muslims PART 2

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Forget the tiny, irrelevant post right here.

(I saw it! You could go either way on that, I think ... but I think your current choice might be the right one.)

[Lief Erikson]

Hmm. I'm not taking back what I wrote- just leaving him the opportunity to let it stay private. I already told him over PM.


I really should take more care to finalize my decision about what I'm going to say before blabbing . My posts always endure one or two editing runs after I've already submitted them .

[Rían]

oh, I see - ok.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

in Jesus's message, there's not much ambiguity in the "Thou shall not kill" component. Jesus points out He could have troops of angels come defend Him, but He doesn't. His approach is non-violent.

So, I believe, if you take your cue from the New Testament, Jesus counsels us to keep our priorities straight. "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." That's not actually consonent, imo, with buckling on our armour because there's a problem in our route to the Holy Sepulcher.

That doesn't diminish the importance of the Message. But it supports my original assertion that claiming to be a Christian does not make one proof against error, either individually or collectively, as ref the murders committed in the name of Christ. Which at one point here, you agreed with. I thought things were going so well, then.

I'm very sorry this debate has aggravated you to this extent. I know I have a talent, that way.

[Lief Erikson]

I explained my reasons in my PM, and this debate was not one of them.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

No, but the result of the Reformation was....a whole bunch of stuff including demands for more freedom of worship, less hierarchical control of truth,

I'll grant this. However, it doesn't have to with Martin Luther's teachings, as in fact he's teachings didn't change much. The traditional Lutheran confessions of faith are confessed "not to the extent that they are in accord with Scripture, but because they are." There is not traditionally in Lutheranism much leeway for alternative views. Look at the Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Synod in America; they differ very, very little, but they refuse communion to one another. The Wisconsin Synod especially teaches that there must be complete unity in doctrine before any Christian fellowship can be practiced.

significantly greater emphasis on an individual's personal relation with God and the Truth rather than one mediated by some cleric

That does not come from Luther's Reformation.

Can I take it we agree that:

Certainly. Protestantism is the forerunner of secularism.

Wow the catholics are still bitter about Luther and his 95 thesi, thats remarkable. It reminds of how this british guy was bitter about thanksgiving, going on about those "pilgrim traitors".

Do you have anything to contribute aside from condescension? But yes, we do tend to look down upon the spreading of false doctrine and religious disunity.

Originally Posted by sis

Jesus points out He could have troops of angels come defend Him, but He doesn't. His approach is non-violent.

Jesus also says "I come to bring not peace, but a sword". His approach was nonviolent at the time, because his purpose for coming was to die.

I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for peace at all costs, or condone war, or anything like that. I'm just saying I don't think this argument works.

[Earniel]

You know, for a moment I thought this was the theology thread. So let's get back on topic.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I'll grant this. However, it doesn't have to with Martin Luther's teachings, as in fact he's teachings didn't change much. The traditional Lutheran confessions of faith are confessed "not to the extent that they are in accord with Scripture, but because they are." There is not traditionally in Lutheranism much leeway for alternative views. Look at the Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Synod in America; they differ very, very little, but they refuse communion to one another. The Wisconsin Synod especially teaches that there must be complete unity in doctrine before any Christian fellowship can be practiced.

Thanks for responding Gwai.

Yes, that's an interesting aspect of Protestantism. We see it here with the Free Presbyterians, United Free, Free Church etc etc. (read: Judean People's Front). But you see the same thing in many, many revolutions.

However, I am taking an historicist perspective, whilst you are looking at his specific teachings. I would regard the latter as largely irrelevant to Luther's historical significance as an instigator of the Reformation.

So anyway, back to my point, which is that freedom of speech, whilst being a Western concept, is not "secularist" as such. I think we often forget that in Islam, there has been no equivalent to the Reformation (to my knowledge; happy to stand corrected). Whilst it is not without its schisms (it is a religion after all ), people from Islamic cultures have not been subjected to the same influences.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But yes, we do tend to look down upon the spreading of false doctrine and religious disunity.

I hope you look down on selling indulgences, too.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

So let's get back on topic.

OK, I guess we can try something novel!

[Lief Erikson]

Back to the grim old, grim old . . .

Originally Posted by BBC News

Opium production in Afghanistan reached record levels last year, the United States has said.

The US State Department's annual report on narcotics also said the flourishing drugs trade was undermining the fight against the Taleban.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

OK, I guess we can try something novel!

Don't hold your breath.

Ironically the Taleban had almost eliminated poppy cultivation prior to the invasion.

Another triumph for the War on Terror.

[Lief Erikson]

Source?

[BeardofPants]

Jesus got the clap, do a google search. You ain't got the know-how to do one?

http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[The Gaffer]

More doublethink from the State Department. Double plus ungood.

Hi bop. * waves *

[Lief Erikson]

Olla, BoP!

Here's some additional info I found about this:

Originally Posted by CBC News

Using violence and coercion, but without international assistance, the Taliban's "war on drugs" worked.

Originally Posted by southasianmedia.net

The Taliban's July 2000 ban on opium production was widely respected, with only an estimated 85 hectares of poppy cultivated in areas under Taliban control. The primary factor in having the ban so widely respected was the draconian nature of the authorities' enforcement efforts. However, based solely on the 1,600 hectares cultivated in Northern Alliance-controlled areas, Afghanistan remained one of the world's leading opium producers.

We're using violence too in a drug war. However, my bet is that Taliban violence was rather more excessive, and thus the reason for the success of their policy.

It's the same as with Saddam Hussein's ability to keep "peace" between the Shias and Sunnis. Wholesale slaughter of those involved in instability will keep most people from causing problems.

[Insidious Rex]

So whats your point? Of course illegal activity is going to decrease when a country is under an iron handed extremist rule. That certainly wasnt an argument for NOT invading Afghanistan. Its simply noting the irony of toppling a government in the name of defeating terrorism which then leads to rampant poppy production which helps fund the very terrorists we are now fighting. Isnt that ironic at all to you? Perhaps in the case of Afghanistan you can make the argument it was necessary but theres no doubt its ironic. The question is could we have kept poppy production levels from shooting through the roof after we invaded. The answer is probably no but we may have slowed them some by helping those poor folks who have no choice but to grow the stuff because its the only way to feed their family.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So whats your point? Of course illegal activity is going to decrease when a country is under an iron handed extremist rule.

That was my point.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Its simply noting the irony of toppling a government in the name of defeating terrorism which then leads to rampant poppy production which helps fund the very terrorists we are now fighting. Isnt that ironic at all to you?

I don't know why you see it as ironic. Knocking down the terrorist power, they have found new opportunities for power that they didn't have when they were the presiding power. Which doesn't make them more powerful. They're just using previously unexplored avenues to reach power now.

Gaffer's language implied to me that this was a critique of the War on Terror. I was pointing out it was only natural this would happen, considering the fact that the government we've built and coalition forces aren't as brutal as the regime that's been replaced. Which doesn't make what's happening now any worse than what we were replacing. It's replacing a regime's brutality with a problem of another kind. Gaffer's implication, I thought, was that we've made things worse for Afghanistan by opening the door for the poppy culture to spread. I was pointing out that the poppy culture that exists now is not necessarily worse than what existed before.

I think you agree with me- it's just a question of how we interpret Gaffer's comments.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Perhaps in the case of Afghanistan you can make the argument it was necessary but theres no doubt its ironic. The question is could we have kept poppy production levels from shooting through the roof after we invaded. The answer is probably no but we may have slowed them some by helping those poor folks who have no choice but to grow the stuff because its the only way to feed their family.

Agreed.

[Nurvingiel]

Isn't "Taliban" spelled with an "I"?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Its simply noting the irony of toppling a government in the name of defeating terrorism which then leads to rampant poppy production which helps fund the very terrorists we are now fighting. Isnt that ironic at all to you?

I find it more ironic that while the Taliban first cracked down on the drugs really hard, they're now using it to gain funds. I reckon the end justifies the means when it suits them.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Isn't "Taliban" spelled with an "I"?

I think so... Isn't Taleban a member of the Iraqi goverment? I seem to remember there was a guy with a similar name that I kept confusing....

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Isn't "Taliban" spelled with an "I"?

*gasp* Nurvi! You mean you've been spelling Taliban the ungrammatical American way? Brits use an E instead for some reason...which makes no sense in light of the REAL pronunciation.