Islam & Christianity, which religion is more logical?

[oldcatholicguy]

Really? One cannot compare today’s technology to yesterday’s wars. The engagement of war has been updated since wars of antiquity.

Your comparison misses the reality existing in each circumstance.

The logic of war has not changed. The logic of how wars are fought does change.

My comparison would only miss the reality existing in each circumstance if my selection of those two (Indian wars and the bombing campaigns in WW2) weren’t based on the intentional targeting of non-combatants by the US military as part of it’s prosecution of the wars and were instead based on the unintentional deaths of non-combatants which is unfortunately an aspect of war. You see, during the Indian wars (which is really multiple different conflicts between the US and various NA tribes) and WW2 non-combatants were intentionally targeted by the US military as part of its strategy to win the wars. So your claim that the American military never targets women and children (who by the way aren’t actually the sole members of who is termed to be “non-combatants”) is incorrect.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

.

:aok:

Yet one has to discern the differences of that one’s opinion and what is fact.

NO but now that you bring it up, Spencer’s Co-Author is an ex- practicing Muslim who exposes the truth from his faith as a Muslim of Islam.

NO; I was referencing Jesus, Apostles and Catholic Martyrs who under threat and death and torture did not waver in their faith and their profession of the Gospel (Truth).

.
If you are referring to apostates, the Church welcomed them back under the sacrament of reconciliation.

I do not know of any ex-Catholics who embraced heresies under the threat of death, can you give an example? I know of Catholic’s forced into apostasy, but repented and never became an ex-Catholic.

Cayetano Ripoll in 1826. Guess that means his heresy was correct and the Church was wrong.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

unstoppable II;12691965]These are war crimes for several reasons. 1) Terrorists are not legitimate combatants; 2) Legitimate combatants do not hide behind non-combatants; 3) Legitimate combatants do not pose as non-combatants. 4) Legitimate combatants do not hide their weapons

.

I wish you could inform the terroists of your view and make them change their tactics of war from illegitimate to your standards of legitimacy.

Terrorists under the flag of Islam declared war on the U.S and her allies. Terroist supported and confirmed their war claim against the U.S by the killing of innocence, which makes them a legitiment participant in war.

Road side bombs and mine fields have maimed and killed many innocence victims. Again War is hell and no one should use women and children to suicide to kill others for their war cause.

The rules of engagement are getting near the point where American military cannot target even terrorists

.

The rules of engagement are never followed by the enemies of the free world. Terrorist groups are puppet pawns funded and supported by a larger mover, that are used to expose and place cracks to weaken and collapse their enemies foundation.
While the West impose economic sanctions as a weapon in the silent war. The West engages with terrorists to prevent the killing of innocence.

The big guys on the block are not going to engage one another in war. Terrorist groups are the puppet tool to be used by the big guys to achieve their goal.

Think Ukraine, Iran, Saudi Arabia today.

It is sad, that Islam is being prostituted by these terrorists (diamonds) groups supported by Crowns = secular powers. Because Islam’s Quran has it written for Muslims to justify it’s war’s against not only non-Muslims but against Muslims.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

So your claim that the American military never targets women and children (who by the way aren’t actually the sole members of who is termed to be “non-combatants”) is incorrect.

My comment “never” only referenced today’s model of war. There is no comparison of today’s war’s being fought to your historical wars. Since both technology and rules of engagement have changed.

I make no specific comments to who qualify as a combatant and a non-combatant, so I don’t know who you are trying to correct here?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cayetano Ripoll in 1826. Guess that means his heresy was correct and the Church was wrong.

I respect your “guess” to be your opinion.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

My comment “never” only referenced today’s model of war. There is no comparison of today’s war’s being fought to your historical wars. Since both technology and rules of engagement have changed.

I make no specific comments to who qualify as a combatant and a non-combatant, so I don’t know who you are trying to correct here?

“Your comparison misses the reality existing in each circumstance.” would indicate that you weren’t actually referring to just today’s wars. It would indicate that you tried to defend your claim that the US military never targets women and children by arguing such targeting in the past wasn’t intentional but due to the limitations of technology.

And as for you making claims as to who is or is not a non-combatant- you’re entire position that the US military never targets women and children is based on the idea that women and children are non-combatants.

Anymore goal post moving you wish to do?

 

[unstoppable_II]

.
I wish you could inform the terroists of your view and make them change their tactics of war from illegitimate to your standards of legitimacy.

They are not my standards of legitimacy. They are a matter of international treaty known as the Law of Armed Conflict [LOAC] usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm, the intent of which is to reduce the number of deaths of non-combatants and the destruction of non-war related property.

Terrorists under the flag of Islam declared war on the U.S and her allies. Terroist supported and confirmed their war claim against the U.S by the killing of innocence, which makes them a legitiment participant in war.

WRONG!!! As I pointed out, terrorists are illegitimate combatants, mainly because they do not belong to a responsible chain of command.

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets.
They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations. usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac_2.htm

For these reasons, only nations can legitimately wage war.
None of this is new, not even the public’s ignorance about the LOAC. Article 82 of the Lieber Code, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863, states,

“Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers – such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates.”

Punishment for those captured while engaging in such illegal participation historically has been very severe, NO QUARTER.
See “Al-Qaeda and Taliban unlawful combatant detainees, unlawful belligerency, and the
international laws of armed conflict”
Air Force Law Review, Spring, 2004 by Joseph P. Bialke

I have no disagreement on the rest of your post.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I respect your “guess” to be your opinion.

Ah so you don’t hold getting death threats= they must be telling the truth then. Hmm, now that leads me to wonder why you seem so intent on making sure to mention people you apparently agree with getting death threats from people you apparently disagree with.

 

[benjohnson]

I would argue that Islam is more logical that Christianity.

And thats a problem, because while reason is a gift from God, it makes for a religion of our own making.

For is God revealed Truth in Christianity that works in us despite our “logic.” It is Christ that turns the world upside-down with human-logical-nonsense like “love the prisoner” and “I am the doorway.”

So I would grant to any Muslim that their religion is more logical, and would only remark that if the goal of religion is to be logical, then ‘humanism’ is more logical than Islam.

 

[unstoppable_II]

I would argue that Islam is more logical that Christianity.

…

Islam is not logical at all because it contradicts itself.

 

[religioussoup]

Guys, all religions are complicated and lose their logic at some point to some people. Chances are, most Muslims have probably never really examined the Catholic faith close enough to the point of which they understand fully. Also, most Catholics have probably never examined Islam close enough to the point where they fully understand it. Of course, the Catholics on this site are going to say that Christianity is more logical and the Muslims are going to say that Islam is, but what do you expect? That’s their religion that they have grown up with or adopted as their own. Your own religion should be the most logical to you, and if not, you’ve probably already considered converting.

 

[benjohnson]

Islam is not logical at all because it contradicts itself.

Sure! My argument is more that ‘logic’ is a poor way of figuring out if Islam or Christianity reveals a true God or not.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Sure! My argument is more that ‘logic’ is a poor way of figuring out if Islam or Christianity reveals a true God or not.

That’s a different question.

 

[tp3192000]

I am impressed with all the great comments on this thread. Does Our Lady’s appearance at Fatima last century hold any key to Christianity’s relationship with Islam today? The Angel’s prayer was made in a Muslim position of prayer; does this indicate a Divine appreciation of Muslim worship? The name of the city in Portugal of Mohammad’s daughter no less surely has some significance for us. What can it be? I find myself struggling to overcome feelings of growing animosity towards Islam.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I find myself struggling to overcome feelings of growing animosity towards Islam.

That’s due to the violence they’ve demonstrated towards the West and others - 9/11, Bali bombings, Chechens in Russian, Boko Harem, ISIS, Charlie Hedbo. Until these things started happening, you probably didn’t give a hoot one way or the other.

But the Moslems could say the same thing about us, particularly the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (2 Gulf Wars - at least 100,000 dead - they’re not going to thank the West for that), Predator missiles, support for Israel at the expense of the Palestinians, Western support for Middle Eastern tyrants.

And its not going to go away. The Cold War was the big challenge for nearly 50 years after World War II. This one will take longer, and will be harder to defeat. The USSR was brought down by economic pressure in a large degree, and since it’s focal point was of an earthly nature, it had no divine focus to sustain it.

But Russia did have a Christian past which helped to fill the vacuum when it did collapse. I note China, which has not had a Christian past, is still retaining it’s communistic philosophy, but they’ve been pragmatic enough to see which way the wind is blowing.

The Moslems however have shown they really believe in something beyond this earth, and economic pressures are not going to have the same effect. They’re largely resisted conversion to Christianity for nearly 1500 years, and they’re not likely to start now.

 

[tp3192000]

The problem I have with your appeal to logic, fundamentally, is that it seems simplistic and doesn’t go very deep. Again, if God is God and not a creature like us, we would expect the truth about God to be paradoxical. That doesn’t mean that our faith is irrational. Quite the contrary–it’s irrational to expect that our language and categories would apply neatly to God. Nor do Muslim apologists seem very interested in understanding the many ways in which Christian theologians make sense of the paradoxes of our faith. Like atheists, Muslim apologists seem content to make cheap shots and seem unwilling to go any deeper.

The Muslim argues with logic, but it is not with logic that we believe. Our faith which is a gift from the Holy Spirit is written in our hearts. The great St. Paul had to be knocked off his horse to find faith. His arguments of logic were ineffective against the philosophers of his day. People will continue to disbelieve even when presented with the great signs that have been given to us. The Shroud of Turin, a life-size photographic image of our crucified Lord is one example. The greatest archeologic discovery of the 20th century was the Dead Sea scrolls, discovered ironically by Muslim Bedouin shepherds which show writings of a very holy sect of Judaism who were contemporaries of Jesus.

How is it that the Muslim who prays to God has such hate in their hearts for others who are not Muslim or Muslims of other sects? None of us are sinless, but Catholics can be seen doing charitable service to the world. It is by our acts that we may be known.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

They are not my standards of legitimacy. They are a matter of international treaty known as the Law of Armed Conflict [LOAC] usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm, the intent of which is to reduce the number of deaths of non-combatants and the destruction of non-war related property.

WRONG!!! As I pointed out, terrorists are illegitimate combatants, mainly because they do not belong to a responsible chain of command.

For these reasons, only nations can legitimately wage war.
None of this is new, not even the public’s ignorance about the LOAC. Article 82 of the Lieber Code, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863, states,

Punishment for those captured while engaging in such illegal participation historically has been very severe, NO QUARTER.
See “Al-Qaeda and Taliban unlawful combatant detainees, unlawful belligerency, and the
international laws of armed conflict”
Air Force Law Review, Spring, 2004 by Joseph P. Bialke

I have no disagreement on the rest of your post.

Hi, Unstoppable; I cannot refute nor do I disagree with your valid and true points.

All I am saying is, the declaration of war is made from both sides, whether one side is recognized as a legitimate nation, country, province etc… or not, the reality of war exist.

It is not wrong to say we are at war with terrorist when the reality points to it, whether or not international laws do not recognize terrorist groups as having no legitimacy to declare a war. It is not revealed publicly to which terrorist group is supported by a chain of command to give them legitimacy. This is the war we fight today an in- visible enemy under the flag of Islam.

How do you punish a captured terrorist under the Geneva Convention rules, when the Terrorist groups do not meet the international standards of declaring war on a legitimate country? Thus Guantanomo bay prisoners come to mind.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

oldcatholicguy;12692188]“Your comparison misses the reality existing in each circumstance.” would indicate that you weren’t actually referring to just today’s wars. It would indicate that you tried to defend your claim that the US military never targets women and children by arguing such targeting in the past wasn’t intentional but due to the limitations of technology.

oldcatholicguy you are correct. Sorry if? my first post was not clear to you that I was referencing today’s war. That is why I posted a second post to clarify my first comment referenced today’s war. And Yes, my other postings reveal; I do believe past wars technology from the American side was not and still is not intentional to kill and target innocent women and children.

And as for you making claims as to who is or is not a non-combatant- you’re entire position that the US military never targets women and children is based on the idea that women and children are non-combatants.

Let me clarify my position here again. The U.S military today do not intentionally target and kill innocent women and children. Terrorist groups who kill in the name of Islam use woman and children as combatants to kill innocent non-Muslims and who have killed innocent Muslims.

Anymore goal post moving you wish to do?

Yes and thank you, can we move the goal post back to the OP side of the field and let’s make sure we do not deflate or over inflate each other’s respectable postings.

Peace be with you

 

[oldcatholicguy]

oldcatholicguy you are correct. Sorry if? my first post was not clear to you that I was referencing today’s war. That is why I posted a second post to clarify my first comment referenced today’s war. And Yes, my other postings reveal; I do believe past wars technology from the American side was not and still is not intentional to kill and target innocent women and children.

Let me clarify my position here again. The U.S military today do not intentionally target and kill innocent women and children. Terrorist groups who kill in the name of Islam use woman and children as combatants to kill innocent non-Muslims and who have killed innocent Muslims.

Yes and thank you, can we move the goal post back to the OP side of the field and let’s make sure we do not deflate or over inflate each other’s respectable postings.

Peace be with you

I’m fine with that. Yes, today’s US military does not intentionally target non-combatants and does it’s best (here I don’t include armed drones flown by intelligence agencies as military since they aren’t) to limit non-combatant deaths.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
How do you punish a captured terrorist under the Geneva Convention rules, when the Terrorist groups do not meet the international standards of declaring war on a legitimate country? Thus Guantanomo bay prisoners come to mind.

In WW-II, some German soldiers were captured wearing American Army uniforms, a war crime. They were given a military trial and shot. If they had been wearing German uniforms, when captured, they would be considered EPWs [enemy prisoners of war] and be eligible for POW status and the combatant’s privilege. The whole purpose of the Convention is to minimize death and destruction. Unlawful combatants cause more death and destruction because they do not follow the laws of war. Just think about it. If you were a soldier in a group of fellow soldiers attacked by terrorists you thought were non-combatants, how would you react to the next attackers similarly disguised? You would probably shoot first then ask questions. And then what if they turned out to be legitimate non-combatants? Don’t you see?