian verses often are for one means or another). In and of themselves, they sound pretty damning. However, when put into context with the Koran, it's a different ballgame. It's like saying Jesus was an alcoholic b/c he drank wine, Abraham was a murderer since he was going to kill his own son, and Lot was a pediphile since he slept with his own daughters.

[ QUOTE ]
Jews killing Muslims in the name of religion? Are you talking about them defending their country and killing terrorist leaders?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, I'm talking about Israelis bombing in Palestine, most often against civilians, not terrorist leaders. If that's defending their own country, then we're in a lot of trouble as a civilization.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. In an al-Qaeda house in Afghanistan, New York Times reporters found a brief statement of the “Goals and Objectives of Jihad”:

[/ QUOTE ]

So, the "goals and objectives of Jihad" have nothing to do with motivating religious minded people to follow them? Read them again. Their written as a call to arms for radical Muslims that hate the West. Now, assuming their Jihad is complete and we are all wiped out, do you think they'll hold open elections for leaders? Doubtful. The leaders of the new order will be the leaders of the Jihad, the people that wrote that. Religious wars are essentially power grabs for those the lead it. It was true of the Catholic Church during the Crusades, it's true of Al Queda and it will be true for the next religion that uses violence to attain thier goals.

BTW, how's that research on the Inquistion coming?

 

[Pooch]

[ QUOTE ]
If that's the case, then why do you constantly focus on Middle Eastern extremist Muslims and assume they represent the majority? My example was focusing on extremist Christians in one geographical area: the South. The are neither the majority nor representative of all Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know that the 'extremist' mindset is in the minority. The majority hate America, oppose the War on Terror, and a lot think suicide bombings are justifiable.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, CNN and all major news networks (including Fox) are for ratings, doesn't really matter their ideologies. Let's look at this for a minute. CNN starts talking about Muslim leaders condemning their fellow Muslims, the war ends due to popular outrage since we discover that not all Muslims hate Americans. CNN's ratings drop since they can't keep a daily body count going to slam Bush anymore. They have to go back to reporting on the plight of the American farmer or some parade in Iowa since there's not much else newsworthy. Not exactly a barn burner in the ratings category. Now, if they sit on the Muslim outcries, they can milk the war for all it's worth in ratings. CNN, and most news channels, are at their hearts a business. No news network really goes on the air to change the world, that might be a by-product. I'm not saying that this IS happening, but it could be. Considering it took me all of fifteen minutes to find Muslims speaking out, I don't see it as too far fetched.

[/ QUOTE ]
Kind of agree with you here, although CNN has pretty much stuck to their guns when it came to being anti-war and their ratings have dropped dramatically.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, let's jump across the globe to Falluja. You're a Muslim living in war torn Iraq. You know what the extremists are doing is wrong, and you'd like to say something about it. But, you have a wife and three kids. Sure, you could go on television and say how wrong Al Queda is and how they are ruining your good name. When you come home, your house is burned and the charred remains of your family are on the front lawn. So, was it worth it to you? That's the decision people in Iraq have to face. Personally, I'm not brave enough to sacrifice my family for a television statement. I have nothing but admiration and respect for those Muslims in the area (not the ones across the world who will remain pretty much untouched, that's like codemning Hitler from Canada) who do speak out. But since they do it "rarely" in your opinion, I guess their sacrifice doesn't count.....

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it does count since it IS rare. And I see your point--it does take courage to speak out like that when everyone around you probably doesn't agree with what you're saying--and I actually believe that a lot of Iraqis are decent people. And (hypothetically--using your example) if I were a Muslim in Fallujah, I think I'd be less concerned with getting my face on TV than kicking the "extremists' " asses out of my neighborhood, not unlike if that happened here.

[ QUOTE ]
Were the Muslims meant to struggle and survive persecution like the Christians, or were they meant to wipe out all other religions on the planet? Depends on who you ask and what translation they use.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe. But judging by their actions...

[ QUOTE ]
So do you agree that he cherry picked those to inflame people against Muslims in the way Al Queda uses them to further their cause? My point was that they're taken out of context (like many Christian verses often are for one means or another). In and of themselves, they sound pretty damning. However, when put into context with the Koran, it's a different ballgame. It's like saying Jesus was an alcoholic b/c he drank wine, Abraham was a murderer since he was going to kill his own son, and Lot was a pediphile since he slept with his own daughters.

[/ QUOTE ]
I grew up in eastern TN and am familiar with the snake-handling Baptists, and to me they are quacks--I know they get that practice from one verse of the Bible. So yeah, I understand all about context and its different interpretations. They, of course, aren't slinging those rattlesnakes around on other people who don't believe like they do. So instead of saying 'kill the infidels', you could say 'destroy them' or 'blow them up' or 'cut their freakin' heads off with a knife.' Or how about this one: 'Treat them as you'd want to be treated.' Yes, you can interpret it almost any way, put different words in there, alter the meaning even; but, in the end, doesn't it come down to how you act?

[ QUOTE ]
Now, I'm talking about Israelis bombing in Palestine, most often against civilians, not terrorist leaders. If that's defending their own country, then we're in a lot of trouble as a civilization.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, you lost me on this one. Palestine doesn't technically exist yet, so I guess you meant Israelis bombing of Palestinians, which I've never heard of either. Are you referring to the missile strikes against the leaders of Hamas, for example? I'm aware that a few civilians have been killed in such strikes. But I've honestly not heard of bombings; although, admittedly, such news could have slipped by me.

[ QUOTE ]
So, the "goals and objectives of Jihad" have nothing to do with motivating religious minded people to follow them? Read them again. Their written as a call to arms for radical Muslims that hate the West. Now, assuming their Jihad is complete and we are all wiped out, do you think they'll hold open elections for leaders? Doubtful. The leaders of the new order will be the leaders of the Jihad, the people that wrote that. Religious wars are essentially power grabs for those the lead it. It was true of the Catholic Church during the Crusades, it's true of Al Queda and it will be true for the next religion that uses violence to attain thier goals.

[/ QUOTE ]
I could be off base here, but I think, in a roundabout way, you just agreed with me. My point was that this was mainly religious--if not wholly--and that politics had little or nothing to do with it.
And by the way...I don't think you were, but it almost sounded like you were comparing the Catholic Church to Al-Qaeda.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, how's that research on the Inquistion coming?

[/ QUOTE ]Went well, thanks for the reminder. The Spanish Inquisition certainly seems to be a sad and tragic point in Christian history. Let's hope that nothing like this (by any religion) happens again.

 

[kellwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
if I were a Muslim in Fallujah, I think I'd be less concerned with getting my face on TV than kicking the "extremists' " asses out of my neighborhood, not unlike if that happened here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Difference between here and there - you can go down to a store, wait the madatory waiting period, and buy a gun here. Over there the only people that have guns are the Coalition forces and the Islamic Army (or whatever they're calling themselves this week). So, are you gonna throw rocks at the guy with the AK-47 to get him to skip town?

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe. But judging by their actions...


[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, let's take it back a notch. You're looking at their actions, and I'm trying to look further back, i.e. WHY they commit those actions. You think they all just woke up one day and said "I hate the west, the War on Terror and I wanna bomb the bejesus out of them?" Nope. Someone, somewhere more or likely put that idea in their heads. That's why terrorists spend so much time and money on recruiting, it's not a natural thought process. Most of the time it's bending and twisting of words that were meant for other reasons. Same thing with religious cults ala David Koresh and Jim Jones over here. Those people followed their leaders b/c to them, what the leaders said made sense. Same in terrorist circles. Their actions are based on rhetoric that has been bantered around, not some violent whim. Combine that rhetoric with someone who has experienced unfortunate hardship at the hands of a misguided American bomb or forced from his home due to fighting, and it's not a far jump to see how the terrorists keep getting recruits.

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, you lost me on this one. Palestine doesn't technically exist yet, so I guess you meant Israelis bombing of Palestinians, which I've never heard of either. Are you referring to the missile strikes against the leaders of Hamas, for example? I'm aware that a few civilians have been killed in such strikes. But I've honestly not heard of bombings; although, admittedly, such news could have slipped by me.

[/ QUOTE ]

TECHNIALLY, (to me at least) the Palestinians have more claim to that land than Israel. Israel became a nation due to concessions and agreements that came out of WWII, and they used geographical data from the Old Testament to carve out their country......right in the middle of what was then Palestine (or some other Muslim country with a different name). Israel has done nothing but behave like a juvenile deliquent with a new toy since they got their country, and the US has constantly acted like their parent always making excuses. Honestly, if someone came into my house and said "God and the United Nations said this is mine now, leave" I'd be little ticked off and fight 'em tooth and nail, too.

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that this was mainly religious--if not wholly--and that politics had little or nothing to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, missed my point. Here it is: relgions have a poilitcal agenda, and it's name is power. Power over people, power over countries and power over history. Religions will use the current political structure to get said power, so the two ARE connected. Islamic radicals want to rid the Middle East of Judaism and Chrisitanity, so they use the unstable politcal arena. I can almost guarantee that if we stopped aiding Israel, the number of Islamic terrorists target the US would be cut in half. Not all, since not even the radicals can agree on what they believe. Some hate the West because that's all they know. Some hate the West because we let our women show their faces in public, but I rank them with the people on this side of the world that hate the East because they eat dogs in certain parts of the region.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you were, but it almost sounded like you were comparing the Catholic Church to Al-Qaeda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's where I gotta tread lightly. I was, in a way. Both have staunch religious bases, and both have agendas. The difference is, the Catholic Church realized centuries ago that violence does more to turn people off than to covert them. Al Queda hasn't yet, and probably never will, realize this. The Catholic Church slaughtered and tortured people for the same reason Al Queda bombs them: they believed differently. Al Queda beheads people as a deterrent, the Catholic Church burned them at the stake. End result is the same, a public execution in a brutal manner to frighten people into respecting their cause. The difference is this isn't the Middle Ages, and Al Queda's tactics don't work as well in today's atmosphere. They do more to enrage than scare. The Catholic Church nearly wiped out a whole slate of religions using those same tactics, but with different methods, during the Middle Ages.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's hope that nothing like this (by any religion) happens again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, with history, people are often doomed to repeat themselves. Look into parts of Africa, and you'll see "ethnic cleansing" is just another name for "inquisition."