Coyote
Well-Known Member
You got a source for that? Some American-hating quotes perhaps? Anything at all to suggest this isn't hot air expelled from your posterier?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Understanding the Enemy
- Thread starter bewitched
- Start date
You got a source for that? Some American-hating quotes perhaps? Anything at all to suggest this isn't hot air expelled from your posterier?
Werbung:
Coyote
Well-Known Member
There are several Coyotes on the WWW. You are confusing me with Segep.
Ah! And two Coyote Avatars on this group. Apologies
When you quote something, you are quick to point out that you are merely quoting, not the author, no?
If it is a lie, then it would be a simple matter to prove it to be so. If it isn't, then the only thing you can do is more of the above.
Something new isn't necessarily something true, is it? Truth value can only come from the operation of logic - something that your argument is absolutely bereft of.
I'm still waiting for you clowns to respond to the golden rule, apartheid and nazism, btw.
bewitched
Well-Known Member
I answered the golden rule. the Islamic golden rule is to treat brothers as you would yourself. that means only Muslim brothers, because the Quran clearly states that others (non-muslims) are not equal.
I also answered apartheid and nazism. Germany and South Africa are not religious governmental countries.
moving forward is difficult. I know.
so maybe you can comment on:
"Ressentiment is a reassignment of the pain that accompanies a sense of one's own inferiority/failure onto an external scapegoat. The ego creates the illusion of an enemy, a cause that can be "blamed" for one's own inferiority/failure. Thus, one was thwarted not by a failure in oneself, but rather by an external "evil". This issuing of "blame" leads one to desire revenge, or at least believe in the possibility of revenge; this lust for revenge may take many forms, as in the Christian conception of the Last Judgment, or the socialist conception of revolution. In each case, a sense of powerlessness creates the illusion of an enemy; one suddenly conceives oneself to be oppressed rather than merely weak, a phenomenon that spawns externally-directed bitterness (lust for a perceived "revenge").
Ressentiment lies at the heart of much of Nietzschean thought, particularly in regard to Judaism and Christianity. Nietzsche believed that these religions stemmed from a desire to invert the natural order of the world, to establish the prevalence of weakness over strength. Judea's position of weakness in the Roman Empire was itself the origin of ressentiment, of the moral system that elevated pity (the weak) over vitality (the strong). The immense strength of the Roman Empire could not be overwhelmed in a physical sense; Judea's inferiority manifested as hatred for Roman rule. Judaism redefined the strength of the Roman Empire as evil, weak, or depraved, envisioning a wrathful God who would effect a revenge. "Jewish" weakness caused hatred for Roman overlordship, which was thus damned as evil, merely because it dared to be strong."
I suspect you have a point but I cant imagine what it might be.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Christians throughout history have recognized that the a doctrine of war or approach to a holy war is a biblical deduction based upon the interpretation of numerous passages in the Bible (for example: Eccles. 3:1, 8; Matt. 5:44; 24:6-7; Acts 10:1-23; Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Tim. 2:2; 1 Pet. 2:13-17).
Doctrine of Just War and the Making of the First Crusades
As it was the church - and, in particular, the Pope, Urban II - who called the crusade in 1095, let's look first at its role in creating the new idea of a Christian Holy War. Christianity has a strong pacifist streak to it; however in the fourth century AD, it became the state church of the Roman Empire, and Roman Emperors and their generals were not known for turning the other cheek and loving their neighbour. They also faced powerful enemies such as the Persians, who in 260 AD had captured the Emperor Valerian. The Persian king used him as a footstool, until Valerian died, after which the king had him stuffed so that he could continue in the same role. Clearly, if the Roman emperors did not wish to get stuffed in future, the pacifist religion had to be reconciled with the needs of warfare.
In the fifth century St Augustine, one of the great theologians of the early church, formulated the doctrine of Just War. This stated that it was OK for Christians to kill people if they did so in self-defence, with good intentions, and on legitimate authority. In the early middle ages this doctrine was used to justify war against pagan enemies such as Vikings and Magyars, and Muslim Saracens in Spain and Italy. Pope Urban was therefore able to employ this idea for his new venture, the crusade. To us, the crusades seem like a hostile invasion of Muslim lands, but to the church the Holy Land was the birthright of Christendom and indeed, of Christ himself, so regaining it was a just and defensive war.
In the fifth century St Augustine, one of the great theologians of the early church, formulated the doctrine of Just War. This stated that it was OK for Christians to kill people if they did so in self-defence, with good intentions, and on legitimate authority. In the early middle ages this doctrine was used to justify war against pagan enemies such as Vikings and Magyars, and Muslim Saracens in Spain and Italy. Pope Urban was therefore able to employ this idea for his new venture, the crusade. To us, the crusades seem like a hostile invasion of Muslim lands, but to the church the Holy Land was the birthright of Christendom and indeed, of Christ himself, so regaining it was a just and defensive war.
Or, from Preaching the Crusades: Mendicant Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth Century, by Christoph T. Maier
In one seemingly authentic account, derived apparently by Bonaventure from Illuminato, Francis tells the Sultan el-Kamil:
“‘If your eye causes you scandal tear it out and throw it away’. Through
this God wanted to teach us that no fellow human being …could ever
be so dear to us that we would not have to eradicate him if he tried to
keep us away from the faith…. And because of this it is just that that
the Christians invade you and the land you occupy because you
blaspheme the name of Christ”
This was the common biblical argument in support of war. If Muslims hindered the practice and progress of the Christian faith in their own lands this constituted an insult to Christian people and, according to canon law, allowed Christians to wage just war in order to punish the offence.
----------------
The problem with this whole argument against both the Quran and the Bible , is that passages and quotes are taken out of context or other significant passages ignored - deliberately sometimes, through ignorance sometimes in an attempt to distort meaning. The problem is not so much in the phrases themselves but in how they are interpreted by followers or bigots.
I believe you or Bewitched used the following:
"Do not take the Jews and Christians for friends" (Surah 5:51)
but what is the entirety of it?
[5:51] O you who believe, do not take certain Jews and Christians as allies; these are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. GOD does not guide the transgressors.
That rather changes the meaning doesn't it?
Or the following:
"..and fight them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah" (Surah 8:39)
You shall fight them to ward off oppression, and to practice your religion devoted to GOD alone. If they refrain from aggression, then GOD is fully Seer of everything they do. (Surah 8:39)
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" (Surah 8:12)
Recall that your Lord inspired the angels: "I am with you; so support those who believed. I will throw terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved. You may strike them above the necks, and you may strike even every finger." (Surah 8:12)
Well, if the author provided a complete cite it would be a simple matter. Thats like me citing a verse in the bible as :14. It says "jesus is cool, muhammed bad", can you prove it does not?
I can find 4 different haddiths for "Hadith 325", none of them to do with the topic alleged in your Caodai haddith. In fact the ONLY place that hadith appears in the google accessable internet are the Caodai sites. Even if it is an actual haddith, it seems these Vietmaneze Buddhists are the only ones taking any note of it.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
)????? You would have had to of actually posted a verse out of the Bible in order for it to be taken out of context. There is a reason they call it "canon law" as opposed to 'Christian law' or 'Biblical law'. Using biblical law you get dead christian pascivist. Thats why they needed "canon law" to stay alive.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Canon law is to the Bible what the Haditha's are to the Koran.
Werbung:
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Using Biblical law you get to stone lots of people for assorted crimes - so don't say you get a dead passivist.
Depending on how you interpret it...and remember, context is irrelevant...
In Leviticus 25:44-46, the Lord tells the Israelites it's OK to own slaves, provided they are strangers or heathens:
44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
In Exodus 15:3, the Bible tells us the Lord is a man of war and to drive out unbelievers.
"They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee."
Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill anyone who worships a different god or who worships the Lord differently.
Exodus 34:20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law.
So if you can't redeem them, break their necks.
Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
The first commandment ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me.") condemns those who worship any other than the biblical god.
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Thousands of innocent people have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse.
Lots of injunctions to violence on behalf of a pissed off jealous diety. While Christianity is on the whole more passivist then Islam, it's far from innocent and that is evident by it's actions in history justified by doctrine.
