|
Post by Ed on Apr 27, 2004 21:09:43 GMT -5
"...Just look instead at the cultural fruit of this growing religion. Where else in the modern world, for all its other violent wickedness, do you find such frequent expressions of religiously motivated outbursts that result in widespread destruction of human life? Nor is such murder restricted to the enemies of Islam. Where else in the modern world do you find dictators turning on their own people, or mobs of one subset of Islamic people turning on another subset? It must be hard enough for Mr. Bush and his team, as it is for the rest of us, to figure out the difference between the Sunnis and the Shiites. But when one Shiite leader then assassinates another Shiite leader, it's enough to prompt any of us to throw up our arms as journalist Thomas Friedman did a few days ago in The New York Times: "I'm fed up with the Middle East, or more accurately, I'm fed up with the stalemate in the Middle East. All it has produced is death, destruction, and endless 'he hit me first' debates on cable television." With Hamas, the Palestinian group that repeatedly takes credit for suicide bombings in Israel, there's not even any effort to resort to the question of who started the squabble. For them, it's a moral obligation to destroy Israel, but a moral outrage for Israel to respond. The poor Palestinians deserve better than that. The homeless and the unemployed among them need to hear something other than gunfire and bombs; they deserve at least to hear the semblance of a sane and logical argument on their behalf. Comparing the Middle East in 2004 to Vietnam a generation ago is superficial, wrongheadedly pessimistic, and propagandistic. Having said that, any Middle East crisis always includes one incendiary element only minimally present in Vietnam—the volatile religious commitments and conflicts that extend all the way back to Ishmael and Isaac. ..." www.worldmag.com
|
|
hinds
Junior Member
Posts: 142
|
Post by hinds on May 3, 2004 14:19:56 GMT -5
Not all who follow a Muslim Religion are violent. Don't heep them all together.
There are different sects just as there are sects in Christianity, and other "religions" or "ways".
I know some Muslims who are most peaceful. I know some Christians who are not.
Every man to his own beliefs - Got knows who belongs to Him.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on May 3, 2004 18:51:37 GMT -5
True, there are some backsliders. But my post was about the religion of Islam and nowhere did I state that all muslims are bad.
thanks, Ed
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 4, 2004 4:34:56 GMT -5
The muslim religion is one thing - the Assassins is another (see nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Ludlow/Texts/assassin.htmlThe christian religion is one thing - the Crusades and the Inquisition is another. However both religions lead to the respective bloodbaths because they are the root of «dogmatic dependencies» for some people who develop psychoses. The problem always is the fear of death and how we become (or not) accustomed to it.
|
|
|
Post by botany on May 4, 2004 12:58:27 GMT -5
True, there are some backsliders. But my post was about the religion of Islam and nowhere did I state that all muslims are bad. thanks, Ed Person 1: "Do you believe in God?" Person 2: "No." Person 1: Pulls out a gun and shoots Person 2 for not believing in God.
Person 1 turns to Person 3.Person 1: "Do you believe in God?" Person 3: "Yes." Person 1: "Do you believe in my God?" Person 3: "No." Person 1: Pulls the gun back out and shoots Person 3 for not believing the the correct God.Sooo... it seems that Judaeism, Christianity, Islam are all guilty of the above scenario. Which is better? Hmmmm.... tough one, folks. They've all got blood on their hands. Just depends on when in history they got the blood on their hands, and how the religion has evolved (as a human organization). andy
|
|
|
Post by Ed on May 4, 2004 18:00:17 GMT -5
There are all kinds of people, I noticed you left out atheists, who will kill for what they believe to be true.
Person 1: "Do you believe in God?" Person 2: "Yes." Person 1: Pulls out a gun and shoots Person 2 for believing in God.
The abuse of a religion does not prove the religion to be untrue. In the case of Islam, it is not an abuse of the religion to kill someone.
Ed
|
|
|
Post by botany on May 4, 2004 19:18:45 GMT -5
There are all kinds of people, I noticed you left out atheists, who will kill for what they believe to be true. Person 1: "Do you believe in God?" Person 2: "Yes." Person 1: Pulls out a gun and shoots Person 2 for believing in God. The abuse of a religion does not prove the religion to be untrue. In the case of Islam, it is not an abuse of the religion to kill someone. Ed Maybe I'm just not clued in to what is really going on, but the only atheists I've heard of killing someone else for believing in god are perhaps the communists of USSR, China, etc. Maybe the communists killed just for the heck of it?? I dunno. But the point is that religion is a major, major driving force for killing, whether Jew, Christian, or Muslim. Just curious, can you point me to an article or something that states where an atheist killed someone for believing in god? It is wrong to point to Islam as the culprit without acknowledging the history of your own religion. Are you willing to acknowledge the bloody history of Christianity? And Christianity's roots, Judaeism? andy
|
|
|
Post by Ed on May 7, 2004 17:56:32 GMT -5
Dude, have you never heard of Columbine High School? Rachel Scott? www.racheljoyscott.com/Communism most likely killed (and is killing) some people just for the heck of it. However, its pretty well known that they are an atheist entity, and that they especially single out believers (those big-bad Christians) for persecution, imprisonment and death. And my point is that atheism has also been a major, major driving force for killing, whether Jew, Christian, or Muslim. It is also wrong to point to Christianity as the culprit without acknowledging the history of your own religion - atheism. Yes, there have been some bad apples. Yet the contributions of both Judaism and Christianity have made civilization possible. What contributions have atheism, buddhism, islam, etc. made? Ed
|
|
|
Post by botany on May 7, 2004 19:45:20 GMT -5
Are you sure the Columbine massacre was because of the two being atheists? Was that the driving force? Or was it perhaps one of the many driving forces? From history1900s.about.com/ : "Klebold and Harris were angry teenagers. They were not only angry at athletes that made fun of them, or Christians, or blacks, as some people have reported; they basically hated everyone except for a handful of people." The killing was not based only on the fact that the two kids were atheists and out to kill people who believed in god, as you would have us believe. You have a point. My bad for trying to suggest that atheists were exempt from the bloodlust. So, you're saying that civilization could not have occured if it weren't for Judaism and Christianity? What about East Asis and the Americas? Somehow they seemed to have civilized without Christianity. What did Islam contribute? Algebra, for one!! Well, I don't know if Islam itself did that, but algebra is from the Arab-Islam world. Almost lost during the Cruisades, if not for the monks that went along with the knights to save the junks that the knights had fun burning. Buddhism? Art, architecture, the idea of being more kind, loving, and tolerant. Here's a site telling a bit about Buddhism contributions: www.triplegem.plus.com/rdbudart.htm. Gunpowder came from China, in the absence of Christianity. andy
|
|
|
Post by Ed on May 8, 2004 11:05:50 GMT -5
Hi Andy I'm sure it was one of many. My wife and I got to hear Rachel's father speak in our hometown. He told us that Rachel was killed after she answered "yes" to the question of her belief in God. I didn't mean to suggest that the killers only hated Christians. But who can say whether Rachel's life would have been spared if she would have answered "no"? I don't think I'm quite that presumptuous, but certainly no other group has contributed as much. 30% of Nobel Prize winners have been Jewish. What would happen to "civilization" if American business and foreign aid were taken away? The last major bastion of atheism (China) might have fallen already (or at least would be in much worse condition) if not for American exports and investment. The African country of Uganda, which has embraced Christianity, has been the one to most sharply contain the AIDS epidemic. regards, Ed
|
|
|
Post by botany on May 8, 2004 12:58:47 GMT -5
I don't think the killers cared whether or not Rachel believed in god. They hated just about everybody, so it wouldn't have mattered. If Rachel would have answered "no", I'm sure the killers would have easily found some other [apparent] reason to kill her. The amount of nobel winners and such does not necessarily have anything to do with a specific religion. And as far as contributions to the world, certainly Jews and Christians have contributed more in terms of technology. Not just present, but past, too. But, that has to do with when certain societies became agrarian societies. The earlier ones to become agrarian became "developed" societies much sooner. The timing of when different societies became agrarian vary greatly around different parts of the world. So, perhaps later societies didn't contribute as much technologically, but they didn't exactly have the chance. Just like our children won't have the chance to invent the computer, because it's already invented. Perhaps they can improve, but it's already there. Since the Middle East was the first area to become agrarian, they had a head start on technological contributions. It has nothing to do with a certain religion. Does the China/America relationship have anything to do with being Atheist/Christian? It's a political situation. Sorry, but your atheist China example just fell through. The U.S. is an economic, political, as well as military, superpower, and hardly a religious superpower. The U.S. can affect other countries' economies so much because we have the power to do so economically, politically, and militarily. Is the AIDS epidemic contained because of Christianity, or because of better education and improved medical treatment? andy
|
|
|
Post by Ed on May 8, 2004 15:32:11 GMT -5
So "just about everybody" would have included someone answering "no" to their question? Sorry, but you have no proof of this - its just your oppinion. Which part of my statement "30% of Nobel Prize winners have been Jewish" did you misunderstand? There would be no Jewish people if not for their religion. Ok, and what helped these societies to become agrarian? Sorry, but my atheist China example didn't just fall through. Read slowly now....China is communist, communist countries are anti-Christian. There are many Christians in Chinese prisons right now, just for being active Christians. I don't know any Taoists/Buddhists who are in Chinese prisons for practicing Taoism/Buddhism. Now do you see the connection between atheism and China? Moving on, is America a Christian nation? Sometimes it doesnt seem like it but; 1. Muslims and many others certainly think so. 2. 40% of Americans attend a Christian church, far surpassing any other faith. 3. It was certainly founded on the Bible (the most referenced document of our constitution). They kind of go together don't they? ;D Actually, I think it would be worthwhile for you to research that yourself. And keep an open mind Andy. your friend, Ed
|
|
|
Post by botany on May 8, 2004 19:53:36 GMT -5
I'm sorry, let me rephrase my statement. Being a part of a particular religion does not mean that one is more likely to be awarded the Nobel Prize. Probably the same thing that helped other societies become agrarian. I never said China wasn't atheist. What I said was that the current relationship between China and the U.S. is political/economical. Sure, some people may want to make a religious issue out of it too, but if China imprisons U.S. citizens (that happen to be Christian), does the U.S. say, "Hey, don't imprison our Christian citizens!"? I don't think that the U.S. cares about China's (governmental) religious preference. Perhaps because the bible was the most widely printed and distributed book regarding values at that time? So of course the bible would be the most reference document if there weren't many other books in print and distributed. And perhaps the church had more influence at that time than it does now? Certainly other religions also have good morals and values, not just the "bible" religions. Education and improved medical treatment? Sure. Christianity, education, and improved medical treatment? Maybe, because it's the missionaries "spreadin' the word" and also offering education and medicines to make their efforts look better. I'm not saying that it's bad to educate and provide better medicine - that part is great. But I kinda doubt that the AIDS containment is strictly because of the spread of Christianity and nothing else. Certainly, Christianity does hold some good values and morals. But Christianity is not the only thing that has morals and good values. Having an open mind has led me to where I am today. I am more accepting of people than I ever was while going to meeting. I am nicer to people, less judgemental of everybody, and I don't jump to conclusions nearly as much as I used to. (I admit, that has been a problem of mine that I'm trying to fix.) I try to give things a chance. However, when I see people trying to negatively label a religion as one way or another while trying to portray their own religion as the best, I have a problem tolerating that. I don't agree with all of Islam. Nor Judaism. Nor Christianity. Unfortunately I don't know much about Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions, but I'm sure there are parts I don't agree with either. I wish I did know more, and hopefully some day I will. But, I will not come along and outright say that Christianity is evil because of the Cruisades (it was the Church's policy of that day to rid the world of the Muslims). I will not condemn Jews because of their refusal to accept Jesus as their savior. I won't condemn Muslims because some Muslims have participated in terrorism. I won't take the "Jihad" concept out of context and say that they are out to kill everybody that isn't Muslim. Muhammed said to accept Christians and Jews as the "peaceful brother religions" because of their shared roots in Abraham. They were willing to let the Christians and Jews live with them peacefully. If the Jews/Christians didn't want to live peacefully, then there was fighting. But, the Musims of today are not ones go out and kill the Americans because "Americans are Christian." No, it is more a cultural issue hiding under the pretense of religion. I believe that most Muslims around the world will not and do not condone the beliefs of the Muslim terrorists to kill the Americans and other "Christians." The issues I've heard regarding the Muslim terrorists are not strictly about religion. It is more about the "Western Culture" than religion. I'm sure religion might come in as one of the issues. If Christians were to take parts of the bible literally, they'd be carrying swords. What are swords for? Killing. Why would Jesus tell his desciples to carry swords? Perhaps it is a translation error in 1611. I dunno, without knowing ancient greek and reading original texts. Well, there I go on and on... rambling. andy
|
|
|
Post by Ed on May 9, 2004 21:21:14 GMT -5
Hi Andy, Yet, the fact is that being a Jewish chemist, accountant, etc. is one of the strongest common denominators for winning. ditto Its ok to doubt, as long as you are willing to look for an answer. Other African countries have also had education and medicine, but still have a major AIDS problem. Again, it would be worth your while to check it out yourself. I'm sorry I came across as so simple minded Andy. I am not condemning the Muslim religion as evil because of 9/11. I do find it interesting that not one Muslim leader, to my knowledge, has publically condemned the attack. Don't you? I am willing to declare Jesus Christ as the only Savior (based on his own words); and it is up to him, and not I, who he saves. Jesus also told them to wear sandals. Swords, sandals, etc were appropriate and practical for the time period. Banditos, you know. Ed
|
|
|
Post by What part on May 12, 2004 10:13:05 GMT -5
Which part of my statement "30% of Nobel Prize winners have been Jewish" did you misunderstand? There would be no Jewish people if not for their religion. The whole paragraph. Your facts are incorrect. If you can't back them up don't make them up. Jews, including those who are of 1/2 jewish ancestry, were awarded 161 Nobel Prizes out of a total of 758 between 1901 and 2003. Since Jews are not a race but a religion it seems self evident that with out their religion there would be no Jews. Without their religion there would be no Christians either.
|
|
|
Post by Difficult for Bush on May 12, 2004 10:29:19 GMT -5
"It must be hard enough for Mr. Bush and his team, as it is for the rest of us, to figure out the difference between the Sunnis and the Shiites. "
It is hard for Bush to compose a sentence. Given your demonstrated limited view and knowledge of any religion other than Christianity I can see why this is a difficult task.
You and Bush share a belief in a religion that has hundreds, if not thousands of sects, yet are baffled by these two sects?
|
|
|
Post by Ed on May 12, 2004 21:03:53 GMT -5
Wow. Nice attitude.
My info comes from p. 278 of Interactions by Nobel Prize winner Sheldon Glashow. On closer inspection it is referring to science laureates.
No "making up facts" here - thank you very much.
If your facts are correct (you cited no source), then over 20% of all disciplines are represented by Jews.
Is there any group more widely represented?
|
|
|
Post by Ed on May 12, 2004 21:10:01 GMT -5
And you subscribe to a belief that those "thousands of sects" are all at odds.
This is not even worth a reply.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 15, 2004 18:31:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ed on May 15, 2004 22:03:19 GMT -5
Thanks for the link no name. "No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life."
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 15, 2004 22:40:41 GMT -5
Thanks for the link no name. "No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life." An interesting article on the site, which confirms something I'd already posted on another thread: Rational, educated and prosperous: just your average suicide bomberSydney Morning Heraldwww.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/13/1084289823327.htmlBy Deborah Smith, Science Editor May 14, 2004 Research on the social and psychological background of terrorists show they tend to be more prosperous and better educated than most in their societies, and no more religious or irrational than the average person. A study of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide terrorists from the late 1980s to 2003 found only 13 per cent were from a poor background, compared with 32 per cent of the Palestinian population in general, according to a New Scientist report.Suicide bombers were also three times more likely to have gone on to higher education than the general population, Claude Berrebi, an economist at Princeton University in the US, found. Ariel Merare, a psychologist at Tel Aviv University in Israel, said he had changed his view that most suicide bombers were mentally ill after studying the background of every suicide bomber in the Middle East since 1983. "In the majority you find none of the risk factors normally associated with suicide, such as mood disorders or schizophrenia, substance abuse or a history of attempted suicide," he said. Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago who studied 188 suicide attacks worldwide between 1980 to 2001, said the phenomenon had increased in that period not because of religious fundamentalism but because terrorists had learnt the strategy worked. He said the leading perpetrators of suicide terrorism were the Tamil Tigers, a Marxist-Leninist group. Its members were from a Hindu background but were hostile to religion. Rohan Gunaratna, head of terrorism research at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, said the findings had overturned popular ideas about terrorists. "They are like you and me," he said. The experts said resistance groups tended to adopt suicide tactics when they were losing political ground to rival groups, and used psychological techniques to ensure recruits went through with the act. A sense of duty to a brotherhood was the most important way rational people could be persuaded to kill themselves, said Scott Atran, an anthropologist at the University of Michigan.
|
|
|
Post by botany on May 16, 2004 19:51:14 GMT -5
All this talk about Jihad's and such kinda disgusts me. The only thing people are willing to see about Jihad is the violence that it can sometimes take the form of. But, according to what I've researched on Islam, that is the secondary form. The primary form is the personal struggle. From Merriam-Webster Online... www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=jihadCheck Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad) for a good explanation of jihad. I fully realize that Jihad can rear and has reared its head of violence, but please let's not focus entirely on that and say that violence paraphrases Jihad as a whole. That just is not true at all. Perhaps we should have a website that is christianprayerwatch.org? A Christian's personal prayer of deeper devotion and expressing their struggle with being a true Christian is in fact a "Christian jihad." As human beings, we can be opposed to a violent Jihad, but I'd limit the opposition to that, rather than the personal struggle. I rather doubt you'd agree with someone saying that your prayers equate to the violent acts of Christians and the Church. They are both passionate actions on behalf of Christianity and trying to further the Chrisian cause, but they are not the same thing. andy
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 16, 2004 20:36:58 GMT -5
All this talk about Jihad's and such kinda disgusts me. The only thing people are willing to see about Jihad is the violence that it can sometimes take the form of. But, according to what I've researched on Islam, that is the secondary form. The primary form is the personal struggle. Words of Jesus: (Matthew 11:12) "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." Imagine what one little quotation out of context could do for "Christians" if they wanted to take it that way (and perhaps already have). inatent
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 19, 2004 19:05:25 GMT -5
All this talk about Jihad's and such kinda disgusts me. The only thing people are willing to see about Jihad is the violence that it can sometimes take the form of. Well, I did hear one time of a Muslim cleric who declared a "jihad" against terrorism (too bad more clerics aren't loudly making these declarations). This is what the war on terror is, in a sense -- a holy war on terror; a battle between good and evil. I do strongly believe, based on what I've researched and seen for myself, that the fanatics we are in the midst of fighting in this war on terror are equivalent to Hitler and his desire to physically exterminate people he didn't deem worthy of continuing to live. The absolute hatred these people have (the terrorists -- the jihadists who are intentionally waging a violent war on innocent people) should not be underestimated. Ever.
|
|