Muslims

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, Brownie, Lief wrote:

If one acknowledges that Islam does have violence in its nature (and history shows that this is so)

And you wrote:

But christianity also has violence in it's history.

So that in fact your response was along entirely different lines than what he stated, despite the fact that the two lines were deceptively similar. That sort of thing is called "sophistry", ya know.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Re: Fundamentalists, your definition of fundamentalism is one that makes every single orthodox Christian (and I would imagine Jew, Muslim, etc.) a fundamentalist. It is unacceptable. Why not say merely that fundamentalism is religious intolerance?

But given your definition of fundamentalism, I accept your statement Catholicism (only one Catholic; Catholics sects don't exist!) is fundamentalist by nature with pride, and its damn true. 'Modern realities' are as ephemeral as the wind.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Well, Brownie, Lief wrote:

If one acknowledges that Islam does have violence in its nature (and history shows that this is so)

And you wrote:

But christianity also has violence in it's history.

So that in fact your response was along entirely different lines than what he stated, despite the fact that the two lines were deceptively similar. That sort of thing is called "sophistry", ya know.

That was the tail end of a long debate on the subject. I was just reiterating the fact that violence is not exclusive to the muslim faith. As such, it is wrong to attribute the violence that has occured in the past solely to the fact that the ones committing the violence were muslim. I don't attribute the crusades solely to christianity either. There were many other factors involved.

No sophistry intended. I just don't have time for 5-6 paragraphs on every post.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Why not say merely that fundamentalism is religious intolerance?

In some ways the absolute stance of someone who is a fundamentalist is a form of intolerance. It is natural to come to the conclusion that if one sees their worldview as 100% valid all others are, by default, invalid. And, if your worldview has no room for nonbelievers, or say they must be converted, they are not "tolerated".

But I think that, in practice (as opposed to principle ), most humans are able to deal with this inherent paradox. Especially as they get older and beyond the somewhat idealistic early years of life. I'm not saying that they lose their 100% faith, just that they learn how to accept the fact that some other people they must coexist with also have 100% faith, but in something quite different. So they learn to look towards the similarities, which usually far outweigh the differences. We are all humans, after all.

In the end, it's agreeing to disagree, which is another form of tolerance.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Sorry, brownie, but your statement is false.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In some ways the absolute stance of someone who is a fundamentalist is a form of intolerance. It is natural to come to the conclusion that if one sees their worldview as 100% valid all others are, by default, invalid. And, if your worldview has no room for nonbelievers, or say they must be converted, they are not "tolerated".

I consider my worldview as 100% valid.
I believe everyone ought to convert to my religion.
Therefore, logically, you would say I consider non-Catholic to be ones not to be tolerated.
However, you don't consider one thing.
Intent and will are essential to Catholicism; a forced baptism is null and void, never happened. Intent is necessary, so that the only other option for 'not tolerating' is slaughter, which is contrary to numerous Catholic teachings. Incidentally, slaughtering.
Therefore, I believe in tolerating others. I don't think, for the record, that tolerance is the summa virtus, however, as the modern seculars do.

But I think that, in practice (as opposed to principle ), most humans are able to deal with this inherent paradox. Especially as they get older and beyond the somewhat idealistic early years of life. I'm not saying that they lose their 100% faith, just that they learn how to accept the fact that some other people they must coexist with also have 100% faith, but in something quite different. So they learn to look towards the similarities, which usually far outweigh the differences. We are all humans, after all.

De me dices.

In the end, it's agreeing to disagree, which is another form of tolerance.

Exactly.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

You do realise, Brownie, that you just said, apparently, that fundamentalists can be tolerant?

1) Fundamentalists are those who put 'written doctrine ahead of present-day realities.'
2) It seems fair to equate this with the 100% faith you speak of.
3) Those with 100% faith 'learn how to accept the fact that some other people they must coexist with also have 100% faith, but in something quite different'.
4) You say that 'In the end, it's agreeing to disagree'; 'it' presumably being the aforementioned learning how to accept the fact etc.
5) You say agreeing to disagree is a form of tolerance.

Therefore, Fundamentalists are tolerant.

QED

[Lief Erikson]

Thank-you for having the courage to post here, Serenoli. It's great to have a real Muslim on the thread . I'm afraid some of my views have high potential of offending, but I just can't help it. My research of history has led me to the views I currently have, but sometimes it may sound as though I am more strongly against Islam than I am. On my original posts here, I made several positive comments about Islam that have gotten lost because my more negative views are more controversial, so they get debated and thus get all the attention. I'll give you a fuller explanation of my views though, as soon as I respond to Brownjenkins and Insidious Rex.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But christianity also has violence in it's history.

I've reiterated my points about Christian violence so many times without seeing them refuted that I don't I'll bother again. My response argument is not this, though:

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Yet you are willing to just label these christians as "fake christians" and help them to the right path instead of saying "we must eliminate christianity".

As I said in my last post, what you said above is not how I have ever responded to your argument about Christian violence. It is my personal belief, but it is not how I have argued your point because my belief here requires common ground that I know we don't share. Instead I point to history. My main argument lies in comparing and contrasting Muslim and Christian historical violence. I think history shows that violence is in the nature of Islam and not in the nature of Christianity, because looking at the lives of the founders of both religions and the way their earliest followers followed their teachings shows how they interpreted their religions. Looking at the following violence throughout history shows much the same.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I'm sorry Lief, but I think you are guilty of the exact same lack of vision that the muslim fundamentalists are. You understand christianity, so it seems like it must be the only way, but there really are many other equally valid paths to peaceful coexistance, you are just not willing to give them a chance. A real chance.

As with you, my personal experience and the best evidence I have available to me lead me to the views I currently have. As long as I have those views, I must act and think according to them. Else I'm living a lie.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Demanding that someone forsake their own heritage, no matter how much "love" you wrap it up in, is going to only lead to more violence. [bolds added by Lief]

Yes, but that's just because you and IR keep inserting words like "force" and "demand" into what I'm saying, and that's not what I'm presenting at all.

Insidious Rex, like I was saying earlier, your objection to part 1 of my strategy is based entirely on your lack of sharing my religious convictions. I don't have common ground with many people here at all, and that's why you disagree with my point 1. I think I can argue from a large number of examples from history that religion is a workable solution to the current problems, however. I don't know if I should get into that here though, for it would be pretty much also constituting a history based argument that the religion I adhere to is correct and true. That would belong in a different thread.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Lets look at the possible scenarios: attempt to convert a radical islmist or terrorist and you may get yourself or others killed for it. You will not turn them. So you send us backwards.

I will not turn them. I believe Christ would reveal himself to them though, and he has the power to change people's minds.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Attempt to convert a moderate or “liberal” Muslim and you most likely offend them and push them more toward the radical side since you are speaking down to their religion which you describe as “evil”. Again you send us backwards instead of forwards toward peace and harmony.

You have the wrong idea of evangelism. Only a negative, aggressive and pushy "attempt to convert" would offend Muslim liberals. Bringing up my religious views in conversation and the reasons for them would not offend people, though. Also, I have not labeled the whole religion Islam as evil. I think there are some evil aspects to it - the inherent violence - but there is also much good in the religion as well.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I think violence stems from how you choose to practice your religion more than due to the fact that you simply have one. Sure, certain scriptures may contain more instances of violence than others, but the devil is in how you interpret those scriptures, along with what parts you follow and what parts you do not. Or whether you even allow yourself to be selective about such things. Many fundamentalists do not.

It doesn't make sense to be selective. If I believed the Qur'an to be truth imparted to Mohammed from an angel, I wouldn't be selective. It's either all true or it's a doubtable argument. If part of it is doubtable, then I'm just making up my own mind as to what I do with my life and what I don't. I'm no longer receiving instructions from God and following them, but rather am following instructions that come from me.

That goes for Christianity too, and that is the root of why I disagree very strongly with Christian liberals. Many of them try to reinterpret scriptures they don't like to say they have different meanings, but doing that means that they are making up their own religion and they can no longer depend on what they read. It'd diluting the religion. It is not the true religion either, not what the original makers of the religion believed or practiced. It is something that is very nonsensical.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Re: Fundamentalists, your definition of fundamentalism is one that makes every single orthodox Christian (and I would imagine Jew, Muslim, etc.) a fundamentalist. It is unacceptable. Why not say merely that fundamentalism is religious intolerance?

I don't find that definition of fundamentalism intolerable. I accept it and am proud to be a fundamentalist too, for liberalism just doesn't make sense. It has no root and no standard, IMO.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But given your definition of fundamentalism, I accept your statement Catholicism (only one Catholic; Catholics sects don't exist!) is fundamentalist by nature with pride, and its damn true. 'Modern realities' are as ephemeral as the wind.

I totally agree. Totally and emphatically . Another reason I love the current pope .

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Violence has a lot more to do with other factors outside of religion. And, when religion becomes a factor, it is usually the fundamentalists of the faith that are behind it, no matter what that faith may be. So the problem is fundamentalism, or more simply put, putting written doctrine ahead of present-day realities.

I don't think one can say the only Christians who have been responsible for the violence were fundamentalists. Many have been like liberals, only "right wing liberals," as it were. Many of them have reinterpreted the Bible to suit their violent desires, rather than following what it actually said. Such people as that shouldn't be considered fundamentalists but liberals, odd though that may sound.

Though it is true that there were also many extremely fervent Christians who believed that violence was exactly what the Bible called for. They can be called fundamentalists. Some for example thought the Pope was the Anti-Christ. Fighting against the Anti-Christ makes total sense, just like fighting against "the Great Satan" makes sense. There are examples of Christians who are liberal or who are fundamentalist who have been responsible for violence- the problem in Christianity is not with fundamentalism. In fact, if all Christians followed Jesus' teachings in a fundamentalist way, the world would be a much more peaceful place.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I think you can even see this within a religion like christianity, which has so many different interpretations. Violence throughout history has been more common among the catholic sects, which tend to be much more fundamental by their very nature (and by that, I mean structured with somewhat inflexible rulesets), than it is among the less-structured protestant sects.

The reason violence might seem to be amplified in Catholic groups is because Catholic groups have often been the ones that hold the reins of political power. Much of that violence has been totally anti-fundamentalist-Christian (look at the lives of Jesus and the early Christians, if you want to see what Christian fundamentalism is), but holding power can lead people to live in anti-Christian, anti-fundamentalist ways.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Serenoli

Your wish is my command!

I haven't read much of this thread. I remember I started once, but I felt too sick at points. I really don't want to answer back to any of the arguments, accusations and what-not, because the gulf seems too impassable. It makes me feel so awful to see you all just dismiss a whole way of life as 'violent' and 'dangerous'. How can I convince any of you, without showing you how my life is? My view-point here is so so different... and I am not a good one at arguments, I have not thought seriously about all this, or done as much research as some of you seem to have. I don't think I could ever convince you... but if you have any questions, I will try to answer.

Hi Serenoli! *major Moothug*

(I sure miss our rpg, don't you?! )

Well, if you can hang in here and realize that all of us are Mooters together and we all like each other here, regardless of beliefs, then I'd sure love to have you join in and explain some things from your POV! And let us know what is hurtful to you, if it's not too difficult for you, because I for one would like to know (and I"m sure everyone else here would, too) so I can be very careful to not hurt you - I"ll take extra care when wording my posts in those areas. My goal in these threads is to learn and to understand and to be understood, if possible - it is NOT to argue and certainly not to hurt anyone. So, I hope you can stay, because I think it would be a HUGE blessing to all of us to hear your POV, but I sure understand if it's just too painful for you and you need to just stay away from this thread.

To start off with your post, you say we "dismiss a whole way of life as 'violent' and 'dangerous'. " I can't speak for others, but when I discuss Islam, I'm discussing the authorized writings, mainly, and what the writings urge people to do. I don't think all the people are that way by any means.

[Lief Erikson]

Serenoli, I really don't mean to insult you in my posts. I have high respect for you and respect Muslims in general too. I love how Muslims in general have strong moral fortitude, refusing to go the way of a crummy society "where-everything-goes", as you very correctly put it.

I love how your people refuse to go the way of such wishy washiness, instability and groundlessness. There is no standard for many people, but there is a standard for Muslims, and that is beautiful. I greatly appreciate the upright moral fortitude of your people. I don't think Islam is just violence or just evil. I do think that the violence that exists is evil, though, and that the historical violence is evil too. I also am forced to believe that it is in the nature of Islam . But I do love many elements of your faith, and I think society would gain much if it followed your religion's example.

I think even from the suicide bombers, Christians have two important things to learn. The first is courage and the second is zeal. There are Christians who have both, but much of Western society is degenerated and morally bankrupt, and there is much weakness and falling short in many Western churches as well. I have enormous respect for the Christians who live in the Middle East and for the Chinese Christians. Many of them experience horrible persecution and stick to their faith in spite of it, turning the other cheek and refusing to return fire with fire. Those Christians I just can't tell you how much respect I have for.

But I respect very strongly the Muslims I know personally (you and a college friend), and Muslims in general. I even have some respect for certain aspects of the lives of Muslim terrorists. And I know that Islam also has some absolutely splendid teachings in it.

[Lief Erikson]

I think there are some highly dangerous aspects to Islam as well as some highly beautiful and good teachings. The trouble is that in my posts on this thread, the only ones that people have disagreed with are my claims that Islam is also a violent religion, and therefore those views get the spotlight. I'm very sorry if this has led to my making posts that seem just all out attacks and complete condemnations of Islam, for that is not my intent.

I'll now respond to your post in more detail.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

Lief, I just have one point to make. So, many years ago, there were laws, violent ones, too, like the jizya, and the one about the Christian being under a death penalty if he hit a Muslim.

Quite unfair to the non-Muslim, yes? But also very unfair that because of it, hundreds of years later, when we (the majority at any rate) no longer follow such laws, but stick to a more peaceful version of Islam, we should be asked to give up our religion for Christianity.

The trouble is that it isn't all centuries ago. Much of the current peaceful interpretation of Islam comes in the last couple centuries, and there are statistics indicating that a violent interpretation of Islam is on the increase again. One might blame part of this on the US war in Iraq, but it was already happening before that. Because of the history, I just don't think Islam is really peaceful or can stay peaceful for long. Though I understand that many people who interpret your religion in a very peaceful and positive way. I just don't think that that way can last. Also, non-Christians are still persecuted and legally discriminated against in most countries that are controlled by Muslims in modern times.

I wouldn't bring Christianity into this at all if I didn't believe it to be the true religion.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

I mean, you may point all you like at the terrorists, but what percentage of Muslims do make bombs in their backyards, or cut off the hands of thieves?

The trouble is that the percentage is on the increase, and historically terms like jihad were interpreted literally and violently by the overwhelming majority of Muslims until the European powers took over Muslim lands in the 19th century, and then this interpretation of jihad could not be followed and therefore was no longer an option. Here I don't mean to suggest that modern Muslims who interpret jihad in a peaceful way only do so because they have to. But I think that's how the modern interpretation of jihad originally started.

I am sure there were highly moral Muslims in all time periods- there are some very positive teachings in the Qur'an. There are many ethical, moral teachings which everyone would do well to follow, and which, very unfortunately, a large number of Christians fall very badly short on. Many Christians would do very well to look at the Muslim example and try to show half that much dedication to doing what's right.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

And, you rave on and on about Christianity, but all I see are societies of anarchy, with no rules, where anything goes, where morality takes a back-seat to freedom-to-do whatever you please. And that works for you, but maybe I do not want my world to disintegrate like that-

The societies we have now are not societies where Christianity rules. What you're seeing is democracy with freedom of religion. Freedom of religion gives people the right to be immoral.

You're right, morality is taking a back-seat to freedom-to-do whatever you please. Some people use this freedom to live highly moral lives, and some people use this freedom to live highly immoral lives. Yet if Christians imposed their doctrines upon everyone like they did in the past, there would be resistance. There would be violence. There would be unfair policies against non-Christians, just like there are unfair policies against non-Christians in many conservative Muslim countries today. Imposing morality causes the violence and unfairness toward people who have different beliefs. There also have been violence and unfair laws against non-Christians in countries where Christians tried to impose their moral views upon everyone.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

and all of it because some people quoting the Bible, decide to eradicate my religion with love and evalengical teachings as the non-offensive weapons etc. I'm sorry if I seem to be attacking your religion, but I'm not - only pointing what my perception of Christian society is.

Don't worry- I don't get angry at all easily. And I have no problem with your knocking the immorality in our culture. It's very disappointing to me, too.

And I'm very sorry if I seem offensive to you, in my posts. I have a very high respect for you as a person, and I greatly appreciate how most Muslims seem to stick to a high code of moral behavior like they do.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

Destroying evil and oppression - is that really what you believe our lives to be, Lief?

I think that anyone imposing their morals on others often will end up causing oppression and violence. I feel that al'Qaeda is doing evil too- don't you agree?

Looking at history makes me see that in the past, most Muslims believed attacking other nations in violent jihad was right, and particularly the founders of Islam . I'm sorry if I'm offending by saying this, but history shows that Mohammed and his early followers conquered huge nations and subjecting multitudes to their rule through force of arms.

Many times, Muslim rule was less harsh than the rule of those they'd conquered. Mohammed certainly lived by a moral code far more advanced than those of the pagans he conquered in Arabia. Yet this was still violent jihad, and an invasion that nearly conquered the world. Modern Shi'ites still look forward to the return of the Hidden Imam who will conquer the world the rest of the way.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

And that by introducing us to Jesus, you'll be doing us such a favour?

Morality is absolutely essential to how real followers of Jesus live our lives (though because we live in secular societies and you judge those societies as Christian, it may appear differently), just as a high code of morality is essential to Muslims.

Jesus taught that the truth should be spread peacefully.

If morality is legislated as law in a society, violence and injustice naturally result. We see this in many of the Muslim countries of modern times, for Christians experience a great deal of persecution in conservative Muslim countries. This was also true in the past, in Christian countries where Christians refused to follow Jesus' example of spreading the gospel peacefully, and instead chose to impose morality through unfair discriminatory laws and violence. We have that in our history, too. As people here love to point out .

Originally Posted by Serenoli

We already know him!! He is in our religion as well, but perhaps you do not know that? Isaah is the name we have for him. He is one of a long line of prophets sent to earth to preach about God, and Mohammed was the last and the greatest. Such is our belief.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

In fact, I have heard a completely different story of the Crucifixon from my grandfather (he read much more of the Quran than I did). If it won't offend you too much, I'll tell you...

I already am well aware of it. The belief is that he came down from the cross without dying and Judas was put up there in his place. I also already knew that Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam. Don't worry, I'm not offended by these beliefs. I just disagree with them. I could argue against them too because of certain evidences, but that would have to move the discussion to the Theology Thread.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't find that definition of fundamentalism intolerable. I accept it and am proud to be a fundamentalist too, for liberalism just doesn't make sense. It has no root and no standard, IMO.

Well, in a qualified sense, I agree re: liberalism. There are some views where I think liberalism is right, and some where I think conservativism is. Going for either all the way across the board is foolishness, I think. But when it comes to theology...let's say the accuracies of liberalism are few and far between, if existent. Same with liturgy.

Re: Fundamentalism, the word is simply not used in the sense which BJ uses it. Only papers like the Guardian would call the Pope fundamentalist; it is used to mean those who are strongly opposed to any and all variant beliefs. One cannot merely play Humpty Dumpty and say, "Words mean what I say they mean; no more and no less."

I totally agree. Totally and emphatically . Another reason I love the current pope .

I remember when he was elected, my (Protestant) brother and I were in our living room chanting "Benedict! Benedict!"

St. Benedict also happens to be one of my favourite saints.

I don't think one can say the only Christians who have been responsible for the violence were fundamentalists. Many have been like liberals, only "right wing liberals," as it were. Many of them have reinterpreted the Bible to suit their violent desires, rather than following what it actually said. Such people as that shouldn't be considered fundamentalists but liberals, odd though that may sound.

But you have to understand, that one CAN interpret the Bible in different ways. What you refer to as liberalism before is different from what you refer to as 'right wing liberalism'. The previous liberalism was, as I understood it, disregarding Scripture, or 'picking and choosing' when it comes to religion (what we Romanists call 'cafeteria Catholicism'), whereas this is, apparently, interpreting Scripture differently than you do?

Though it is true that there were also many extremely fervent Christians who believed that violence was exactly what the Bible called for. They can be called fundamentalists. Some for example thought the Pope was the Anti-Christ.

...He isn't?

*goes to the corner and says three Paternosters*

The reason violence might seem to be amplified in Catholic groups is because Catholic groups have often been the ones that hold the reins of political power. Much of that violence has been totally anti-fundamentalist-Christian (look at the lives of Jesus and the early Christians, if you want to see what Christian fundamentalism is), but holding power can lead people to live in anti-Christian, anti-fundamentalist ways.

I'm not entirely certain I would agree that that is why violence seems more common in Catholic groups (historically speaking); there may be something about the Catholic religion which causes it, but it's too subtle for me to get at without a lot of contemplation. I'm just off the light up my hookah, and I don't want deep contemplation.

[Serenoli]

So Lief, what your opinion boils down to is this - that Islam has many beauitiful aspects, it has many good effects on the lives of those who follow it, but it is bad because some people chose to interpret it in such a way as to give themselves excuses for commiting heinous crimes?

Are you going to compare its steadying influence on everyday life, with a few acts of violence?

As Insidious Rex points out, its all about perspective. To you, the evils of a society with no rules except that of absolute freedom, and justice, is better. A society where people have the right to be immoral, for after all, it is their basic human 'right'.

For me, a society with laws and boundaries, and standards, is better, even if there are those who turn it to their 'evil' purposes. Do you for an instant, imagine there were any here who support al-Qaeda? I, at any rate, hate people like them, for desecrating the teachings of the Quran, and turning it to such evil. I'm not saying it is perfect. Islamic society can change, and for the better, but the last thing it needs is for people coming and attacking it.

I have no problem with you hunting terrorists, and extremists down, but attack Islam as well? If there is an increase in Muslims who are looking at more violent methods of interpreting Islam, then it is because of the way the West is now attacking Islam... the way you are attacking it, actually.

And, Lief, I'm really not offended. I like you very much... I couldn't be offended. Its been nice, too, to see how many people have taken my views, and considered them... like Gwaimir, and brownjenkins and I.Rex. If I seem illogical, or emotional, or overly aggresive, forgive me.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But you have to understand, that one CAN interpret the Bible in different ways.

I agree that there can be many lessons or messages in single scriptures. However, I don't think that right-wing liberalism is just a different interpretation. I think it's obvious from looking at the scriptures that this is really picking and choosing.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

What you refer to as liberalism before is different from what you refer to as 'right wing liberalism'. The previous liberalism was, as I understood it, disregarding Scripture, or 'picking and choosing' when it comes to religion (what we Romanists call 'cafeteria Catholicism'), whereas this is, apparently, interpreting Scripture differently than you do?

Not at all. Right-wing liberalism is also picking and choosing from scripture. Often they will ignore passages such as, "love your enemies. Do good to those who hurt you. Bless those who curse you." And they will ignore the fact that when the Pharisees came to take Jesus and Peter drew his sword to defend Jesus, Jesus said, "put your sword away! He who lives by the sword dies by the sword!" Though as it happens, Peter died by being crucified upside down. Dying by the sword might have been a more pleasant way to go . . . but that's beside the point .

The point is that there are many passages that right-wing liberals ignored. I could bring up a lot more passages to confront actions that some of those Christians chose to take when they committed some of the horrors Christianity now is called on. Anti-Semitism, for example, and the Inquisition, and several of the wars are all completely counter-scripture, or counter a literal interpretation of the scripture. The Bible is dead plain on those facts. So I think it would be right to term past Christianity as right-wing liberalism. Left-wing liberals often will skip passages that seem to them to be intolerant, while right-wing liberals often skipped passages that are clearly tolerant. Meanwhile, fundamentalists won't skip any passages. I expect fundamentalists still will frequently come to wrong conclusions, but at least they don't pick and choose, or attempt to reinterpret what they disagree with. That's different from right-wing and left-wing liberals.

[Rían]

Under "funny timing" -

My oldest son had a Spanish project where they had to find a Cuban recipe and make it and bring it to class. He, being lazy like his mom, found one that was rice and black beans. We printed out the recipe in full and pointed out that there were a few more ingredients, and helped him make it up, and it turned out really delicious! We're gonna keep it!

Its name? "Moros y Cristianos" - which translates to Moors and Christians!

I'm happy to say that the Moors and Christians got along just fine, and tasted delicious, too!

[/OT]

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Serenoli

So Lief, what your opinion boils down to is this - that Islam has many beauitiful aspects, it has many good effects on the lives of those who follow it, but it is bad because some people chose to interpret it in such a way as to give themselves excuses for commiting heinous crimes?

I wouldn't argue that. Christianity is no different from that- it too has been used by horrible, violent people to accomplish their own agendas.

I look at the religion's founders. Mohammed was the founder of Islam. If Mohammed, the one who heard from the angel, and Mohammed's earliest followers, believed they should wage violent warfare on the world and conquer it, it seems logical that that is the correct interpretation of jihad. History since them has shown that other Muslims behaved exactly the same way until the last couple centuries, and now more and more Muslims are reverting back to the ways Islam used to be interpreted.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

Are you going to compare its steadying influence on everyday life, with a few acts of violence?

I'm not attempting to compare Islam's positive aspects with the negative.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

As Insidious Rex points out, its all about perspective. To you, the evils of a society with no rules except that of absolute freedom, and justice, is better. A society where people have the right to be immoral, for after all, it is their basic human 'right'.

I think all immorality will be judged by God on the Last Day. I think humanity has no right to immorality. However, I don't think it's our place to try make them moral by force, either.

First of all, it's impossible to accomplish. Legislating morality does not change people's hearts.

Second, as Jesus claimed, God's followers should "return evil with kindness." Jesus said that we should "turn the other cheek," not try to enforce goodness by the sword.

I don't think immorality is a right. I don't think it helps for us to try forcing morality though, for that won't end immorality and will cause violence, injustice and unfairness, and there is a higher way than force of law or the sword. That is spiritual warfare, war of the soul- the modern interpretation of jihad. This is a way of fighting with spiritual weapons, girded in spiritual armor against evil on another realm. The Apostle Paul said that our fight is not against flesh and blood but against powers and dominions of the spiritual realm: devils. Those are the real enemy that we must fight, and fighting them can do what physical swords or Earthly laws cannot- fighting these enemies can transform people's souls. That's another reason Jesus sent his followers the Holy Spirit as well, to give us the power to do his will in the world.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

For me, a society with laws and boundaries, and standards, is better, even if there are those who turn it to their 'evil' purposes.

However, a society with Muslim moral standards legislated for people to follow by law automatically means that anyone who has moral standards that differ from Muslim moral standards is breaking the law, and therefore subject to punishment and discrimination. That's why so many non-Muslims are persecuted in Muslim countries now. It's because those Muslim countries have legislated morality like the kind you're advocating.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

Do you for an instant, imagine there were any here who support al-Qaeda? I, at any rate, hate people like them, for desecrating the teachings of the Quran, and turning it to such evil. I'm not saying it is perfect. Islamic society can change, and for the better, but the last thing it needs is for people coming and attacking it.

I have no problem with you hunting terrorists, and extremists down, but attack Islam as well? If there is an increase in Muslims who are looking at more violent methods of interpreting Islam, then it is because of the way the West is now attacking Islam... the way you are attacking it, actually.

If I say Islam is violent, that makes it violent? By saying something against Islam, I'm liable to cause Muslims to physically attack me?

Originally Posted by Serenoli

And, Lief, I'm really not offended. I like you very much... I couldn't be offended. Its been nice, too, to see how many people have taken my views, and considered them... like Gwaimir, and brownjenkins and I.Rex. If I seem illogical, or emotional, or overly aggresive, forgive me.

We'll just do our best to not allow ourselves to be offended by the other .

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

It really isn't. At all.

I don't know a huge amount about Islam,....

I'll leave it there, with your own words to sink your argument.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The fourth, which exists and is practiced by millions, is peace.

NO, the fourth is not to obey all the teachings, just like Christian, Jews, etc. don't all obey all scripture, save those who declare scripture is all there is. Islam does not tolerate difference without a penalty (money or lives).

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'm not sure what you're saying here. It seems good?

Unfortunately your comprehension is suffering.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Spock

NO, the fourth is not to obey all the teachings

I think this argument is an important one to consider, in light of how Mohammed and Muslims throughout history have interpreted jihad. It must be acknowledged that modern Muslims who practice peace and interpret jihad as being spiritual battle aren't treating the word the same way Mohammed (the one who got the word from the angel) did.

As for these two points you made below:

Originally Posted by Spock

I'll leave it there, with your own words to sink your argument.

Originally Posted by Spock

Unfortunately your comprehension is suffering.

If there are statements we disagree with, let's respond to those statements with arguments. It's not good to attempt to disqualify the person from speaking.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Serenoli

For me, a society with laws and boundaries, and standards, is better, even if there are those who turn it to their 'evil' purposes.

I absolutely agree.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree that there can be many lessons or messages in single scriptures. However, I don't think that right-wing liberalism is just a different interpretation. I think it's obvious from looking at the scriptures that this is really picking and choosing.

Who exactly are the right-wing liberals, and who are the violent fundamentalists?

I disagree with your above statement; every interpretation of Scripture except for the most absolutely basic ones (such as 'Jesus existed and was the Messiah') has difficulties with it, but that doesn't make it 'picking and choosing'.

Also, you do not take into account the fact that people might not be thoroughly familar with Scripture, but might merely know certain passages which seem to indicate what you call 'right-wing liberalism'.

"love your enemies. Do good to those who hurt you. Bless those who curse you."

A person might say that this does not necessarily say that violence is wrong; not that I would agree, by any means, but a case could be made.

Jesus said, "put your sword away! He who lives by the sword dies by the sword!"

But He also said, 'I came to bring a sword, to turn father against son, etc.' It's a difficulty, either way.

The point is that there are many passages that right-wing liberals ignored.

Or forgot, or did not know of. You are looking at it too narrowly.

I could bring up a lot more passages to confront actions that some of those Christians chose to take when they committed some of the horrors Christianity now is called on.

But the point is, they could bring up passages to support them. Your reasoning seems to be 'I can find passages that support me, so your passages are null and void.'

Anti-Semitism (is) counter a literal interpretation of the scripture.

It's supported by a literal interpretation of some Scripture (his blood be on us and our children), and negated by a literal interpretation of others. It's not as black-and-white crystal clear as you make out.

So I think it would be right to term past Christianity as right-wing liberalism. Left-wing liberals often will skip passages that seem to them to be intolerant, while right-wing liberals often skipped passages that are clearly tolerant. Meanwhile, fundamentalists won't skip any passages.

If one takes your term 'right-wing liberal' (we should probably find a different one to use, as that is a contradiction) to mean 'one who skips passages that are clearly tolerant', then I doubt that those you consider to be right-wing liberals would in fact be so.

Also, I note that you say the pro-right-wing 'seem' to be intolerant and the pro left-wing 'are clearly' tolerant. Double standard, isn't that?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I absolutely agree.

And I absolutely disagree with you and Serenoli, on this point. We cannot impose Sharia law on the entire country without making illegal everyone's values wherever they differ from Muslim values. In the same way, we cannot impose Christian values on the entire country without making illegal the values of everyone that disagree with Christian values. What you and Serenoli are advocating, without knowing it, is intolerance and religious violence. Such horrors must naturally come where the state legislates Christian morals, Muslim morals, or the morals of any other religion and makes them mandatory upon the whole population, without regard for how it may differ from you.

Remember, Jesus was considered a friend by the prostitutes. He didn't condemn them, though he certainly disagreed with their morals. He advocated not judging an adulteress for her crime, and after he had freed her, said "leave your life of sin." Jesus was not one to try legislating his moral values on others, but presented his message with kindness. Legislating Christian morals and trying to make everyone follow our way was not Jesus' way and would naturally cause injustice in our country.

Think about it. How would you, Gwaimir, like to live in a country where you have to be a Muslim? And how would Serenoli like to live in a country where we force her to be Christian? Or to be atheist? Forcing people to behave according to our religious beliefs by weight of the law is evil and useless. That is why we must have freedom of religion and freedom in politics, and this is why we have to have laws decided by everyone with protection for the rights of minorities. That's why our governments are formed the way they are in the West.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Who exactly are the right-wing liberals, and who are the violent fundamentalists?

Violent fundamentalists are those who don't ignore scriptures. Right-wing liberals are those who pick and choose or interpret to suit their own ends. I'd have to examine the theological viewpoints of many of these violent Christians to form an opinion on which viewpoint they are coming from.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I disagree with your above statement; every interpretation of Scripture except for the most absolutely basic ones (such as 'Jesus existed and was the Messiah') has difficulties with it, but that doesn't make it 'picking and choosing'.

I disagree. Often, it says what it says and is clear enough. People reinterpret or twist scripture though in order to find conclusions that suit their interests or desires.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Also, you do not take into account the fact that people might not be thoroughly familar with Scripture, but might merely know certain passages which seem to indicate what you call 'right-wing liberalism'.

That's a good point. I think a lot of those Christians who have gone a violent route were unaware of all that the scripture says, because much of this was before the printing press and before widespread literacy.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

A person might say that this does not necessarily say that violence is wrong; not that I would agree, by any means, but a case could be made.

An extremely weak and liberal case could be made .

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But He also said, 'I came to bring a sword, to turn father against son, etc.' It's a difficulty, either way.

Did Jesus ever raise a sword against anyone, or permit his disciples to do so? Are any of the early Christians recorded as having been responsible for violence? This passage is not a difficulty if one looks at it in context. Though I can see that it could be used to advocate violence when taken completely out of context.

Originally Posted by Matthew 10:32-39

"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law- a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

This all comes directly before passages such as:

"Brother will betray brother to death, and a man his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another."

If persecuted, flee.

From the same chapter:

"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

Jesus says in this chapter, if rejected, leave. If persecuted, flee. And know that you will be persecuted, you will suffer from a sword, your families will betray you, but you must stick close to me regardless.

The context clearly shows he is talking about persecution of the disciples. Jesus tells his disciples above that they must be ready to deal with persecution, "whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me," and tells them that they must be ready to lose their lives for his sake.

Shortly before this passage also, in the same speech, in the same chapter, Jesus talked with them very specifically about the persecution they would experience. "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues."

The statement that "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword," is clearly in the context of persecution that Jesus predicts he and his disciples will experience, and he tells them in the same chapter how to respond to persecution. He tells them to flee if persecuted and to leave if rejected. He never anywhere in the speech says, "fight."

However, I admit that one can interpret this verse as a violent one if one separates it from everything else in the chapter and takes it entirely by itself. People have done this with Christianity before, seizing passages and taking them totally out of context in order to convince others about things.

You can take one of the Psalms to actually say there is no God, if you want! It says, "There is no God." However, that's ignoring the context . The full sentence is, "the fool says in his heart, 'there is no God.'"

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Or forgot, or did not know of. You are looking at it too narrowly.

I'm not denying that not knowing didn't occur also (though the forgetfulness possibility seems pretty stupid to me). It's a perfectly valid possibility, especially in view of the time period.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But the point is, they could bring up passages to support them. Your reasoning seems to be 'I can find passages that support me, so your passages are null and void.'

This is why I don't argue that they were all right-wing liberals. I admit that there were probably some fundamentalists there too, people who did look at the whole Bible.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It's supported by a literal interpretation of some Scripture (his blood be on us and our children), and negated by a literal interpretation of others. It's not as black-and-white crystal clear as you make out.

I think it is clearly against anti-Semitism, and there are a huge host of reasons one can base that argument off of, to make that case. I think the opposing case is absurdly weak. True anti-Semites, like Adolf Hitler, in order to make a case against the Jews from the Bible had to examine the Bible from the perspective of, "what of its true content remains?" That was a note he wrote to himself about the Bible as he studied it, because so much of it clearly was supportive of the Jews. I completely reject the claim that a case of any strength at all can be formed from the Bible in favor of anti-Semitism.

I absolutely agree with you that one can take random passages from the Bible, usually completely out of context, to make arguments in favor of all sorts of horrible things. This is an abuse of scripture. It does occur, but I don't think the Bible can be easily interpreted to mean whatever people like. It takes hard work, often, for them to get the interpretation they want out of it. I think the Bible is a unified whole that makes sense and does not contradict itself, and interpretations that try to support things like anti-Semitism and violence are very, very weak, at their best.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

If one takes your term 'right-wing liberal' (we should probably find a different one to use, as that is a contradiction) to mean 'one who skips passages that are clearly tolerant', then I doubt that those you consider to be right-wing liberals would in fact be so.

Well fine, you can stick to your doubt if you like. I flat out disagree with you, but we'll just have to leave it at that . Because this isn't the thread for going into all the Bible arguments in detail, I suspect. Though I know I just did that above to refute the violence argument.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Also, I note that you say the pro-right-wing 'seem' to be intolerant and the pro left-wing 'are clearly' tolerant. Double standard, isn't that?

I said it that way on purpose. Many of Jesus' teachings and ways of behaving in the Bible are flat-out tolerant and extremely kind, gentle and merciful, and there's no denying that fact without being scripturally absurd. I've never in my life met anyone who has denied that Jesus said tolerant things. So saying that some of those passages are "clearly tolerant," is completely valid.

However, there is debate over whether there are intolerant things in the Bible or not, which is why I said that some passages might "seem" intolerant, rather than be "clearly" intolerant.

[BeardofPants]

Isn't that a tad off-topic?