I'm not arguing for or against the Trinity, because I don't really see it as relevant to this discussion. I'm simply pointing out that it is not universally accepted and that the concept is not clearly stated in the Bible. It is only through the compiling of different scriptures that that some interpreted there to be a trinity concept. There was debate about the Trinity before Constantine, but it was not part of official Church doctrine until Constantine declared it as such. For me this is a stretch and depends too tightly on semantics to build the claim for the Trinity in the Bible. This is why it was debated so heavily before Constantine put his "stamp of approval" on it. Because this concept requires the stringing of different passages together to create a greater understanding there is quite a bit of room for people to believe in the Trinity in slightly different ways. For instance to me, the passage "the Word was God" means that the scriptures are the word of God (but I also see the scriptures as being written down by man and translated into different languages by man and thus can not always be taken literally from a semantical standpoint). Wrong, I believe in and was taught that there is one God. God the Father. Christ was his messenger who was sent to save the world. There are so many passages that talk exactly about this and talk about Christ speaking with God and ascending to sit at the right hand of God the Father. We may have different beliefs, about the details, but this is why there are so many different denominations of Christianity. You can not begrudge my understanding of the Bible any more than I can begrudge your understanding. Our understandings come from different upbringings and looking at the Bible differently. None of us have a monopoly on the "one" truth. Where there are conflicts in the Bible different denominations draw a different understanding from those biblical conflicts. Again I have no confusion about my own religion, it is simply that different denominations of the same religion can reasonably see things differently. Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, Methodists, Catholics, Episcopalians, members of the Church of Christ, Quakers, Mennonites, etc. do not interpret and/or understand the Bible in the same way and thus they have they can reasonably have different beliefs about the finner points. Oh speaking of Quakers, you can add Quakers to your list of Christians who do not believe in the Trinity as many Quakers do not believe in it (for Quakers this is a personal decision). Again what is relevant to the discussion of Islam is that it is very clear in the Koran that Mohammad believed and taught that Jews, Christians and Islam believed in the same God and that God had spoken to each group individually and gave each group their own set of scriptures. It is not relevant whether or not Baptists believe that Christians and Muslims worship the same god. To this discussion the only thing that is relevant is what Mohammad taught. Are part of Mohammad's teachings violent? Yes they are, but so are parts of the Torah and Bible (e.g. the book of Revelations). We must keep this in perspective of the time that each of these scriptures were written, which were very violent times. Like early Christians, while he was alive followers of Mohammad were hunted down and killed or persecuted by infidels (those peoples of Arabia who worshiped idols) because Mohammad's teachings were a threat to those powers who ruled the various tribes of Arabia just like early Christians were a threat to the power of Rome. As was pointed out in Gary's article, at least 50% of the world's population believe in either Christianity or Islam. If we can not learn to live together in peace and learn to respect the beliefs of others, there is no hope for our world. Our civilization can only survive and we can only find peace if we learn to live and let live. We can not force those who do not believe what we believe to have tolerance and respect for our beliefs and our way of life unless we first show tolerance and respect for their beliefs and their way of life. Too soon I'm afraid Christians have forgotten the lessons taught to us by the age of enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries.
KLB, you write: Well, that's funny because you were the one who brought it up in the first place. And I quote: This misunderstanding of yours, however is VERY germane to the discussion as correcting it will lead to the truth - that Muslims DO NOT worship the same God of Abraham as you would like everyone in your ignorance of the truth to believe. To further highlight this misrepresentation on your part, you write the following: Some??? Some??? How about 95%??? You know so little of your own faith why not compare it to another which you know even less? Hey, the moon is a balloon. As to your misunderstanding of the Trinity... do you think, that I, a Christian, would not stand up for the One True God? Represented in the Trinity? You are saying, much like, mind you, muslims, that Jesus is a "messenger of God." You are all goofed up no matter WHAT form of true Christianity has different interpretations about whatever. And this does not change one iota despite the 27 Quakers you talk about. Get this straight. Mohammed is, to muslims, a "messenger." A messenger ONLY. He did not heal the sick. Because of him the deaf did not hear, the lame did not walk, the dead did not rise up. He did not have the power to "FORGIVE SINS" let alone those that did not render him the party cheifly offended. You are confused. VERY confused. What is VERY funny, is this next statement of yours. It truly shows your bias. You write: Whew! And look at you, now you've gone and run into an actual Christian. Well, KLB, I beg to differ. And so do most true Christians. Were Islam not so violent, were Islam believers in Christ, we would not have supposed "True followers" running amuck in Iraq cutting their neighbors heads off with steak knives. Finally, to sum up your confusion, you write: Well, if you were a true student of history one thing that would jump out and grab you would be this: you will NEVER avoid a fight by being afraid to fight it. This is the lesson of History. Yours is simply callow at best.
If I were afraid of a fight, I wouldn't try to dispel the ignorance, arrogance, bigotry and utter misrepresentation of Islam by people in this forum and in the real world. I could care less if I change your opinion, but I do think it is very important to counter the anti-Islamic lies that are spread by Christian fundamentalists so that moderates can strive to find real solutions to our world's problems rather than simply allowing the extremists and fundamentalists of Islam, Christianity and Judaism continue to spread their mistrust, which only breeds more violence and cultural clashes. --Edit to add comment-- I just came across a great editorial about the propensity of people to label anyone who criticizes Israeli policy as anti-semitic. It can be read at: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/soumaya_ghannoushi_/2006/12/article.html As the editorial so eloquently puts it, to criticize the actions of a group is not the same thing as hating that group. In fact criticism is a critically important responsibility when one sees one group committing wrongs against another group the consequences of said criticism be damned. Another editorial on this subject was written by M.J. Rosenberg, Director of Policy Analysis for Israel Policy Forum, is a long time Capitol Hill staffer and former editor of AIPAC's (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Near East Report. His editorial can be read at: http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=18801
All you have to do is prove that the Koran not only does not support terrorism, but actively speaks against it. Key concepts you need to find: Loving your neighbor. All people are equal in the eyes of God.
Here's another great rebuttal by Silas. In this one, if you've been following the deceit of KLB through the thread, it's as if Silas is actually addressing KLB when he reubuts another wackademic who knows virtually nothing about islam, but is convinced he can actually debate the topic. Silas notes: The parallels of KLB's attempted deceit and complete lack of knowledge on the subject is so strikingly similar in this rebuttal, it makes you wonder if they are not one in the same.
KLB - another rabbit trail. Let's stay focused. What part of your response would you like me to respond to specifically?
I was referring to GTech's personal attacks on me trying to claim or infer that I was anti-semitic (or in his words an Israel hater) for criticizing Israeli policy. These are in fact an important part of this discussion because really a large part of the anger and violence in the Middle East stems back to the U.S. uneven handling of the Israeli - Palestinian issue. Although there are admittedly other extremists groups who could give a rats ass about the Palestinians and are simply looking for an excuse to justify their violence.
My Muslim friend just emailed another article that he felt to be relevant to dispelling the myths that certain "Christian" groups are determined to spread about Islam. The article can be found at: http://www.whyislam.org/877/Services/Literature/22.asp This article is published by the ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America) and thus is written from a Muslim prospective, and is insightful what Muslims really believe. Now the past modus operandi of certain individuals in this forum and Christian fundamentalists in general is to instantly claim such things like this that they do not agree with to be lies, distortions and misinformed. But this is what is claimed every time anything is posted in this forum that is counter to these individuals' beliefs even when the topic is political and not religious and I've know plenty of Christian fundamentalists who try to claim that Catholics are not Christian and instead worship idols. I've also had Baptists and other fundamentalists try to convert me because I wasn't "saved" as I didn't believe in the same denomination as they did. I'm sorry I don't put much stock in such intolerant views. No one has a monopoly on the truth. Personally I tend to think a Muslim probably has a better understanding of their own religion than any non-Muslim, unless maybe it is a non-Muslim that has spent a lifetime studying the Koran and Islam (e.g. maybe an Islamic scholar at the Vatican or in a prestigious university). I'll quote just one section of the article for those who care not to read the whole thing (but the whole thing should really be read): I suspect there are some other good writings on this site, not that I intend to or suggest that people convert to Islam, just that it is important to understand what people believe about their own religion (because what they believe is how it will be practiced). --EDIT additional thoughts--- Rather than bumping this thread I'll add some research of my own to this post. I did a Google search for "De Lacy O'Leary Islam" and once I filtered out Amazon.com via the operator -site:amazon.com I came across another article from the Islamic perspective it is published on the online news website called "Daily Muslims: The Voice of Muslim Americans" the article is: Was Islam Spread By The Sword? I will quote a few important passages from the article: The simple fact of the matter is that Islam took hold and spread throughout Arabia and then rest of the world because it taught peace and brought hope to the masses (like any great religion). All of the great religions are peaceful because if they weren't they would not attract new followers and would have died out before they had the chance to become a great religion. Now there are extremist elements in all religions, but if society stays focused on the extremists, those elements can be isolated and dealt with.
You used the term "Generally". And I agreed with your statement that "Generally" Christian extremists are peaceful. I was using the contrast of the two terms as a transition to introduce my next paragraph, and to bring up another issue in this broad discussion. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0DE3DC1231F930A25752C0A96F958260 This article states I looked for others citing statistics, or specific attacks, but searching for “abortionâ€, “worker†and “killed†tends to mostly bring up articles about how “Abortion workers killed my baby!†Now, I’m not saying that this is anywhere close to the number of people killed by terrorists who call themselves Islamic (whether they are Islamic or not is not something I’m going to debate, but they call, themselves Islamic).
Okay, just to be clear, I am saying that the minority are those actually committing the violence. Still, these proportions are far larger than I have seen quoted in the past. I don't suppose you'd have the links to the articles you were referencing?
I would also like to state for the record that I would also prefer that Iran not gain nuclear arms, nor north Korea. North Korea, however, is easier to justify intervention with on behalf of the UN, as they signed the nuclear proliferation treaty. It is my understanding (which may well be wrong) that Iran was not even invited to sign it back when negotiations were going on.
KBL I know you said that your view on all of this and your information comes from years of research and watching news programs, but do you happen to have any links to articles about the cluster bombs, or the earlier shows of lack of restraint? Also, question for anyone it was my understanding that Palestine existed by mandate of the British government. Were they a part of the United Kingdom, or their own nation, or is this a mistaken understanding?
Josh, thanks for the queries on NYT. Google news can't go back that far, but that was actually part of my point. As your source inadvertantly points out, there simply is no comparison at all. On the articles you requested, yes, I can go back through my sources. First, let me ask though...would they make a difference? I've posted them numerous times here, so they would be easy to find if you did a search here. If you can't find them here, let me know and I'll repost them again.
Gtech: Actually, yes, it would make a difference. Sometimes when you paste a link it's to one of your own posts in the forum, which links to several different articles, not all of which are pertenent, or the link you post is rather vague on what it is linking too. For example "educate yourself", or "What about these lies" as the link text. As I am posting on this forum for work, as much as I love to educate myself, I can't follow every link. If, however, your link also comes with a brief summary of (or a quote from) the article, which you often do as well, and it is an article I am interested in reading or discussing, I will often follow that link for more information. This thread is currently 13 pages long, and by this point likely has at least 100 links, some of which link to other posts in other threads. As much as I'd love to hunt up those links... I can't really justify the time to my boss. If you know the location or post number that contains one of those links you could find said link again quickly. If you do not care to take the time, though, I cannot blame you.
This and your entire whitewash post is the funniest things I've read in a long time! That islam was spread via the sword, has long been recorded in history and even islamic history. Yet KLB wants to rewrite islam's own history. http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv2.html This was also covered in the rebuttal to KLB's discredited "Gary Leupp" that he alleges he actually talked with. It's also covered in books, such as the excellent book by Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, seemingly written for islamic apologists and revisionists like KLB. It's a good read and recommended reading for anyone who is interested in the truth (and not covering it up).
Links to documentation of the use of cluster bombs in Southern Lebanon by Israeli forces in 2006: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/24/isrlpa13798.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,1854714,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5213026.stm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/25/AR2006082500209.html http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2355677 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/789876.html Founding of the State of Israel and borders defined in 1948 by UN resolution 181: http://www.mideastweb.org/181.htm http://www.mideastweb.org/misrael.htm http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/unres181.htm During the 1967 Six Day War Israel occupied Palestinian territory and never returned that land to the Palestinians. Over subsequent decades occupied territories were opened up to Jewish settlements by Israel. It should be noted that since there is not an official State of Palestine and that since Palestinian lands are not part of any recognized country that Palestinians living in these territories are a people without a country and are generally considered not to be citizens of any country. Palestinians and Arabs (e.g. Muslims) who live in Israel on the other hand are Israelis and have full Israeli citizenship, can vote and do get elected to and serve on the Knesset. The two earlier editorials I linked to about criticizing Israel touch on this.
Yes, this is because I have discussed the same content in the past and most often those posts contain the commentary, along with the actual links you noted were important. In addition to the massive bookmarks I maintain to counter islamic apologists and revisionists, I also maintain some links to posts I've made here that have additional information. One quarter of British muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified. One in ten muslims support jihad - this one was introduced earlier in this thread. It was originally a Yahoo! News story, but yahoo flushes their news stories after a few months. Al Jazeera Arabic Poll: 49.9% Support Osama Bin Laden - al jazeera removed this poll from their web site. Can't imagine why.