muslims PART 2

[Spock]

OK, nice catch "E". One caveat should have been included in post # 143 :
Was Hitler an atheist as some Christians say he was? Hitler's own words make this claim rather dubious. Scholars are still unsure whether or not Adolf Hitler was a believing Christian or just a politically cunning theist, but what is certain however is there is no evidence he was an atheist.

As quoted from the same source.

And now I'll once more leave this forum to the forces of chaos. :rollseyes:

[Spock]

*****NOTICE TO ONE AND ALL*******

We Now Have A New Thread About Hitler-Christian Or Athiest

Hopefully This Will Help Keep This Thread On Topic Per Earniel's Directive.


Springtime for Hitler and Germany

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Spock

*****NOTICE TO ONE AND ALL*******

We Now Have A New Thread About Hitler-christian Or Athiest

Hopefully This Will Help Keep This Thread On Topic Per Earneil's Directive.

Excellent call, Spock.

But I will note that Christian and Atheist are hardly the only options.

[Spock]

ok-I'll modify the title

[Lotesse]

Muskrat!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

And Rian - thanks for the backhanded compliment! I can't wait until you yourself actually puts forward a good, convincing, solid argument about any one of your ideas. I look forward to it. Bring it on!

Well, I'm being polite and waiting for YOU go to first!

Seriously, you've put together some good posts with lots of info recently. What worries me is that some of the info seems to be contradicted by other info, and then it can just get into an info "shouting match" with no thought behind it. That's why I'm more concerned about analyzing the thinking about the info for validity rather than offering yet more info, and that's why my posts aren't filled with info - they are filled with analysis of the comments about the info. There's plenty of info going around in this thread, and I'll let the info-gatherers continue to gather and post it. Info is info; it's the conclusions that are drawn from it that are more my field of interest. IMO, the analysis of, and conclusions drawn from info are just as important as the info, but many info-gatherer-type-people don't seem to realize that, so I try to point that out.

Example of some perfectly valid info: This dinosaur leg bone has some ridges in it.
Example of a conclusion drawn from the perfectly valid info: This dinosaur was really into doing the tango for hours on end, and that caused the ridges.

See, the info here is valid ... but I would take issue with the validity of the conclusion!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Yet he was a Christian. Just as Osama bin Laden is "clearly mentally unstable, among other things," and yet is a Muslim.

And quotes from the Koran to support his views. I'm waiting to hear quotes from the New Testament that support Hitler's views. The one quote I did hear (about the temple cleansing), as I pointed out, hardly supports a hatred of Jews, specifically. Christians are, specifically, bound to the NEW Covenant as expressed in the NEW Testament.

Let me ask you, Rian, does a person have to have a background in any non-Christian or pagan or Islamic, whatever, religion in order to fit the "evil" bill for you?

Of course not! There's PLENTY of atheists who have done a tremendous amount of evil! There's also plenty of Christians and Muslims and Buddhists, etc. etc. who have done evil.

Does a recognised recent leader of history have to have his (or her) image divorced entirely from Christianity in oder for you to be able to accept the fact that he or she is an evil person?

No - there's plenty of people who called themselves Christians and that did evil. What I'm disputing is that Hitler would qualify as a Christian, given the definition of a Christian that I'm working with, which does not include "cultural" Christians as I believe Hitler was. I don't see Hitler quoting passages from the New Testament like "love your enemy".

Do you have to think of, say, Hitler as pagan or atheist in order for you to be able to accept that he was an "evil man," but if it were shown as it truly is, namely that he and his National Socialist party were Christian, heartily endorsed by both the Protestant and the Catholic churches - (the Catholic Diocese never even condemned the Nazi Party until 1961, yes 1961!!) does this truth just hurt too much?

Info that is disputed by other info, but see answers above. I still await quotes from the New Testament to support what he did. And churches can certainly make huge errors - I have no problem with that.

I know, I know, it makes you sad. Well, believe me, it makes me pretty sad too, Rian & Lief.

Evil makes me sad

We can not learn from history if we pretend to believe that historical truths do not exist, if we refuse to accept the facts and learn and grow from the terrible experiences and mistakes of the past - right?

Certainly true - that's why I don't "refuse to accept facts and learn and grow from the terrible experiences and mistakes of the past". However, I don't give up my right to think about conclusions drawn from the facts, and note that some are faulty, and note that other facts have been presented here that contradict the facts that you have posted. I hope Gwai's quotes from speeches are addressed - seems like facts to me!

Hate-mongering against, as Lief states, " an inherently violent religion," will do nothing but continue to perpetuate the nonstop, ongoing machine of fear- and hate- fuelled violence and barbarism on our planet earth.

That's why I don't hate-monger. I do, however, analyze tenets of belief systems - I just don't buy the "all belief systems are the same" hogwash that I hear sometimes. And from what I've seen, Christianity's tenets are much better, overall, than Islamic tenets. So what? It's a simple comparison and analysis - you do it all the time - for example, you just recently compared religious to non-religious and IYO, the former "stinks". I'm doing the same thing you're doing.

Christianity is just as violent and hate-filled and destructive as Islam ever was, it is a different kind of violence today that we see manifesting on both sides, but trust & believe, it is there on both sides, equally as strong & pernicious and evil.

Nah, I won't "trust & believe" your opinion - I'll do my own thinking and analysis, thank you!

Hate and intolerance-filled Christians smell just as nasty as the agro suicidal jihad-happy Muslims, it is all the same.

Don't forget to put the hate and intolerance-filled atheists and agnostics in there, too! Don't give that favored group a free pass Hate and intolerance by ANY person is sad


EDIT - mods, let me know if this post is OK to stay here, or if I should move it to the Hitler Christian thread ... a few parts deal with Hitler, but a few parts deal with Muslims, so I hope it can stay in this thread.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Of course not! There's PLENTY of atheists who have done a tremendous amount of evil!

Point one for Rian.

..."cultural" Christians as I believe Hitler was.

Just to get me up to speed: You would call someone a "cultural" Christian who is Christian in name, but not in deed? So does that mean you don't think Hitler repudiated Christianity?

Buuuut, on to the Hitler thread! *leads the charge*

[Spock]

ONCE AGAIN

WE NOW HAVE A TOPIC THREAD JUST FOR HITLER

Goebbles would be so pleased

PLEASE REFRAIN FROM CONTINUED POSTINGS ABOUT HERR HITLER IN THIS

TOPIC THREAD

[Gwaimir Windgem]

To the topic at hand:

Allahu akbar!

[Spock]

Baruch ha Shem!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

No, no, no, that belongs in a thread about Jews, not Muslims!

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I doubt that there would have been any other possible way. It's not that easy to peacefully convince a people to give up their culture and their religion.

I can't believe you truly think of murdering as a solution! And then you say the Muslims are violent even though they wanted converting, not murdering.

Islam has never changed.

It doesn't mean that it can't change, or that it's inherently violent. And I do think it has changed. I don't think Muslim lands like Indonesia will start a Jihad now against the "infidels".

Also, I'm not convinced Judaism has really changed either. The actions of Israel are often of a violent, aggressive manner. Of course there are good reasons for some of this violence. Self-defense is completely legitimate. But some of their actions have been land grabs at other people's expense. While I know most of Israel is secular, there are a lot of religious Jews there too. I'm just not sure, on that one. The Jews have lacked political power, and it could be argued that that's one of the reasons they haven't been violent.

Oh, Jewish Israel is violent and aggressive? And Christian United States isn't? It just shows how biased you are ,IMO.

And even if Israel is violent - does it mean all Jews agree with its actions and therefore Judaism is violent? I hate these generalisations, and that's the same thing you do to Islam.

I agree with brownjenkins -

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Why do you have a peaceful muslim in california and a violent one in the west bank? It's not because one is more devout than the other. It's not about belief systems at all. It's about the environment that person lives in. And if you want to change that, you work to change that environment, not their way of expressing their discontent

Trying to convert them is a very, very bad idea, it's not practical and the only thing it may do is increase the amount of hatred between Muslims and Christians.

Lief, what do you think your reaction would be if a Muslim said the opposite? That Christianity should be illiminated peacefully?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

I can't believe you truly think of murdering as a solution! And then you say the Muslims are violent even though they wanted converting, not murdering.

I'm talking about warfare. Warfare involves killing. Sometimes, a sickening, violent culture like Saddam Hussein's can only be replaced violently. Otherwise it will retain power. The Aztecs were a savage culture, and it is logical the Spaniards saw them as horrible heathens. There undoubtedly was greed in their minds as well. There conquest probably was done with much more savagery than was necessary (I don't know, for I haven't studied it, but I've heard bad things about it).

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

It doesn't mean that it can't change, or that it's inherently violent. And I do think it has changed. I don't think Muslim lands like Indonesia will start a Jihad now against the "infidels".

Extremism is growing in Indonesia as well. There was recently an article released on BBC News about the Indonesia version of Al'Qaeda.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

Oh, Jewish Israel is violent and aggressive? And Christian United States isn't? It just shows how biased you are ,IMO.

Not all conflicts or policies are the same. Therefore if I approve of one country's war but disapprove of another country's war (or aspects of it), that does not mean that I am inconsistent.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

And even if Israel is violent - does it mean all Jews agree with its actions and therefore Judaism is violent? I hate these generalisations, and that's the same thing you do to Islam.

I am not making generalizations about all Islam. Islam has many positive aspects to its religion, just as Judaism does.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

I agree with brownjenkins -

Remember the article I posted in response to that statement of Brownjenkins'.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

Trying to convert them is a very, very bad idea, it's not practical and the only thing it may do is increase the amount of hatred between Muslims and Christians.

That view just comes from a different religious perspective, and if I had your perspective, I would say the same.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

Lief, what do you think your reaction would be if a Muslim said the opposite? That Christianity should be illiminated peacefully?

I'd say go ahead and try! Do, do go ahead! Mormons do it all the time. I'm advocating just talking about religions. I'm not advocating force or pushy evangelism.

[GreyMouser]

One of the reasons for the growth in violent extremism in Indonesia has been the malign influence of Saudi Arabia. The Wahabbis are an extremely backward and intolerant sect who unfortunately happen to be sitting on a huge source of wealth. Somebody described it as the equivalent of Texas becoming an independent state, being taken over by the KKK, and using it's oil money to spread the Aryan Church as true Christianity. They've used this money to build schools and spread their brand of extremism all over the Muslim world (and non-Muslim countries, too- they spend a lot of money in Europe, and in American prisons.)

This message really took off with the collapse of the Suharto dictatorship in 1998, a result of an economic crisis that hit SE Asia badly. Indonesia was/is one of the most corrupt societies on Earth, a fact which many people could accept while the economy was growing, but which led to a lot of resentment and anger when hard times hit.

Young men who suddenly found themselves without a future, with very high unemployment and hyperinflation, looked for a scapegoat, and radical Islam was there to point the way.

If anything, it's surprising how little attraction it had.

[Spock]

The "Mouser" speaks well and true.

[brownjenkins]

Exactly. It's about money and power, not about scripture.

[Lief Erikson]

That's a major generalization, and one I attacked in post 49 with a collection of counter-examples. You didn't respond to much of that post, so I'd appreciate it if you did.

[Jonathan]

Concerning GW's post earlier.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

"Ignored cases" eh. Id love to see some numbers on this. Maybe Jonathan has some knowledge of this as well. It seems preposterous there would be such wonton and rampant killing occurring unchecked in a democratic country with strict laws against such.

So-called "honour killings" have indeed occurred in Sweden. A few of them have attracted a lot of attention in the media but it's said that not all of these killings are covered in the newspapers at all. I don't have any numbers but I wouldn't say "muslim men kill their daughters very often".

Of course not all honour killings take place in Sweden. Recently there was a case in Germany - BBC link

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That's a major generalization, and one I attacked in post 49 with a collection of counter-examples. You didn't respond to much of that post, so I'd appreciate it if you did.

Because I don't see the point in debating with a wall.

If someone refuses to even consider the real-world underpinnings behind the religious attrocities of the past and the future there is nothing I can say to change that.

You can only lead a horse to water...

Simply put, everything is a factor, but environment far outweighs the purely theological. The simple fact that perfectly peaceful, yet devout muslims, exist in some parts of the world proves that it must be something other than the muslim belief that leads to violence. And the fact that christians can be very violent proves that that religious belief system does not necessarily lead to peace.

Religion is a powerful motivator, but it is a tool, not a cause.