RELIGIOUS Debate on Terroristm-who, why, etc.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

here's a thought to ponder on religion and terrorism... whether it's in palestine or northern ireland, muslim or catholic, terrorist leaders tend to use religion and "the afterlife" as a motivation for people to sacrifice their own lives in a way that will bring them glory when the die (supposedly)

I must say that I think this motivation, tho it does exist, is said to be around more than it really is. I've found people claiming this before in specific circumstances and then they can't back it up. Just MHO, from personal experience.

And here's a related question - if the motivation is towards an action that you think is right, would you object to the use of this motivator? For example - a school shooting scenario (unfortunately not hypothetical anymore ) - if there is a guy with a gun, picking off kids, I know that because of my belief in the afterlife, I would be more motivated to try to stop him (thus saving others) at the cost of my own life than I'm guessing I would be if I didn't believe there was an afterlife. If I didn't believe there was an afterlife, I'm guessing that saving my own skin would be a higher priority. Thoughts?

agnostics, like myself, don't believe there is an afterlife (this is the only one we've got)... so, for me, sacrificing this life simply isn't an option, no matter what the cause... might this "belief system" be a better one to encourage?

See above.

And frankly, to me the important thing is NOT if belief systems stimulate behavior that's useful to society or not. To me, the most important thing about a belief is: do I think it's true or not. I find it odd to look at beliefs any other way. I find it manipulative to try to encourage a belief that is useful, if one thinks it's not true, and I don't think it's right to manipulate anyone.

Just some thoughts early in the morning... probably not too clear...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by inked

'xcuse me, IR, when have any of these programs noted above shown beheadings in say the last 200+ years? And which one showed dancing in the streets over the bombing of Towers with humans in the airplanes? (Not that the stricter sects would dance anyway, but you get the drift!)

Yes, sad but good examples.

those examples are fine with me, IRex - I said "inciting the populace to hate and anger prior to provocation (or provocation in our opinion)". And I still don't think that the 700 club or southern preachers are doing this in the way that I've heard of some Muslim authorities doing this - can you give some examples of what you mean?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

true... but at least, the "breaking point" would be lowered a good bit

But IMO and in my experience, different types of deaths tend to come about with your worldview more so than with "religious" worldviews - for example, partial birth abortion. Also killings due to being of an unwanted sex (usually girls), and killings of those who have handicaps, etc. Deaths of those who cannot fight back ...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I must say that I think this motivation, tho it does exist, is said to be around more than it really is. I've found people claiming this before in specific circumstances and then they can't back it up. Just MHO, from personal experience.

how about the klu klux klan... a protestant christian group that still exists to this day and has performed numerous atrocities... or the lord's resistance army of uganda (christian)... or the IRA in northern ireland (largely catholic)

And here's a related question - if the motivation is towards an action that you think is right, would you object to the use of this motivator? For example - a school shooting scenario (unfortunately not hypothetical anymore ) - if there is a guy with a gun, picking off kids, I know that because of my belief in the afterlife, I would be more motivated to try to stop him (thus saving others) at the cost of my own life than I'm guessing I would be if I didn't believe there was an afterlife. If I didn't believe there was an afterlife, I'm guessing that saving my own skin would be a higher priority. Thoughts?

i think these kind of reactions have very little to do with a belief system... most (if not all) people act in self interest when it comes to a decision they have some real time to think about... but on these kind of gut-reaction situations, it's certainly something about the individual... but not something we quite understand... there are wartime stories of people saving there own enemies from fatal situations... i think it is human instinct to help other people and it is in fact human philosophies, like religious beliefs, that teach us to overcome these instincts and create situations where the death of another human being is "justifiable"... or national beliefs, like the myth of "the american way", that can almost become a religion for some people

this is usually done by painting other nations or belief systems as "wrong" or "backward"... whether it be the attitude fostered towards native americans in the 1700s, jews in ww2, or western culture in present times

And frankly, to me the important thing is NOT if belief systems stimulate behavior that's useful to society or not. To me, the most important thing about a belief is: do I think it's true or not. I find it odd to look at beliefs any other way. I find it manipulative to try to encourage a belief that is useful, if one thinks it's not true, and I don't think it's right to manipulate anyone.

but truth is relative to the individual... obviously you think your belief system is true, or it would not be your belief system

the problem is, a muslim in the middle east believes, just as sincerely as you do, that his belief system is just as true and absolute

and my guess is that neither of you are budging on that

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But IMO and in my experience, different types of deaths tend to come about with your worldview more so than with "religious" worldviews - for example, partial birth abortion. Also killings due to being of an unwanted sex (usually girls), and killings of those who have handicaps, etc. Deaths of those who cannot fight back ...

very few people in the US are agnostic, while a large portion of the population support abortion... the numbers don't add up... there has to be more religious people supporting abortion than agnostics... much more

the same can be said about any other crimes... and, as we've found out, even priests perform terrible crimes... so it is certainly not working for some of them... at the very best you can say that belief or lack of it has nothing to do with why people disregard some humans the right to life... i'd say that absolute belief systems give people the justification to disregard human life in some situations, a justification that is impossible to achieve if you do not believe in an afterlife

the only possible exception is killing in self-defense... but almost all religious belief systems already say that this is okay anyway

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

how about the klu klux klan... a protestant christian group that still exists to this day and has performed numerous atrocities... or the lord's resistance army of uganda (christian)... or the IRA in northern ireland (largely catholic)

I didn't say it didn't exist; I only said I think it's said to exist more than it really does

this is usually done by painting other nations or belief systems as "wrong" or "backward"... whether it be the attitude fostered towards native americans in the 1700s, jews in ww2, or western culture in present times

but you yourself are painting belief systems wrong - how is this different? (you just did with your comment about native americans and jews)

but truth is relative to the individual...

Do you mean whatever a person believes is then actually true, or that a person can believe something is true but it isn't, or what? What does that statement mean?

obviously you think your belief system is true, or it would not be your belief system

the problem is, a muslim in the middle east believes, just as sincerely as you do, that his belief system is just as true and absolute

How is this a problem, IYO?

and my guess is that neither of you are budging on that

We join you, then

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

very few people in the US are agnostic, while a large portion of the population support abortion... the numbers don't add up... there has to be more religious people supporting abortion than agnostics... much more

That's why I specifically said partial birth abortion - IMO, the abortion question usually hinges on when the fetus is considered to be a human being with rights. There are many opinions on the subject, from the moment of conception, to "it's a human being if I want it to be".

the same can be said about any other crimes... and, as we've found out, even priests perform terrible crimes... so it is certainly not working for some of them...

There are certainly exceptions, but IMO in general it holds true.

...at the very best you can say that belief or lack of it has nothing to do with why people disregard some humans the right to life...

I disagree.

...i'd say that absolute belief systems give people the justification to disregard human life in some situations, a justification that is impossible to achieve if you do not believe in an afterlife

as long as you include agnosticism and atheism in "absolute belief systems", I'd agree ANY belief system defines what we think of life.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I didn't say it didn't exist; I only said I think it's said to exist more than it really does

i agree, and my guess is that the number of muslims that are truely violent individuals is probably a lot smaller than we are lead to believe

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

but you yourself are painting belief systems wrong - how is this different? (you just did with your comment about native americans and jews)

how so? i think diversity in culture is a good thing, as long as it comes with tolerance of the other culture as opposed to, "your culture is okay, but mine is better"

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Do you mean whatever a person believes is then actually true, or that a person can believe something is true but it isn't, or what? What does that statement mean?

"actually true" is unknowable, at least in terms of human philosophy... i don't want to get into an "is red really red?" discussion

but two people, for instance, can have radically different views of how human life came about and, to them, it is "the truth"... whether it is "actually true" or not is irrelavant, 'cause it is unknowable... and for these two people to relate in any productive way they need to be able to accept and respect each other's varying ideas on these unknowable truths

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

How is this a problem, IYO?

because absolute belief systems can often cloud day to day issues... i'm not saying that you have this problem, but many do... they can't put aside their belief systems just for the sake of positive relations with their fellow humans

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

We join you, then

my belief system is not absolute... i budge all the time... in some of our past discussions i've noted that certain cultural traditions observed in the past were right for their time, but are no longer so... and i'm sure as time goes by, what is good for society will continue to change

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That's why I specifically said partial birth abortion - IMO, the abortion question usually hinges on when the fetus is considered to be a human being with rights. There are many opinions on the subject, from the moment of conception, to "it's a human being if I want it to be".

i'd still argue that any abortion debate has more people who believe in god on both sides of the issue than agnostics... we're not all that common

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

There are certainly exceptions, but IMO in general it holds true.

then i'll ask you to provide me with the US statistics for crimes by agnostics

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I disagree.

do you agree that there are at least some perfectly peaceable and respectful muslims?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

as long as you include agnosticism and atheism in "absolute belief systems", I'd agree ANY belief system defines what we think of life.

agnosticism is not absolute (or at least my beliefs are not, i won't speak for anyone else)... living life defines my beliefs (which are always subject to change), not the other way around

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i agree, and my guess is that the number of muslims that are truely violent individuals is probably a lot smaller than we are lead to believe

I would agree with you there.

"actually true" is unknowable, at least in terms of human philosophy...

but is this actually true?

Houston, we have a problem ...

my belief system is not absolute... i budge all the time... in some of our past discussions i've noted that certain cultural traditions observed in the past were right for their time, but are no longer so... and i'm sure as time goes by, what is good for society will continue to change

Your belief system includes the opinion that "what is good for society will continue to change" and so far, I don't see it budging.

I certainly agree that outward standards can change, and the way things look at different times and places can be different, but that some things are always right and some are always wrong.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

do you agree that there are at least some perfectly peaceable and respectful muslims?

of course! I'm sure there's lots!

I guess you misunderstood me.

GTG now, tho!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, sad but good examples.

those examples are fine with me, IRex - I said "inciting the populace to hate and anger prior to provocation (or provocation in our opinion)".

Hey Rian. How are “showing beheadings� and “dancing in the streets� examples of “Muslims in position of authority inciting the populace to hate and anger prior to provocation (or provocation in our opinion)�? I don’t see it. Those things might incite US to anger but why would they incite muslims to anger? Unless its muslims that don’t agree with it. Oh but then Islam is a violent religion as we are told so I guess they would all agree with it right…

And I still don't think that the 700 club or southern preachers are doing this in the way that I've heard of some Muslim authorities doing this - can you give some examples of what you mean?

Glad to. Jerry Falwell is very popular and well known so Ill site him first. He has been on the record preaching hate against muslims. He wants to exclude any muslims from federal faith-based initiative money. During an interview on 60 Minutes Falwell is on record calling Muhammad a terrorist.

Franklin Graham (Billy Graham’s son) is on record as saying: “The God of Islam is not the same God. He's not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God, and I believe it [Islam] is a very evil and wicked religion."

Benny Hinn proclaimed to thousands of Christians at the American Airlines Center in Dallas, TX that "We are on God's side. This is not a war between Arabs and Jews. It's a war between God and the devil."

Other less known Christian ministers have out right demonized islam and called for its elimination. Some have said that “the line between Christians and Muslims is the difference between good and evil.� Now I don’t know about you but if I was a weak minded Christian this kind of talk would certainly “incite me to hate and anger�

Now if you want to sit here and say well Muslims do it more therefore we are better then them then dont bother cause thats not an argument I want to get into because its stupid. The point is that the idea that Islam is some ideologically intolerant collection of radical haters and that christianity is the epitome of tolerance and good and turn the other cheek sensibility is erroneous. You have fools and idiots and monsters on both sides.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Hey Rian. How are “showing beheadings� and “dancing in the streets� examples of “Muslims in position of authority inciting the populace to hate and anger prior to provocation (or provocation in our opinion)�? I don’t see it.

I guess if you don't see it, then you won't see it no matter what I say... do you really not remember consistent, year-after-year calls by religious leaders in Iran and Iraq to hate Americans?

Jerry Falwell .... He has been on the record preaching hate against muslims.

Like "go out and kill Muslims"?

He wants to exclude any muslims from federal faith-based initiative money. During an interview on 60 Minutes Falwell is on record calling Muhammad a terrorist.

his opinions - but is he calling for hate and murder against Muslims?

Franklin Graham (Billy Graham’s son) is on record as saying: “The God of Islam is not the same God. He's not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God, and I believe it [Islam] is a very evil and wicked religion."

The God of Islam is certainly different from the God of Christianity - vastly different characteristics. But is he calling for Christians to go out and murder Muslims? On the contrary - his organization (Samaritan's purse), with its "Operation Christmas Child", gives presents and food to Muslim children.

Benny Hinn ...

To paraphrase Mrs. Bingley in "Pride and Prejudice": I have no opinion of Benny Hinn
And even so - is he calling for Christians to kill Muslims?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Glad to. Jerry Falwell is very popular and well known so Ill site him first. He has been on the record preaching hate against muslims. He wants to exclude any muslims from federal faith-based initiative money. During an interview on 60 Minutes Falwell is on record calling Muhammad a terrorist.

I don't know much about Jerry Falwell, but I think it's not completely ridiculous for him to call Muhammad a terrorist. I really don't like one aspect of it: His stating this publicly will alienate Muslims that hopefully he wants to support and aid.

If one looks at the history, even as recorded in the Koran, one will see Muhammad and his immediate successors practicing a violent Jihad, ready to pulverize "innocents" and many that had differing belief systems. Therefore I can see where Falwell was coming from, though I'm edgy about the risk he's taking as regards setting up an unnecessary barrier between Christians and Muslims.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Franklin Graham (Billy Graham’s son) is on record as saying: “The God of Islam is not the same God. He's not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God, and I believe it [Islam] is a very evil and wicked religion."

Benny Hinn proclaimed to thousands of Christians at the American Airlines Center in Dallas, TX that "We are on God's side. This is not a war between Arabs and Jews. It's a war between God and the devil."

Insidious, you're taking what they're saying out of context of Christianity and what they're saying. What Benny Hinn was saying there very clearly was that he believed the devil was motivating terrorists to blow themselves up in Israel. What Franklin Graham said is easy to understand in view of Islam's history. I expect that he holds my view, which is that real Islam (as taught and demonstrated by Muhammad) is what the terrorists are displaying. The multitude of Muslims that are more peaceful and liberal are not following Islam as it is intended.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Other less known Christian ministers have out right demonized islam and called for its elimination. Some have said that “the line between Christians and Muslims is the difference between good and evil.� Now I don’t know about you but if I was a weak minded Christian this kind of talk would certainly “incite me to hate and anger�

Now if you want to sit here and say well Muslims do it more therefore we are better then them then dont bother cause thats not an argument I want to get into because its stupid. The point is that the idea that Islam is some ideologically intolerant collection of radical haters and that christianity is the epitome of tolerance and good and turn the other cheek sensibility is erroneous. You have fools and idiots and monsters on both sides.

The idea that all Muslims are ideologically intolerant radical haters, and the idea that Christians are all tolerant (Though tolerance is definitely not always a good thing. I don't even think the Muslim radicals are in the wrong because of intolerance. I don't think that tolerance of a "Great Satan" is at all useful. The Muslim that believes I am Satan yet refuses to shoot me in the head is much worse than the one who does.) and good is indeed eroneous, I agree. You're making a mistake about what many of these Christians think, however.

I believe that there is a spiritual battle going on here. Satan is using radical Islam to attack us, as he did centuries ago, before the European and American Empires caused Islam to fall behind economically, and then collapse. Starting in the seventh century AD, Satan used Islam to conquer many nations. Arabia, Egypt, Iran, the entirety of the Sassanid Empire, the Byzantine Empire, Venice, Satan led Muslims to attack us all the way to the edge of the Western World. Then Islam fell away, something I actually believe is predicted in the Bible. Now it is making a resurgance, something also predicted (though I could be wrong about the predictions). I believe Satan is using Islam to attempt to conquer the world.

This does not mean that I am disgusted against Muslims. I think that in many ways, many of them are morally superior to many Christians. I admire their determination and their faith (that of the liberals and that of the radicals). They believe much that is true, and they seek truth eagerly.

Us Christians in the West are often too lax. Where we are lax, the Muslims (radicals and liberals alike) are disciplined. They preach an uncompromising truth. Liberalism, along with afluence and mishandled freedom undermine and weaken our spiritual strength.

I hope I can show you my point of view. It's a spiritual war that Franklin Graham and Benny Hinn are acknowledging openly and talking about. They view Islam (the ORIGINAL and REVIVING Islam) as a tool of Satan. This is the Islam that blows up buildings full of innocent people, and that conquered nations without provocation. This is the visible and blatant "tool of Satan".

They are in no way advocating mistreatment of Muslim humans. They are speaking from their point of view, and in my opinion, with clear vision. They aren't saying "hate Muslims", but "fight the spirits that direct radical Muslims! To do that, we must mend our own ways!" That's the message that they're preaching.

Liberal Muslims are a more complicated piece in the puzzle than radicals. I don't believe that these are evil or twisted people. I don't really care to go deeply into my opinions regarding the liberals, if you don't mind. Perhaps when you meet Christ, we'll discuss it further.

It would be far, far easier to have this conversation with you if you knew Christ personally. If you were positive of the truth of the Bible because of having experienced its truth, then we could really talk on the same wavelength. As is, I can only talk from my delusion, or you from your blindfold, and we're fairly stuck.


I really, really long to pray with you. If you want to meet Christ, please tell me, over PM if you wish. He would save you from your sins. When Christ comes into people, he doesn't leave them to do all the work of dejunking their lives. Through his miraculous presence, he weeds out their souls himself, taking care personally of those things that are too difficult for them. He does those things, not them.

It says in the scripture, "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."


Out of curiosity, have you ever read the Bible?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Your belief system includes the opinion that "what is good for society will continue to change" and so far, I don't see it budging.

if society stopped changing (socially and technologically)... and the world became closer culturally... which i think is bound to happen eventually... "right" and "wrong" might solidify a bit more

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I certainly agree that outward standards can change, and the way things look at different times and places can be different, but that some things are always right and some are always wrong.

i believe we went through this once, and you and others could only come up with extremely basic examples of things that could never change... like "you should never kill an innocent person" (killing an innocent being defined as "for no good reason", since killing for a good reason is okay by most, if not all, religions)

and i said that while these particular examples have always been the same throughout human history more or less (sometimes much less), technology might change even this basic assumption, assuming that one day we advanced to the point that death had little or no meaning

but, on the less "scifi" level, those basics don't include the hundreds of other things many different religions deem as "right" and "wrong"... if people just stuck to the nearly universal secular rights and wrongs, we'd probably live in a lot more peaceful world

[Spock]

and if my grandmother had four wheels and an engine she'd be a car

but she doesn't and she isnt', besides 2012 we'll all be gone according to the prophesies.

[Lief Erikson]

I don't understand you.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I guess if you don't see it, then you won't see it no matter what I say... do you really not remember consistent, year-after-year calls by religious leaders in Iran and Iraq to hate Americans?

is that “showing beheadings� and “dancing in the streets�? We seem to be continually talking about different things even when I continually turn you back to the original comment. As far as religious “leaders� calling for all muslims to hate America I would say why do you only remember those and not the huge number of muslims that preached the very opposite? Isn’t that a case of selective judgment? When that’s done to Christians you are the first in line to point out that that doesn’t represent ALL Christians so its unfair to tar and feather them all by the statements of one or a few. Doesn’t that work both ways? Or is this once again a Christianity is better the Islam cheerleading opportunity?

Like "go out and kill Muslims"?

You said inciting the populace to hate and anger. Jerry Fallwell has been on the record preaching hate and discrimination against muslims. Once again it works both ways. If you are going to now say that its not ok for radical muslims to yell death to America but its ok to say that Muslims should be discriminated against and that their equivalent to jesus was nothing but a terrorist then you are having a double standard. Neither are ok. Period. No qualifications. No nothing. No “well they are badder then us�. Its ALL inciting hate and anger. And feeds into the vicious cycle.

But is he calling for Christians to go out and murder Muslims? On the contrary - his organization (Samaritan's purse), with its "Operation Christmas Child", gives presents and food to Muslim children.

then why in the world say hateful things against their very religion! Why try to be divisive? Why? Does that make sense to you? It doesn’t make any sense to me. You said yourself this is about inciting the populace to hate and anger and comments like that from well known Christian public figures (or any public figures) do EXACTLY that. why do that rian?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't know much about Jerry Falwell, but I think it's not completely ridiculous for him to call Muhammad a terrorist. I really don't like one aspect of it: His stating this publicly will alienate Muslims that hopefully he wants to support and aid.

and for THAT very reason alone he shouldn’t make such sweeping clearly antagonistic statements. It certainly wont help the situation. It will ONLY make it worse.

Therefore I can see where Falwell was coming from, though I'm edgy about the risk he's taking as regards setting up an unnecessary barrier between Christians and Muslims.

Im glad you feel the need to at least qualify your support for him with these statements. Although I would hope you would simply say its irrelevant what they do. A leader of my community simply shouldn’t be doing that because it will only divide further.

Insidious, you're taking what they're saying out of context of Christianity and what they're saying.

Lief I could site dozens more comments like this from many other religious leaders and many more from conservative leaders and talk show hosts etc. would you sit here and attempt to explain away each and every comment as being “out of context� and actually legitimate? Do you reject that these comments do actually divide people at a time when division is the exact opposite of what we need? I stand by my assertion that these kinds of statements absolutely do “incite the populace to hate and anger�. And should be condemned for doing so.

Heres a nice one for you by the way. If the others were too mild and could be explained away in “context�. How bout Jimmy Swaggert for you: Mr. Swaggert (well known and highly praised by many many Christians), referred to the Prophet Muhammad on his program as a "sex deviant," a "pervert," and a "pedophile". Please explain the context on that one and how it doesn’t incite hate and anger.

He also called for the expulsion of all foreign Muslim university students in the United States and for profiling of airline passengers “with a diaper on their head and a fan-belt around their waist.� Of American Muslims, Swaggart said: “We ought to tell every other Muslim living in this nation that if you say one word, you're gone."

Nope… no preaching hate and anger there…

real Islam (as taught and demonstrated by Muhammad) is what the terrorists are displaying. The multitude of Muslims that are more peaceful and liberal are not following Islam as it is intended.

are you a scholar of the Koran? You seem quite knowledgeable on the contents of the Koran and of the teachings of muhammad. Have you read it? Have you studied it? Why is it people who HAVE spent years and years studying it quite often have a different picture of things? Much less simplistic then the one you paint. Why is that? are they all wrong and you are right?

I believe that there is a spiritual battle going on here. Satan is using radical Islam to attack us, as he did centuries ago, before the European and American Empires caused Islam to fall behind economically, and then collapse … I believe Satan is using Islam to attempt to conquer the world.

ah so then you agree with osama bin laden that it’s a war between Islam and Christianity?

Us Christians in the West are often too lax. Where we are lax, the Muslims (radicals and liberals alike) are disciplined. They preach an uncompromising truth. Liberalism, along with afluence and mishandled freedom undermine and weaken our spiritual strength.

this comment reminds me that one of the great reasons you don’t see radical Christianity as often like you do with Islam is for the very reason that most Christian nations are pretty well off and don’t need to go to extremes to fight what they believe is forces against them. When you are the top dog theres no need for suicide bombers. When you are Afghanistan and the mighty Soviet Union (to use one example) attempts to crush you like a bug then you will see pockets of violent extremism emerge from that kind of desperateness. And you get things like the Taliban… And Chechneya… I submit to you that if Afghanistan had been a nation of Christians that you would have radical Christian suicide bombers as well. People will take from desperation anything they feel is necessary to assure what they believe. And when people are comfortable and fat and happy and their beliefs are mainstream they will not find any reason to go to such extremes.

They aren't saying "hate Muslims", but "fight the spirits that direct radical Muslims! To do that, we must mend our own ways!" That's the message that they're preaching.

hmm… somehow I don’t see that in Swaggerts words above… Were those taken out of context too?

I really, really long to pray with you. If you want to meet Christ, please tell me, over PM if you wish. He would save you from your sins. When Christ comes into people, he doesn't leave them to do all the work of dejunking their lives. Through his miraculous presence, he weeds out their souls himself, taking care personally of those things that are too difficult for them. He does those things, not them.

It says in the scripture, "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."

Save your breath Lief. You know that’s not my bag. I need so much more then that. I don’t even think me finding “religion� is something we really should be discussing because it will only annoy me and it will only hurt and depress you with my replies. And why go backwards really.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

is that “showing beheadings� and “dancing in the streets�? We seem to be continually talking about different things even when I continually turn you back to the original comment. As far as religious “leaders� calling for all muslims to hate America I would say why do you only remember those and not the huge number of muslims that preached the very opposite? Isn’t that a case of selective judgment? When that’s done to Christians you are the first in line to point out that that doesn’t represent ALL Christians so its unfair to tar and feather them all by the statements of one or a few. Doesn’t that work both ways? Or is this once again a Christianity is better the Islam cheerleading opportunity?

All I can say is that apparently we think of different things when we think of "inciting the populace to hate and anger prior to provocation (or provocation in our opinion)". What I was thinking of was inciting people to direct, harmful physical actions against non_Muslims, esp. Americans. Things like what was encouraged against Salmon Rushdie for writing a book. I don't see this type of direct, physical action promoted the other way around in the same way or frequency.

You said inciting the populace to hate and anger. Jerry Fallwell has been on the record preaching hate and discrimination against muslims. Once again it works both ways. If you are going to now say that its not ok for radical muslims to yell death to America but its ok to say that Muslims should be discriminated against and that their equivalent to jesus was nothing but a terrorist then you are having a double standard. Neither are ok. Period. No qualifications. No nothing. No “well they are badder then us�. Its ALL inciting hate and anger. And feeds into the vicious cycle.

see above - perhaps the problem here was that I wasn't more specific in my original statement. IMO, saying insulting things is at one level, and calling for someone to be killed for writing a book is quite another. I see your point about all these things inciting anger, but I still maintain my opinion that the type we see coming from Islam is very different in terms of things like calling for direct, physical harm.

then why in the world say hateful things against their very religion! Why try to be divisive? Why? Does that make sense to you? It doesn’t make any sense to me. You said yourself this is about inciting the populace to hate and anger and comments like that from well known Christian public figures (or any public figures) do EXACTLY that. why do that rian?

Again, what I was talking about in that quote was the call to cause direct, physical harm.

Swaggert's comments are disgusting, but again, I don't see him saying "go kill Muslims." My guess is that the comments about being a pedophile refer to a child bride he took.

As far as "Why try to be divisive?" - I don't think it's right to try to be divisive. However, I don't think it's right to say "everyone is right, let's all get along", either. That's illogical, as well as harmful, IMO.

I think there IS truth, and it CAN be discovered, and people should stand up for what they believe is true, as long as they are loving and respectful of others.