Religion of Peace At It Again

[USMC the Almighty]

There's a big difference between saying that you do not support terrorism from behind your computer and actually getting out there and ostracizing them from your religion.

There are, as you proved, some stand-up Muslim individual who are willing to denounce the irreconcilable wing but the religion as a whole is still failing to do anything about it (as evidenced by their continued, growing presence) and that's the problem.

 

[Coyote]

You've got this backwards. In the few instances that an abortion clinic was bombed in the name of "Christianity" you had unquestionable condemnation throughout the entire faith -- top to bottom. The condemnation is not followed by the word "but" like the Islamists do today. It is honest and straightforward: "Our religion will not tolerate extremists".

Islam on the other hand, well the silence is deafening.

No you didn't.

 

[Coyote]

There's a big difference between saying that you do not support terrorism from behind your computer and actually getting out there and ostracizing them from your religion.

There are, as you proved, some stand-up Muslim individual who are willing to denounce the irreconcilable wing but the religion as a whole is still failing to do anything about it (as evidenced by their continued, growing presence) and that's the problem.

There are more then some. And there are many Christian apologists who make excuses for the historical excesses of their own rleligion - ie, they weren't "real Christians". Yet they refuse to apply the same standard to other relgions. Interesting.

Here are more speaking out: http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm.

There was a virtual world wide condemnation from Muslims for the actions of the 9/11 terrorists too - including religious leaders and heads of state. As usual, that is ignored.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

There was a virtual world wide condemnation from Muslims for the actions of the 9/11 terrorists too - including religious leaders and heads of state. As usual, that is ignored.

Perhpas because it was being overshadowed by some 2 million Palestinians celebrating in the streets.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

There are more then some. And there are many Christian apologists who make excuses for the historical excesses of their own rleligion - ie, they weren't "real Christians". Yet they refuse to apply the same standard to other relgions. Interesting.

Because they weren't. These famous "Christian" terrorists almost never went to Church, knew very little about the Bible, the history of Christianity, or the religion on the whole.

Ever notice how when Christians become more and more religious ("born again"), they almost always end up helping people and doing good deeds. Whereas the more religious Muslims grow, the more likely they are to kill innocent civilians. Interesting.

 

[DrWho]

See, this is where I have a problem with Christians...you interpret the Bible in parables.

I interpret it in parables where it says it is a parable. As in your example. In most other instances I interpret it literally except when it needs to be interpreted figuratively. Yes this requires judgement, but what doesn't.

But then you interpret all the Quran literally.

kind of a stereotypical statement from a person who has spent his life being stereotyped by others. There is no statement on this forum where I have interpreted the koran, unless my memory is really going south.

But in all honesty I have seen quotes from the Koran and they have looked pretty damning. For a few days I did judged Islam as a violent religion. I have since seen the light and know that these passages were taken out of context and purposely used to deceive me.

You say: "It is a dangerous thing to blame others for the interpretations you put onto their ideas." I agree. Why don't you apply that to Islam?

I did.

Christians make excuses for the excesses of their religion - but they condemn other religions for those same excesses. Why?

Because they are human. Just as you have condemned Christianity through your humanity.

I think that true Christians and true Muslims look for the spirituality and compassion that is inherent in their religions - but any religion is easy to pervert.

Yep. But it only takes a little tiny bit of honesty to see that the false interpretations are a crock. It is really harder to miss the mark than people make it out to be. It is very easy to mess up an interpretation of a single passage but when one considers the whole context of the bible people almost have to try to get the main points wrong.

 

[Coyote]

I interpret it in parables where it says it is a parable. As in your example. In most other instances I interpret it literally except when it needs to be interpreted figuratively. Yes this requires judgement, but what doesn't.



kind of a stereotypical statement from a person who has spent his life being stereotyped by others. There is no statement on this forum where I have interpreted the koran, unless my memory is really going south.

But in all honesty I have seen quotes from the Koran and they have looked pretty damning. For a few days I did judged Islam as a violent religion. I have since seen the light and know that these passages were taken out of context and purposely used to deceive me.



I did.


Because they are human. Just as you have condemned Christianity through your humanity.


Yep. But it only takes a little tiny bit of honesty to see that the false interpretations are a crock. It is really harder to miss the mark than people make it out to be. It is very easy to mess up an interpretation of a single passage but when one considers the whole context of the bible people almost have to try to get the main points wrong.

Actually - I meant "you" in a generic way, not you specifically...I think, if I understand you right...we might be in agreement here...at least somewhat.

 

[DrWho]

There's a big difference between saying that you do not support terrorism from behind your computer and actually getting out there and ostracizing them from your religion.

The Catholics have a long tradition of ex-communicating people who did not conform to the traditional views they held regarding their religion.

Ex-communication seems to have two sides. On the one hand it is a great way to make those who would commit acts of violence in the name of religion wake up or at least be distanced. A clear statement that their behavior was not endorsed. On the other hand People with different ideas that later turned out to be right-on were turned out too.

Maybe we can all be a little more tolerant of ex-communication now that we understand the positive side of it.

 

[DrWho]

There is plenty of violence advocated in the OT - and like it or not, it is as much a part of Christianity as the NT. The NT itself is not devoid of violence either. Certain Christian sects and individuals have certainly latched onto it as justification for bloodshed.

Well I went to one of those websites where it finds everything bad about the Bible that can be found. They had 125 items that were allegedly violence in the NT. Really the list was just ridiculous. 'Jesus has a group of pigs that were filled with demons run off a cliff.' Excuse me if I just don't find that to be a problem. Out of the 125 I did not find any of them to be problematic. They were nothing more than someone trying to make mountains out of less than molehills.

RE: the OT. That would just be too complicated for us to go into. I don't have a problem with the violence there, someone else might. For me, in the end it just comes down to God has the right to do whatever he wants and it is just.

It's all endorsed by the Bible - it just depends on who does the interpreting and how. That's the problem. Any religion can be perverted.

When I thing of something being endorsed by the Bible I think it has to be more than just some guys interpretation of it to say that it is endorsed. if any reasonable person who understands the passage would see the passage as advocating violence, mano on mano, then I would say that the NT endorses it. But it does not. Seeing the list of 125 helped me to be confident in that statement. The OT does not say anything that a reasonable Christian would use to advocate violence against others either.

 

[Coyote]

Well I went to one of those websites where it finds everything bad about the Bible that can be found. They had 125 items that were allegedly violence in the NT. Really the list was just ridiculous. 'Jesus has a group of pigs that were filled with demons run off a cliff.' Excuse me if I just don't find that to be a problem. Out of the 125 I did not find any of them to be problematic. They were nothing more than someone trying to make mountains out of less than molehills.

And isn't that the same with all those cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes gleaned from the Quran?

The OT does not say anything that a reasonable Christian would use to advocate violence against others either.

A reasonable person - that's just it. Likewise, I doubt that the Quran has anything that a reasonable person would use to advocate violence (as per the statements of many moderate muslim scholars).

The problem is fundamentalism - and whether it is Christian, Muslim, or Jewish it perverts the very religion it claims to stand for because it is usually intolerant, inclusive, and ignorant. It takes it's chosen holybook literally without regard to context, history, translations or the cultures that begat them.

 

[r0beph]

how right you are coyote.... Even Buddhist extremists commit violence. Buddhism is a good example of hyperbole extremism. The problem is many believe the teachings to be absolute and sacred, when in fact the teachings of buddha were meant to promote thought and searching for answers. When they are believed as steadfast "fact" over the many times admitted metaphors they are, stuff like this happens http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194765

The fact remains in this however that the upper buddhist echelon never supported this, and it was carried out by those who were more along the lines of proclaimed christians who never worship/go to church / read the bible etc. Christian by proclimation etc. What makes this a good example is that in all it's core buddhism expressly states this to be THE WRONG WAY TO DO SOMETHING. Anyhow, it's all the same from all religions, mix match the words and they can mean anything to someone who wants to further their own agenda.

 

[DrWho]

And isn't that the same with all those cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes gleaned from the Quran?

Agreed completely.

A reasonable person - that's just it. Likewise, I doubt that the Quran has anything that a reasonable person would use to advocate violence (as per the statements of many moderate muslim scholars).

Probably not, but I am not in a position to say as I have not read the book with any degree of understanding.

The problem is fundamentalism - and whether it is Christian, Muslim, or Jewish it perverts the very religion it claims to stand for because it is usually intolerant, inclusive, and ignorant. It takes it's chosen holybook literally without regard to context, history, translations or the cultures that begat them.

I suspect you have misunderstood fundamentalism and confused it with bigotry. In fundamentalism one embraces the fundamentals of an idea. The fundamentals of the Bible would not be a perversion of it.

In bigotry a person hold onto intolerant ideas strongly either in spite of what their religion says or because it is what their religion says. But you can't know if the religion itself is bigoted just by looking at the person. You need to research the core beliefs/book. Here is where most critics go wrong; they criticize a book (koran or bible) based on their own faulty understanding of it.

 

[Coyote]

I suspect you have misunderstood fundamentalism and confused it with bigotry. In fundamentalism one embraces the fundamentals of an idea. The fundamentals of the Bible would not be a perversion of it.

I go by the dictionary's definition of fundamentalism:

Usually a religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.​

In bigotry a person hold onto intolerant ideas strongly either in spite of what their religion says or because it is what their religion says. But you can't know if the religion itself is bigoted just by looking at the person. You need to research the core beliefs/book. Here is where most critics go wrong; they criticize a book (koran or bible) based on their own faulty understanding of it.

Now that I quite agree with...

 

[OPGhostdog]

My personal thoughts concerning this thread about
religion blaming other religion is non-sesnes, and a
waste of time to debate. Its seems to me that the
blame is been layed on Islam and Muslims.

There is suppose to be a peace of mind in all of
today's society's religious groups. Why blame all
Muslims, Jews, Buddist, and other groups for the
action of their offbeat members?

On here everyone is trying to convince the other
to see things their way, and yet the respect has
been losted. I know where I stand with my spiritual
beliefs, and I don't give a hoot how many of you
try to tell me something different.

I will read what anyone have to say, but that's out
of respect, and that does not mean that I have to
accept what you're saying.

So any religion can be peaceful it all depends on the
individual, and how they review the guidekines and rules
of their beliefs.

 

[9sublime]

I'm going to wade in here and give my opinion on this as I've been away far too long to hop on the debate as if I know where everyone stands.

For all the Christians here, if someone killed another (innocent) person in the name of God, in a barbaric fashion etc. would you condemn his actions? Would you call him a Christian?

So why is it any different when a Muslim does it, why do you attack Islam as a whole and not the fundamentalist himself or the organization he is from?

Because his texts tell him to? Religions evolve, you cant use that argument. Islamic fundamentalists are not part of the same religion as the peaceful Muslims of the world, the religions are totally different. Peaceful Muslims don't associate themselves with this religion, just as a levelheaded Chrisitan wouldn't follow a literal Christian who began slaying everyone who touched a woman during her period or wore clothes of two different fibres.

So when a Muslim follows his violent texts too literally, and decides to become a suicide bomber, don't blame the civilised version of Islam millions of decent people follow, AS THIS THREAD TITLE DOES, because its not fair.

Instead, attack the fundamentalist groups, because attack all the Muslims in the world for what the bad seeds do, is only going to alienate and make the problem worse.