"logic" in Islam (sorry have to vent about this)

[paarsurrey]

If we mention Muslim atrocities - they could bring up ours; they have plenty to choose from. Both religions have blood on their hands, buckets of it. That is why atrocity-swapping is such a waste of time. And why grace is so important: it is not based on what we deserve, but purely on God’s Love, which transcends justice, by fulfilling it & going beyond it; it’s not locked into the attitude of the atrocity-swappers, so it can go beyond the ethical framework on which that attitude relies, the attitude which stops at justice.
If the unconditional love of God could not transform us, who are capable of such great evils, we would have no hope at all. ##

Hi
A good post.
Thanks

 

[Paralabagne]

Consider this a small token of your inability to get anything right:

reductionism |ri?d?k sh ??niz?m| noun often derogatory the practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon, esp. a mental, social, or biological phenomenon, in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, esp. when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation. DERIVATIVES reductionist noun & adjective reductionistic |ri?d?k sh ??nistik| adjective

Interesting.
You say when you replied at 4pm to my post from 10:30am my post from 11:20am had not posted yet.

I’m not really sure it’s worth my time to try to debate someone with such a questionable internet connection, and who can say “it’s true because I believe it” with a straight face.

(Off topic but necessary and meant in the sense of true Christian debate - that we can do this separates us from many faiths):

Sir, that you are contending that “you are correct because I am a reductionist” is no argument. I will assume you are trying to make some point here, possibly that the “whole is not simply the sum of its parts;” but, then again, maybe not, in that your idea of debate is to insult the person against whom you are debating… …and engage in simple contradiction.

Once again, your point is that since you think that I am a “reductionist” and have a bad internet connection, that I am not “worth you time.” Furthermore, that I utilized well established existential idea denoting “authentic” belief as opposed to “inauthentic” leaps of faith, that I am, furthermore, not worth your time. Hmmmm. When I logged on yesterday, I viewed only one entry to which I could retort. The more interesting of your entries had not posted yet (for some reason – call it a strange phenomenon).

Regarding our last exchange, in the spirit of charity and in the love of Christ, consider your arguments to have been firmly debunked. That is, unless you can somehow retort to my specific ideas and not simply call me names.

Ought I to recapitulate? O.K., I will note, once again, that in my opinion, in my mind as my conscience guides it, the idea that one would opt for Christianity over other faiths because they believe when they read the ancient texts that somehow Christ was magic performed miracles/altered the laws of nature/had defied the two laws of thermodynamics is frightening to me.

The following are not my words, but may be considered.

"…it forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable sanction and authority which always attend received opinions. "

-David Hume

And God Bless you.

P.S. Are you sorry?

 

[Paralabagne]

I forgot to close my quote and missed plural. Sorry for the slip ups.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I find it at the very least ODD, if not intellectually dishonest, that some persons would equate, the “atrocities” done in the name of Christianity, which, happened hundreds if not over 1000 years ago, with the atrocities commited in the name of Allah in today’s world.

The two may be related in the sense that both are atrocities, but that is the end of it. The atrocities commited in the name of Islam today (as in shouting “God is Great” in Arabic as a plane is driven into one of the Twin Towers in Manhattan, killing thousands of innocent people) are SIGNIFICANTLY separated in time from the Crusades and other episodes in the past associated with Christian atrocities. In the interim, Christianity has changed.

Is it a form of self hate that explains someones need to equate the two? Something else? what?

 

[Paralabagne]

I find it at the very least ODD, if not intellectually dishonest, that some persons would equate, the “atrocities” done in the name of Christianity, which, happened hundreds if not over 1000 years ago, with the atrocities commited in the name of Allah in today’s world.

The two may be related in the sense that both are atrocities, but that is the end of it. The atrocities commited in the name of Islam today (as in shouting “God is Great” in Arabic as a plane is driven into one of the Twin Towers in Manhattan, killing thousands of innocent people) are SIGNIFICANTLY separated in time from the Crusades and other episodes in the past associated with Christian atrocities. In the interim, Christianity has changed.

Is it a form of self hate that explains someones need to equate the two? Something else? what?

Am I wrong if I were to state that some of the murderous crusaders were sporting crosses on their swords?

And the inquisition was when? (it was not thousands of years ago)

Furthermore, the Holocaust occurred where…?..and when??? Were these people Middle Eastern Muslims or were they the same people whose last name is similar to the original name of our current Pontiff? ( Also, the same was facilitated by those who were antecedents of what was the Holy Roman Empire!!!)

Please recognize that we are all sinners and are not those who should “cast the first stone.”

 

[MelanieAnne]

Am I wrong if I were to state that some of the murderous crusaders were sporting crosses on their swords?

And the inquisition was when? (it was not thousands of years ago)

Furthermore, the Holocaust occurred where…?..and when??? Were these people Middle Eastern Muslims or were they the same people whose last name is similar to the original name of our current Pontiff? ( Also, the same was facilitated by those who were antecedents of what was the Holy Roman Empire!!!)

Please recognize that we are all sinners and are not those who should “cast the first stone.”

The subject was Christian atrocities on Muslims and vice versa. The Crusades were nearly a thousand years ago.

No one is saying that the Crusades were right. But neither is it accurate to make a moral equivalence between the Crusades of the Middle Ages and the current state of the violence perpetrated by the Islamic Fascists of the world.

Your other examples, for the most part, are not related to Christian v. Muslim tensions so they are not relevant to the topic.

 

[pprimeau1976]

They believe that the Torah and the Gospels are authoritative and inspired by God, but they claim that the texts have become corrupt and thus only the Quran matters.

So how does he know that he is following the right dietary laws?

 

[Paralabagne]

The subject was Christian atrocities on Muslims and vice versa. The Crusades were nearly a thousand years ago.

No one is saying that the Crusades were right. But neither is it accurate to make a moral equivalence between the Crusades of the Middle Ages and the current state of the violence perpetrated by the Islamic Fascists of the world.

Your other examples, for the most part, are not related to Christian v. Muslim tensions so they are not relevant to the topic.

We must recognize that what we only have recently experienced in what is now called 911 a tidbit of the reality that has been the norm for much of the planet, i.e. man’s inhumanity to man.

But regarding your post, I feel that what you are trying to do is to brand Islamic terrorists as the worst terrorists who have ever walked the earth since the first self reflexive human had a chance to meditate on this phenomenon. My contention is that this is just not so and I am quite sure that we are all guilty. (Please recall, the hijackers pulled off their plan with box cutters.)

Finally (for this entry), there is no statute of limitations on murder and cruelty. Some people have incredible memories and actually consider/live/suffer from/resent history and do not simply write off and discard that which they do not understand as simply, “other examples…not relevant…”

But this does not excuse any violence. In the name of Christ, we must stop hating the “other,” “our enemies.”

 

[Hellisreal]

And who can raise the dead?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This is incorrect. They are practicing a doctrine of their religion, and you are failing to beware of wolves is sheeps clothing by taking what is said at face value.

Go back to post 98 for the context - the O.P.'s reasoning leaves us in the same position as Muslims, because neither we, nor the Muslims, can convince the other of the exceptional excellence & validity of the religion professed by either. Result - stalemate. ​

Tell me…how did all those lands in the Middle East go from being Christian to Muslim? Attrocity swapping?

Exactly what is your background on this subject. What buckets of blood are you refering to? What kind of research have done on say the last hundred years of Islam and it’s relations to the rest of the world? Why is the west not crushing this opposition if we are so ruthless and bloodthirsty?

I’m not of talking things we have done to them; but about things we have done to others: an atrocity is an atrocity no matter who commits it, no matter who the “recipient” may be.​

Both Islam & Catholicism have plenty of blood on their hands: no ? Reproaching Muslims with their doings, is not a terribly good idea, for they can always remind us of some our own nastier deeds. What I had in mind, was the massacres undertaken by Lebanese Phalangist militia in (IIRC) 1982 - which is well within living memory. Then again, there are the massacres of Muslims by Croats, in the 1940s, & in the 1990s; again, well within living memory.

Besides, it’s not fair to saddle all Muslims with what some do - if we don’t like it when others do it to us, we cannot do it to others: unless all Muslims are prepared to defend what is done by some only. To blame all Muslims for the terrorist attacks of some, is about as fair-minded as labelling all Irishmen, or all Catholics, as terrorists, merely because some are.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I find it at the very least ODD, if not intellectually dishonest, that some persons would equate, the “atrocities” done in the name of Christianity, which, happened hundreds if not over 1000 years ago, with the atrocities commited in the name of Allah in today’s world.

The two may be related in the sense that both are atrocities, but that is the end of it. The atrocities commited in the name of Islam today (as in shouting “God is Great” in Arabic as a plane is driven into one of the Twin Towers in Manhattan, killing thousands of innocent people) are SIGNIFICANTLY separated in time from the Crusades and other episodes in the past associated with Christian atrocities. In the interim, Christianity has changed.

Is it a form of self hate that explains someones need to equate the two? Something else? what?

The only blood Jesus spilled, was his own. Shouldn’t we hold ourselves to His standards, rather than adopting easier, laxer, less testing ones ?

If Islam is so false - why the complaints against it ? If it so thoroughly bad, it’s a wonder that so many Muslims behave so well. Sometimes Catholics seem to regard everyone else who is not Catholic, as “the enemy” ##

 

[MelanieAnne]

The only blood Jesus spilled, was his own. Shouldn’t we hold ourselves to His standards, rather than adopting easier, laxer, less testing ones ?

If Islam is so false - why the complaints against it ? If it so thoroughly bad, it’s a wonder that so many Muslims behave so well. Sometimes Catholics seem to regard everyone else who is not Catholic, as “the enemy” ##

Well, I’m Catholic and I don’t have any enemies that I know of so I guess your answer isn’t really a reply to what I wrote before even though you quote me.

And I also have no problem with Islam itself. I do have problems with individuals who murder in the name of Islam and seek to impose their beliefs on the entire world.

In addition, I reject the idea that some people have raised that somehow because Richard the Lionhearted fought Saladin centuries ago, that it somehow has evened the score when the Islamists murdered thousands of American on 9/11. To me, that is utterly false.

 

[Onesimus]

Go back to post 98 for the context - the O.P.'s reasoning leaves us in the same position as Muslims, because neither we, nor the Muslims, can convince the other of the exceptional excellence & validity of the religion professed by either. Result - stalemate. ​

So you are claiming that if two don’t agree because one is intransigent and/or intellectually dishonest both sides are equally valid?

Both Islam & Catholicism have plenty of blood on their hands: no ? Reproaching Muslims with their doings, is not a terribly good idea, for they can always remind us of some our own nastier deeds. What I had in mind, was the massacres undertaken by Lebanese Phalangist militia in (IIRC) 1982 - which is well within living memory. Then again, there are the massacres of Muslims by Croats, in the 1940s, & in the 1990s; again, well within living memory.

No, we don’t both have plenty of blood on our hands. You can play the moral equivalence game if you like, and there are plenty of moral castratos who will agree with you, but I’m not one of them. When muslims start screeching about 20 to 25 thousand dead in Hamas at the hands of Assad, I’ll believe their wailing at any losses inflicted by other than muslims is something more than a “tactic.”

Besides, it’s not fair to saddle all Muslims with what some do - if we don’t like it when others do it to us, we cannot do it to others: unless all Muslims are prepared to defend what is done by some only. To blame all Muslims for the terrorist attacks of some, is about as fair-minded as labelling all Irishmen, or all Catholics, as terrorists, merely because some are.

I’m about to drown in your vacuous cliche’s. Show me a Irishman or Catholic whose conquest and subjugation practices are a codified feature of their “worship.”

Show me a muslim whose religious doctrines eschew violence and I’ll show you an apostate muslim.

 

[Onesimus]

The only blood Jesus spilled, was his own. Shouldn’t we hold ourselves to His standards, rather than adopting easier, laxer, less testing ones ?

And turn the entire world over to Islam? Do you think those nations that caused their children to “pass through the fire” had any less compelling rationale than the muslims for doing so?

Would you have the fortitude to condemn their practices without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight?

If Islam is so false - why the complaints against it ? If it so thoroughly bad, it’s a wonder that so many Muslims behave so well.

It’s no wonder. Their religion tells them to restrain themselves until they aquire enough power to institute islam by force.

Where have you been for the last five years? Have you learned anything about Islam that wasn’t spoon fed to you from a television?

 

[BelFarfalla]

Both Islam & Catholicism have plenty of blood on their hands: no ? Reproaching Muslims with their doings, is not a terribly good idea, for they can always remind us of some our own nastier deeds. What I had in mind, was the massacres undertaken by Lebanese Phalangist militia in (IIRC) 1982 - which is well within living memory. Then again, there are the massacres of Muslims by Croats, in the 1940s, & in the 1990s; again, well within living memory.

As do most people, you mention the Lebanese Phalangist militia’s massacre in (IIRC) 1982 and leave the massacre of thousands of Christians at the hands of the PLO who were hiding in those refugee camps?

Here is a link about the Damour massacre, only one of many massacres of Christians at the hands of the PLO and other Muslims BEFORE that attack on the refugee camp. Why is this and the other massacres like this of less importance? Why?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damour_massacre
http://www.liberty05.com/civilwar/civil.html

You also leave out the thing that the Christians of Lebanon were so afraid of…. Loosing control of the government and having to live under Islamic rule once against. After centuries of living in the Islamic system of apartheid and having suffered many genocides, the Christians of Lebanon were ready to fight to prevent this from happening. IN the late 1800’s alone, the Ottoman Empire conducted genocide against the Christians of Lebanon killing about half of them. I’m always sickly amused by the very people who though that the South African Apartheid was so horrible yet the y fault middle eastern non-Muslims for fighting to stay free of Islamic apartheid.

I take on it is that all sides need to put their peoples’ violent histories on the table. We all, on all sides, need to admit what our ancestors and even current people have done wrong. Then admit to it. We will not find any peace in this world as long as only one side does this.

Westerners are generally pretty much upfront about the past and the wrong of much of it. I do not find with Muslims. Most, if not all, Muslims I’ve ever spoken to about it deny the violent past of Islam. And instead propagate a fairytale about how the world was a utopia under Islamic rule.

The history of Islam is at least as bloody as that of Christians. But what I see happening is Muslims using what we admit to try to make us look bad while hiding the truth of their history.

Muslims are always using the US slavery of proof of how horrible Americans are. They apparently do not know that Muslims have enslaved over 300 million people. This is so many times more then the USA ever did that it mind boggling that they try to use this to one-up.

Not sweeping the violence of the past under the rug is hugely important to moving forward. Remember that not knowing the past only ensures that we will repeat it.

Remember that Islamic law leaves only three possible outcomes of war… conversion to Islam, subjugation/humiliation under Islamic apartheid rule or death. No where is Islamic law is there any discussion , law or leeway that allows for making a treaty, for example, with the Christian Lebanese that would give the autonomy or even equality under the law.

If you were face with those choices, what would you do? Would you convert to Islam? Would you agree to live with no rights in your own country?

 

[Paralabagne]

In that very few are willing to debate the meaning of Christ’s message when he said…

“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you…(Matthew 5:44)

27 ‘But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. 30Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:27-31)

…I think we are at a stalemate.

I do not mean to question anyone’s faith. I do mean to ask what Jesus meant and, furthermore, suggest that he was not in favor of war, furthermore, avow this idea, believe this idea and will not be swayed from this truth.

This tit for tat as to who do what with regard to Moslems and Christians, this who attacked first, this who is worse is getting us nowhere. Many feel that Islam is a violent religion because it demands conversion and seeks to bring punishment to infidels in this life. On the other hand, our faith does suggest “eternal damnation” is the consequence for not believing. Is this not also somewhat a cruel consequence for not believing in the “true” faith?

Again, we will get nowhere. (“Peter, put down your sword…”)

 

[Onesimus]

…I think we are at a stalemate.

I do not mean to question anyone’s faith. I do mean to ask what Jesus meant and, furthermore, suggest that he was not in favor of war, furthermore, avow this idea, believe this idea and will not be swayed from this truth.

I think we Christians are all agreed on what Jesus meant. What we do not agree on is that these principles are meant to be extrapolated to the level of statecraft.

“Give to whoever asks” is a wickedness if you are a steward and not the master of what you give.

Jesus also taught some are not fit for pearls, and His disciples would wipe the very dust of some places off their feet as a witness against the residents.

How should we integrate those examples into our theology: pretend they don’t exist?

War is a horrible thing, but Christian men are bound to take care of their families, and history shows turning the other cheek is not a viable defense of those families.

 

[exoflare]

Okay, I haven’t been keeping up with the little side argument that’s been brewing here lately… but, I would still like to know:

Would any Muslim here like to finally address the huge double-standard I mentioned in th OP??

 

[Paralabagne]

I think we Christians are all agreed on what Jesus meant. What we do not agree on is that these principles are meant to be extrapolated to the level of statecraft.

“Give to whoever asks” is a wickedness if you are a steward and not the master of what you give.

Jesus also taught some are not fit for pearls, and His disciples would wipe the very dust of some places off their feet as a witness against the residents.

How should we integrate those examples into our theology: pretend they don’t exist?

War is a horrible thing, but Christian men are bound to take care of their families, and history shows turning the other cheek is not a viable defense of those families.

O.K. So, turn the other cheek when you feel that you should. It is agreed that men need to take care of their families. But I will retort that when the very SON OF GOD was about to be murdered, his statement, an example of which we are advised to emulate, was to “forgive them for they know not what they do.”

In that our philosophies seem to clash, I think we need to leave our morality to our consciences. You can continue to advocate state warfare and can continue to condemn it.

 

[Onesimus]

O.K. So, turn the other cheek when you feel that you should. It is agreed that men need to take care of their families. But I will retort that when the very SON OF GOD was about to be murdered, his statement, an example of which we are advised to emulate, was to “forgive them for they know not what they do.”

And what do you think He would have done if His Mother were about to be murdered?

In that our philosophies seem to clash, I think we need to leave our morality to our consciences. You can continue to advocate state warfare and can continue to condemn it.

Why bother to discuss and debate if you are merely going to withdraw when it doesn’t go the way you want? I, for one, would like to hear a fellow Christian make a rational defense for “turn the other cheek” when there’s a knife to the throat of their children, and someone with a proven history of sawing off heads wielding it.

I am not disagreeing with your citations, but I am pointing out real world circumstances that challenge our understanding of those citations when applied as universal commands.

It is not right for you to enter into a public forum to try to win support for your thinking, then run away when your thinking stops short of addressing practicle questions in the minds of those you sought support from.