Is Isis really Islamic

[Per_Crucem]

So double standards.

No. Consistent standards. One group basis its teaching on the New Testament. The other does not.

You object to WBC theology because it isn’t based solely on the NT and give a pass to Anglicanism which has a theology that isn’t based solely on the NT. Double standard.

I never said “based solely on the NT.” What I was, based on the NT. Both Catholicism and Protestantism base their teachings on the NT, even those outside of word for word quotes from the NT. Westboro does not.

For it to be partly one would have to hold that human society is somehow equal to God.

No. It would have to hold that the works of the sons of God effect a positive change in human society. You know, stuff like works of mercy by the empire and not gladitorial contests, you know?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Opps…Thank you OldCatholicGuy for correcting me on the country.

Yes its true that Jordan was engaged in battle with ISIS, but still I am wondering where the other Islamic countries are. I mean the FULL force of the political leaders and their military.

What I would like to hear from the middle east Islamic countries is FULL scale condemnation and squashing of ISIS not a passive disapproval of their actions. Again, like I stated, we see “pockets” such as limited police protection of churches and such.

But, these are my opinions of what I see in the media print (rarely if ever the FULL story)

Why are we holding ME countries (and here why just ME and not Islamic countries regardless if they are in the ME or not) to a higher standard than non-ME and/or non-Islamic countries? The only people that I’m tracking as having been strongly opposed to and fighting ISIS from the start are the Kurds and they don’t even have a country (and won’t until some major changes take place within Turkey and Iran- both oppose the Kurds having a country). Everyone else seems to be giving lip service to the idea of fighting ISIS unless and/or until they are directly threatened by it.

That aside, is such a universal regional action against ISIS realistic? We’re talking about a region filled with states dealing with a lot of internal problems and legitimacy issues within their own populace which historically haven’t liked each other (and I’m not talking about the everyone vs. Israel issue) and which historically have either allowed or been forced to allow outside powers to deal with regional issues.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

No. Consistent standards. One group basis its teaching on the New Testament. The other does not.

I never said “based solely on the NT.” What I was, based on the NT. Both Catholicism and Protestantism base their teachings on the NT, even those outside of word for word quotes from the NT. Westboro does not.

No. It would have to hold that the works of the sons of God effect a positive change in human society. You know, stuff like works of mercy by the empire and not gladitorial contests, you know?

-“However, it [WBC] cannot do so [justify its theology] based on the NT or the words of Christ.” Yeah, looks like you’re going with the based solely on the NT line to me.
-You also keep arguing that the WBC theology isn’t based on the NT. Proof of this is found where? The WBC just uses the OT, it rips the NT out of it’s Bibles?

 

[Rohzek]

Opps…Thank you OldCatholicGuy for correcting me on the country.

Yes its true that Jordan was engaged in battle with ISIS, but still I am wondering where the other Islamic countries are. I mean the FULL force of the political leaders and their military.

What I would like to hear from the middle east Islamic countries is FULL scale condemnation and squashing of ISIS not a passive disapproval of their actions. Again, like I stated, we see “pockets” such as limited police protection of churches and such.

But, these are my opinions of what I see in the media print (rarely if ever the FULL story)

Turkey doesn’t get involved because if they did, they would inadvertently help the Kurds. The Kurds are a people who span the regions of Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. They have been demanding and fighting for their own nation for almost a century now. Turkey doesn’t want to let that happen because it means the loss of a territory. The West has promised to support the Kurdish cause since the conclusion of one of the world wars. And every time, the world turns its back on them.

Iran, for its own reasons, is currently fighting ISIS. So is Hezbollah from Lebanon. The Iraqi military is fighting them also. Egypt is fighting ISIS groups in Libya. And then you have Assad who is fighting ISIS. The Kurds are fighting ISIS too.

Could they be doing more? Yeah it’s possible. But since the USA has been doing the heavy lifting in the region for almost 25 years now, many Arabs still think they can offload this problem with ISIS onto the US taxpayers.

 

[Retread_Mick]

Jordan, not Turkey. It’s rather hard to confuse the two countries given that one is an Islamic kingdom and the other is the exact opposite. And, Jordan was already fighting ISIS prior to the group murdering its pilot. He was on a military air strike when shot down and captured.

Turkey, although it does not have a “national religion”, is 98% Muslim. That could hardly be considered the exact opposite. You may also rest well assured, that if Jordan is attacking ISIS, it’s because they have their own bone to pick, not because Jordan has any regrets whatsoever about the loss of Christian life.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Turkey, although it does not have a “national religion”, is 98% Muslim. That could hardly be considered the exact opposite. You may also rest well assured, that if Jordan is attacking ISIS, it’s because they have their own bone to pick, not because Jordan has any regrets whatsoever about the loss of Christian life.

-Turkey is by law a secular state. Jordan by law is an Islamic state. I’d call that opposite.
-I hope you don’t seriously think there is anyone fighting ISIS because they are concerned about the Christian victims.
-So the only lives of any value in this are the lives of Christians? The only reason to do something about ISIS is because some of their victims are Christian?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Of course ISIS is Islamic. However, we shouldn’t let this color our views of all of Islam.

Agreed. Just the core, the heart, the essence of Islam in its purest, unadulterated form.

 

[Rohzek]

Agreed. Just the core, the heart, the essence of Islam in its purest, unadulterated form.

Until the rise of the Mamluks of Egypt, Syria remained overwhelmingly Christian. Egypt at the time of the First Crusade was quite possibly 50% Christian according to some estimates. Nestorian Christians held enough sway in the Mongol Court of Persia to pose a powerful force to be reckoned with in the Middle East during the 13th century. Greek Christians remained a significant portion of Anatolia’s population until the beginning of the 20th century. Muslim Spain housed a lot of Christians, which actually shielded Adoptionists from the reprimands of the papacy and the Frankish clergy during the eighth and ninth centuries. Saint John of Damascus wrote his treatise on icon veneration in response to Muslim critics, which is something that could only occur in an environment that allowed open and free debate.

My point for stating all of these historical facts is to illustrate how wrong your assumptions are. All of these events occurred under fairly reputable Muslim caliphates: ie Abbasid, Umayyad, and Fatimid. I am in no way exonerating the crimes of Islam here, however, I do take objection to the idea that ISIS in any way represents some sort of “original and pure” form of Islam. The historical record easily demonstrates quite the contrary. Early Islam was relatively tolerant for the time.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Until the rise of the Mamluks of Egypt, Syria remained overwhelmingly Christian. Egypt at the time of the First Crusade was quite possibly 50% Christian according to some estimates. Nestorian Christians held enough sway in the Mongol Court of Persia to pose a powerful force to be reckoned with in the Middle East during the 13th century. Greek Christians remained a significant portion of Anatolia’s population until the beginning of the 20th century. Muslim Spain housed a lot of Christians, which actually shielded Adoptionists from the reprimands of the papacy and the Frankish clergy during the eighth and ninth centuries. Saint John of Damascus wrote his treatise on icon veneration in response to Muslim critics, which is something that could only occur in an environment that allowed open and free debate.

My point for stating all of these historical facts is to illustrate how wrong your assumptions are. All of these events occurred under fairly reputable Muslim caliphates: ie Abbasid, Umayyad, and Fatimid. I am in no way exonerating the crimes of Islam here, however, I do take objection to the idea that ISIS in any way represents some sort of “original and pure” form of Islam. The historical record easily demonstrates quite the contrary. Early Islam was relatively tolerant for the time.

What ISIS Really Wants
The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.
Graeme Wood
MARCH 2015
theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

 

[Rohzek]

What ISIS Really Wants
The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.
Graeme Wood
MARCH 2015
theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

And the purpose of linking this article to me was? I’d appreciate a clearly stated intent for providing me with a link I already read from the OP.

 

[Retread_Mick]

-Turkey is by law a secular state. Jordan by law is an Islamic state. I’d call that opposite.[/QUOET]

So what. Turkey is still controlled by Muslims and therefore will not be concerned about Christians being murdered by ISIS. They will be cheering Kurdish loss of life because they see the Kurds as a threat to their territory. I’d call that pretty much the same.

-I hope you don’t seriously think there is anyone fighting ISIS because they are concerned about the Christian victims.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Who said that. You???

Just as a warning, you’re going to find a lot of words put in your mouth in this conversation.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

-Turkey is by law a secular state. Jordan by law is an Islamic state. I’d call that opposite.[/QUOET]

So what. Turkey is still controlled by Muslims and therefore will not be concerned about Christians being murdered by ISIS. They will be cheering Kurdish loss of life because they see the Kurds as a threat to their territory. I’d call that pretty much the same.

Never for a moment.

Who said that. You???

-So what would be that Turkey by law being a secular state means its the opposite of Jordan which is by law an Islamic state.
-And you’re implying that Christian lives matter more by stressing Jordanian and Turkish action against ISIS only in regards to its Christian victims.
-Would you also explain your assumption that Muslims don’t care about the Christian victims of ISIS?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Just as a warning, you’re going to find a lot of words put in your mouth in this conversation.

Care to explain how your comment can be taken in any other way than a personal attack on me which questions my integrity?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Care to explain how your comment can be taken in any other way than a personal attack on me which questions my integrity?

You call that into question yourself when you insinuate and tell people they have stated things which they haven’t.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You call that into question yourself when you insinuate and tell people they have stated things which they haven’t.

Sure I do. I’m sure this has nothing to do with the fact you can’t actually support your claim that the WBC doesn’t base its theology on the NT or your usage of double standards in regards to the theology of the WBC and Anglicanism.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Sure I do. I’m sure this has nothing to do with the fact you can’t actually support your claim that the WBC doesn’t base its theology on the NT

You are making the assertion that they do base their theology on the NT. It is your burden of proof to demonstrate that they do.

or your usage of double standards in regards to the theology of the WBC and Anglicanism.

As I said before, it’s a consistent standard. Both would be required to demonstrate their views of theology, ethics and morality is based on the NT.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You are making the assertion that they do base their theology on the NT. It is your burden of proof to demonstrate that they do.

As I said before, it’s a consistent standard. Both would be required to demonstrate their views of theology, ethics and morality is based on the NT.

-If you bother to review the thread you’ll find that you’re the one who made the first assertion concerning the theology of the WBC. That would be in post #16.
-So what’s the NT justification for Henry 8’s actions which are based upon the OT kings and the ordination of women?

 

[Per_Crucem]

-If you bother to review the thread you’ll find that you’re the one who made the first assertion concerning the theology of the WBC. That would be in post #16.

Correct. But I cannot prove a negative. WBC makes their own claims for their positions…you are saying those are consistent with Christian theology. In what respect do you think they are?

-So what’s the NT justification for Henry 8’s actions which are based upon the OT kings and the ordination of women?

His reasoning for annulment was based on OT Levirate law. That is not the whole of Anglican theology, however.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Correct. But I cannot prove a negative. WBC makes their own claims for their positions…you are saying those are consistent with Christian theology. In what respect do you think they are?

His reasoning for annulment was based on OT Levirate law. That is not the whole of Anglican theology, however.

-So you are presenting an argument (that WBC theology isn’t Christian) as fact that you know can’t be proved true or false; and doing so based upon one aspect of WBC theology not being from the NT (and this without any actual support provided for the claim).
-And then go on to use what is in effect a double standard by supporting Anglicanism as Christian because even though one aspect of its theology is based on just the OT (and it is in fact more than just one aspect since Henry 8 based his separation from the Church on the OT kings and not on OT marriage law), it’s complete theology isn’t based on just the OT (which is your unproven claim concerning WBC theology).
-Looks to me like you’re left with-
–showing that all of WBC’s theology is based on the OT
–showing that all of Anglicanism’s theology is based on the NT
–declaring both WBC and Anglican theology not to be Christian theology
–declaring both to be versions of Christian theology
–or admit that a double standard is necessary in order to claim that WBC theology isn’t Christian theology because some of it is based on just the OT but that Anglican theology is Christian theology despite some of it being based on just the OT.