Old testament (now I am sounding like the broken record) has stories of specific people at a specific time. That is where the battles are- very specific, not a general for all. Easily seen throughout about Israel, Jews, Hebrews, destoying whole villages as commanded by God. Other parts are for all people at all times, never does it say to hate gay people though, maybe you should read those passages instead of taking and painting Christians with the 'god hates fags' idiot brush. I doubt you will understand or remember this, you haven't the last few times...
Okay we talk about whether something is in context or out of context and reading a single passage by itself without reading the rest of a book is taking the passage out of context. In the case of GTech, he has chosen to quote a few passages of the Koran without seeing or reporting how they fit into the book as a whole. This is by definition taking those phrases out of context. A few other verses in the Koran that contradict GTech's selected phrases and are important to also understand when trying to put things in a greater context of the full message being taught by the Koran are: This is pretty clear in saying that killing non-Muslims (especially Jews) is not acceptable. It does mention a theme we also see in the Bible, which is an eye for an eye. This is very clear in saying that hatred is the wrong path and one must help others with goodness. Remember that both Christianity and Islam sprang forth from Judaism and thus all three religions worship the God of Abram. Again different languages use different words for god. An interesting article that I was pointed to on this subject is: http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/mainarticle.html In coming days and weeks I plan on posting more passages and scholarly writings as people I have written to on this issue have time to reply. ====== A very interesting part of this whole terrorism thing is that much the "religious" conflict we see today is really mislabeled. It isn't a conflict between religions, it is a conflict between cultures caused in large part by hundreds of years of European colonialism of other parts of the world. First it was European empires (British, French, Dutch, etc) brutally exploiting their colonies in Africa, South East Asia and the Indian sub-continent over a period of hundreds of years (something Americans should be able to emphasize with). Then it was the way European powers divvied up the remains of the Ottoman Empire after World War One and installed puppet monarchies that facilitated the exploitation of Middle Eastern oil while brutally oppressing their own people. Was this oppression really Christianity trying to oppress and destroy Islam or was it greedy and powerful nations trying to increase their own wealth at the expense of weaker "backward" countries? It was probably the latter, but it is also easily mistaken for the former. Now what we see today is desperately poor and oppressed peoples looking for a reason for their plight and fanatical factions who are all to eager to exploit this desperation to further their agenda of intolerance and hatred to build power for themselves. Rather than looking for the real cause of the violence and historic oppression all sides are all to eager to paint this as a religion against religion strife as this makes it easier to whip up the passions of the "faithful". Telling the under educated masses that they are under attack because of their religion makes it becomes all too easy to convince the faithful to stand aside while those of the "other" religion are attacked, persecuted, oppressed or rights denied. The plain and simple fact is that thanks to hundreds of years of Western imperialism, and exploitation via colonies and brutal puppet governments (e.g. the Shaw of Iran) we now have a big fucking mess that is extremely volatile and there are plenty of violent extremists who are more than willing to twist a religion (any religion) to further their agendas. Islam is not a violent religion, but there are violent people more than happy to twist and pervert the religion for their evil ends. Rather than feeding stereotypes and furthering this false struggle between religions, moderates from all the religions need to work together to fight against extremists and help build up the Middle East in a peaceful and constructive fashion. Part of this is showing a little more tolerance for those with different beliefs from our own and ceasing from the efforts to demonizing the religions of others. There are over 1.3 billion Muslims in the world and Islam is reportedly the worlds fastest growing religion with many of its new members coming from those who willingly convert to Islam (rather than simply a function of a high birth rate). If Islam were really as violent and and intolerant as GTech and others make it out to be then there would be a heck of a lot more violence in the world and this violence would be unstoppable. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of Muslims are very peaceful and it is only the tiniest fanatical factions that are bent on violence. In fact, a huge percentage of the terrorist acts we have seen in the past decade all lead back to the influence of one person, whom incredibly seems to be able to avoid capture after all of these years. Furthermore Humans may have violent tenancies on civilizational levels (e.g. governments), but on the individual level the vast majority of people are looking for peace and prosperity for their families and spiritual enrichment for themselves. If Islam were as violent as some try to make it appear, than this violent nature would be driving people away from it, not attracting people to Islam in such vast numbers. Maybe what this whole scare mongering against Islam really boils down to is that some people are very comfortable living in a society that is completely dominated by their own religion and are scared to have to live in religiously diverse society where Christianity is simply one religion among many.
This is EXACTLY my point in quoting Old Testament passages. By taking passages out of the context of the larger Bible one can easily misconstrue what those passages are saying. What GTech and others who try to spread fear about Islam are doing is no different than what I have done. They take small passages out of the Koran and thus removing them from the greater context of the Koran. How can anyone know that what is being claimed that those passages are saying is true? How do we know that they aren't part of a larger story that are talking to a specific people at a specific time about a specific issue? We can't know this without reading the entire book, thus those passages are taken out of context with the explicit understanding that those who would read those passages will only read those passages and not take the time to read the whole book to fully grasp what the WHOLE book is saying. Thank you for proving my point about how the context of the greater story is vitally important to understand what short passages like GTech has quoted really are saying and to whom and under what circumstances.
What is Kitman? http://www.6thcolumnagainstjihad.com/PORTIA_P1.htm Some dhimmis are not even aware they are guilty of such, or that a term for their actions has long existed. It's amazing how many kitman strategies line directly up with klb's posts. Now you know what to call it Be sure to ask about al-taqiyya as well.
There is a dynamic difference in the Bible and the Koran which simply cannot be discounted. And is precisely that which "moral equivalent-ists" refuse to acknowledge. First off, the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old. Islamists are very familiar with this concept in their Theory of Abrogation, in which the contradictory statements of their messenger, Mohammed, are boiled down to what exactly he said last. What he said last supercedes what he said previously... this is how they reconcile so many violent contradictions. The New Testament, however, is considered by Christians to be the fulfillment of the promise of the Old in Christ Here's where it gets interesting. Mohammed's declarations, such as are found to be intolerant of other faiths came after the more passive ones. Guess which ones the Islamists promote? The Bible can be said to promote the exact opposite path in the New Testament. With Christ comes the promise of Peace for all Mankind. Therefore, when the muslim kills jews and Christians he does so in accordance with his very faith. When the Christian kills, (such as is so often overused [ad nauseum]as an example "the American Indian") he does so in contradiction of his very faith.
That being said, how'd I get pulled into this conversation from the topic? Again, no, I do not believe he should be forced to swear on the Bible.
Ah that group of (dare I say it) wacko Christians from Kansas that has been going around the country protesting the funerals of soldiers claiming that they were killed as Gods punishment for our government protecting gays. That is a great example of Christian extremists distorting the Bible just like a small sect of extremists are distorting to Koran to justify violence.
I think there was more to them than that...I forgot the story. Apparently they think America is deserving of death...beyond the whole gay issue. The tards were at soldiers funerals with horrendous signs. Yeah, but I agree, they're not a very good semblance of Christianity, like Osama isn't a good semblance of the average muslim. Christianity is weird, though; it was fairly dormant or small for a long-time. All the negatives that came out of it...well, they came from state-adoption, and organized associations. JMO. If one takes the faith of Jesus without adopting all the other 'man-made' dogmas of the times, it's extremely peaceful and 'good'....it's really even hard to grasp most people as followers of Christ...as his standard of life are so much higher than most other. I usually hear a lot of people denounce Christians, but I rarely ever hear people speak badly about Christs words. *shrug*
I'd personally like to kick their asses. A good observation, though I'm quite sure it was not intentional; islamic extremists kill and blow shit up. Christian extremists generally just piss people off, in a peaceful manner. Some would try to draw a moral equivalence between the two to justify the scriptures of the quran that directly call for the deaths of non-believers. Always trying to the issue under the carpet of "political correctness."
Really this is true about any religion that gets a bad rap. Really it is the extremists of a religion that taint all members of a religion. The best thing members of any religion can do is to work on cleaning up their own religion and work to reform the extreme fringe of their own religion before pointing a finger at other religions (lets go back to that scripture about casting the first stone).
We won't agree on much, and while I don't agree with physical violence against others, I think our outrage about what that group is doing is very much the same. Those people make me sick. What they are doing at funerals is nothing short of evil. They are spreading hatred in the most repugnant way possible. To me what they are doing is the antithesis of what being a good Christian is. We don't need to accept the ways of others and we have to become best friends with those who's beliefs we disagree with, but we do need to treat others with respect. There is no way to truly prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the ways of any religion such that everyone would agree. We can, however, judge (not necessarily in a biblical sense of the word Judge) the way individuals of a religion conduct themselves. Our country was founded on the principles of religious freedom and as long as individuals should be allowed to practice ANY religion they like and worship anything they like. They just have to respect the laws of our land which precludes conducting any acts of murder. If the politician in question or any one else wants to practice Islam or any other religion, I will respect their rights to do so and I will not discriminate against them because of their religious beliefs. I will even welcome their right to express their religion via their forms of dress, etc. If, however, they violate the laws of our land even if they claim it as an expression of their religious beliefs, I will expect them to be held accountable to our laws (unless the said law is found to be unconstitutional). For instance the Mormon religion was forced to abandon polygamy because of laws against polygamy and while Islam allows a man to take up to four wives, I would expect a Muslim to respect this law as well if they want to live in our country. The taking the oath of office on a religious text it is by definition the expression of a religious belief and as such the scriptures being used can not proscribed or limited without violating the Constitution unless the use of all religious texts was banned for the taking of an oath for public office or legal proceeding (which I wouldn't be against). Either all religious texts are allowed or all are banned, there can not be a selective favored list. While people have the right to protest against it they should not protest nor should it be prohibited to take an oath on a Koran for as long as it is allowed to take the same oath on any other religious text. To protest one expressing their religious beliefs by way of the text they use to take an oath is to say that one does not fully respect our Constitution and the founding principles of this great country. To accept one taking an oath while holding a religious text we may disagree with or find offensive is to affirm that we believe that the principles that this country was founded on are so strong that an individual's religious beliefs are of no threat or consequence to the strength of our nation and the ideals of our Constitution.
If you were to ask me personally: Do you find Jesus and Mohammed to be of the same 'moral righteousness'? I'd say, no; from what I know of Jesus (which is fairly limited to a handful of evidence and the gospel) vs Mohammed whom actually lived in a well-recorded period of time.....Jesus seemed like a better man. Mohammed had a bit too much violence durning in his lifetime...for my taste. But that's just my opinion. Personally, I would have love to talk to both....just to get their true vibe. Is that political correct?...I don't know. I just don't like the idea of judging someone purely on the idea that they worship a certain religion. If they hold no particular ill-will towards others (in general) or I, then I figure there's really nothing for me to concern over. Am I going to invite boatloads of middle-eastern people over w/little discretion....probably not....but the lines of reason and insanity are thin.
Actually I couldn't care less what the guy swears on. The whole thing is all goofed up to begin with. Doesn't anyone actually read the Bible? Jam 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. Let him rub Bhudda's belly for all I care. It simply doesn't make any sense neither from a logical nor spiritual perspective. It's all just spectacle.
Yes, we can both agree on this. And while I'm not one that goes about solving problems with violence, nor do I condone it, I believe if I were to encounter these nutjobs, I'd probably toss that out the window. I'd have no problem spending a night or two in jail to deck a few trying to disgrace a soldier's funeral. I can appreciate your view on the other issue KLB, and despite our heated differences and exchanges here, see where it is derived from. I do take issue. And really, there is no way around that. I believe my reasoning is as valid as you believe your reasoning that I shouldn't feel such is. To that end, we are never going to convince each other, otherwise. We can agree to disagree and I'll work on "toning things down" a bit. Is that a reasonable compromise to what could otherwise be an ongoing fued? I don't get the feeling that you are one to give up on a fight easily. You demonstrated that. Nor am I. But I'm always willing to find some middle ground so we can move forward.
I think Christ's words are spirtual on individual level. They're something you can't really accept because others believe in it....you have to want to do it. That's why I tend to sway from organized anything. Organization require goals, and not all goals are physical...especially those that are religious or spirtual.
Hey now there is a plan! Who could argue against Buddhism being a peaceful religion? I say we pass a constitutional amendment requiring all elected officials to rub the belly of a Buddha after taking their oath of office. --NOTE-- Less someone takes me seriously, I was just joking about the Buddha belly rubbing requirement.