"We'll Stay Multiculturally Correct - Even if it Kills Us"

[PanzerJaeger]

"We'll Stay Multiculturally Correct - Even if it Kills Us"
- Diana West, The Washington Times

Only one faith on Earth may be more messianic than Islam: Multiculturalism.

Without it - without its fanatics who believe all civilizations are the same - the engine that projects Islam into the unprotected heart of Western civilization would stall and fall. It's as simple as that. To live among the believers - the multiculturalists - is to watch the assault, the jihad, take place unrepulsed by our suicidal societies. These societies are not doomed to submit; rather, they are eager to do so in the name of a masochistic brand of tolerance that, short of drastic measures, is surely terminal.

I'm not talking about our soldiers, policemen, rescue workers and, now, even train conductors, who bravely and steadfastly risk their lives for civilization abroad and at home. Instead, I'm thinking about who we are as a society at this somewhat advanced stage of war. It is a strange, tentative civilization we have become, with leaders who strut their promises of "no surrender" even as they flinch at identifying the foe. Four years past 9/11, we continue to shadow-box "terror", even as we go on about "an ideology of hate". It's a script that smacks of sci-fi fantacy more than Realpolitik . But our grim reality is no summer blockbuster, and there's no special-effects-enhanced plot twist that is going to thwart "terror" or "hate" in the London Underground anymore than it did on the roof of the World Trade Center. Or in the Bali nightclub. Or on the first day of school in Beslan. Or in any disco, city bus, or shopping mall in Israel.

Body bags, burn masks and prosthetics are no better protections than make-believe. But these are our weapons, according to the powers that be.

These, and an array of high-tech scopes and scanners designed to identify retinas & fingerprints, to detect explosives and metals- ultimately, I presume, as we whisk through the automatic supermarket door. How strange, though, that even as we devise new ways to see inside ourselves to our most elemental components, we also prevent ourselves from looking full-face at the danger to our way of life posed by Islam.

Notice I didn't say "Islamisists". Or "Islmaofascists". Or "fundamentalist extremists." I've tried out such terms in the past, but I've come to find them artificial and confusing, and maybe purposefully so, because in their imprecision I think they allow us to give a wide berth to a great problem: the gross incompatibility of Islam - the religious force that shrinks freedom even as it "moderately" enables or "extremistly" advances jihad - with the West. Am I right? Who's to say? The very topic fo Islamization - for that is what is at hand, and very soon in Europe - is verboten . A leaked British report prepared for Prime Minister Tony Blair last year warned even against "expressions of concern about Islamic fundamentalism" (another one of those amorphous terms) because "many perfectly moderate Muslims follow strict adherence to traditional Islamic teachings and are likely to perceive such expressions as a negative comment on their own approach to their faith". Much better to watch subterranean tunnels fill with charred body parts in silence.

As the London Times' Simon Jenkins wrote, "The sane response to urban terrorism is to regard it as an avoidable accident". In not discussing the roots of terror in Islam itself, in not learning about them, the multicultural clergy that shepherds our elites prevents us from having to do anything about them. This is key, because any serious action - stopping immigration from jihad-sponsoring nations, shutting down mosques that preach violence and expelling their imams, just for starters - means to renounce the multicultural creed. In the West, that's the greatest apostasy.

And while the penalty is not death - as it is for leaving Islam under Islamic law - the existential crisis is to be avoided at all costs. Including extinction.

This is the lesson of the atrocities in London. It's unlikely that the 21st century will remember that this new Western crossroads for global jihad was once the home of Churchill, Piccadilly and Sherlock Holmes. Then again, who will notice? The BBC has retroactively purged its online bombing coverage of the word "terrorist"; the spokesman for the London police commissioner has declared that "Islam and terrorism simply don't go together"; and within sight of a forensics team sifting through rubble, an Anglican priest urged his flock, as The Guardian reported, to "rejoice in the capital's rich diversity of cultures, traditions, ethnic groups and faiths." Just don't, he said, "name them as Muslims." Their faith renewed, Londoners soldier on.


A brave woman.. I hope she doesnt end up stabbed to death or blown up.. :no:

[Papewaio]

Notice I didn't say "Islamisists". Or "Islmaofascists". Or "fundamentalist extremists." I've tried out such terms in the past, but I've come to find them artificial and confusing, and maybe purposefully so, because in their imprecision I think they allow us to give a wide berth to a great problem: the gross incompatibility of Islam - the religious force that shrinks freedom even as it "moderately" enables or "extremistly" advances jihad - with the West.

Last time I looked one of the largest emerging democracies in South East Asia was Muslim as its neighbouring country... a total of almost 300 million people or a third of Muslims outright. I also note that Turkey is a Muslim democracy.

So Islam isn't anti-democracy. What is anti-democracy is fundamentalists of all relgions.

Also Pakistan is returning to democracy to the point that it is back into the Commonwealth of Nations.

I would name the terrorists as Muslims just like I name the IRA Catholics. I however do not same that Catholics are anti-democracy even thought the schism that lead to the reformation could be said to have lead to more democracy in the reformed countries...
Nor do I say that all Christians are cross burning murders based on the KKK.

Paint with too broad a brush and you can paint a barn not a picture.

[PanzerJaeger]

So Islam isn't anti-democracy. What is anti-democracy is fundamentalists of all relgions.

Relativity has become a knee-jerk reaction.

If we dont stop trying to find bad people of an equivolent nature in our own society and actually address the main cause of islamic terrorism, then the rising body count will be no one's fault but our own.

[Papewaio]

If you keep blaming an entire religion you will not find the answer.

Look at post WWI Germany, the economy, the depression, the need to blame another group. The Nazis feed on the hopes and aspirations of the people around them and gave them someone else to blame for the situation. It was the Allies fault for the depression because of the terms and conditions of surrender from WWI (ignoring that the depression was hitting the victors as well). That it was a consipiracy of a religious group to wipe them out... Crystal Night. That a hardline group took power over the general power base... Night of the Long Knives.

A lot of the same conditions and manipulations can be seen in raising the people who become terrorists and those whom are manipulated into being facists.

The terrorists are told that their leaders have access to the absolute truth, that their is an enemy and that enemies destruction will yield a better life both now and beyond. You can turn your life around with just the touch of a button. Kill your enemy and all will be wonderful...

Idle hands are the devils tools. I am opposed to fundamentalist absolute answers because those are the very tools of the terrorists.

[Idaho]

A brief glance on the internet about the author... hahahahahahahaha...

[Sigurd]

Idle hands are the devils tools. I am opposed to fundamentalist absolute answers because those are the very tools of the terrorists.I think we should use a different word than fundamentalist. There is nothing wrong with fundamentalism.
As we discussed in the “What is a Jew” thread, a fundamentalist is just someone who opposes modernism, someone who want to take the direction of a religion back to its fundamentals. If those fundamentals are peace and love which are true for most religions, even Islam, there should be no connection between fundamentalists and terror.
If we are using extremists, the ones that needs to take things further than necessary because of who knows what, we start getting closer to a more correct wording.

[bmolsson]

As we discussed in the “What is a Jew” thread, a fundamentalist is just someone who opposes modernism, someone who want to take the direction of a religion back to its fundamentals.


True, Pindar is not an extremist and he is quite pleasant to talk to as well..... ~;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

That thread is absurd, but his posts are enlightening. Hey, didn't you write something in that 8 page thread?

[TonkaToys]

Only one faith on Earth may be more messianic than Islam: Multiculturalism.

Without it - without its fanatics who believe all civilizations are the same - the engine that projects Islam into the unprotected heart of Western civilization would stall and fall. It's as simple as that. To live among the believers - the multiculturalists - is to watch the assault, the jihad, take place unrepulsed by our suicidal societies. These societies are not doomed to submit; rather, they are eager to do so in the name of a masochistic brand of tolerance that, short of drastic measures, is surely terminal.

Reducing the religious (and sexual and racial) tolerance that we in the West enjoy would be to give in to the demands of terrorism. We would become more and more insular, and cultures would become more and more polarised.

Is the author suggesting that the multicultural societies that we have today are worse than the bigotted societies that we used to have?

[bmolsson]

That thread is absurd, but his posts are enlightening. Hey, didn't you write something in that 8 page thread?

Only about 4 pages.... :embarassed:

[King Henry V]

The West's great weakness against Islamic Extremism is its own liberalism.

[Dâriûsh]

Okay, I admit it. We Muslims are currently conspiring to impose our rule in the western world. I can’t wait to get PanzerJager to polish my shoes.

[scooter_the_shooter]

~:joker I think panzer would die before he became a slave ~:cheers:


So is Dâriûsh islamic and what does it mean?? I have been real confused by that ever sense i saw your name on here.

[Spetulhu]

Okay, I admit it. We Muslims are currently conspiring to impose our rule in the western world. I can’t wait to get PanzerJager to polish my shoes.

Hah! As if you had the power to get past the Pope and his Christian legions! ~;)

[Moros]

Hah! As if you had the power to get past the Pope and his Christian legions! ~;)
OMG LOL
yeah be carefull the pope's got a lot off armed groupies!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

OMG LOL
yeah be carefull the pope's got a lot off armed groupies! http://www.petersway.com/images/guards.jpg

Prepare to die. Their coming for you.

[Ronin]

http://www.petersway.com/images/guards.jpg

Prepare to die. Their coming for you.

if they agree to use those uniforms they have to be a bunch of pansies anyway ~D

[A.Saturnus]

2003, the group around the neonazi Martin Wiese planned to blow off the Jewish center in Munic. They had more than 14 kg explosives. PJ, I know you oppose violence to jews, but since you call yourself a fascist, would you bother if we leave all that relativistic nonsense aside and declare you guilty by association?

[Dâriûsh]

So is Dâriûsh islamic and what does it mean?? I have been real confused by that ever sense i saw your name on here. Dariush (without the circumflexes) is my real name. I don’t recall what it means.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

2003, the group around the neonazi Martin Wiese planned to blow off the Jewish center in Munic. They had more than 14 kg explosives. PJ, I know you oppose violence to jews, but since you call yourself a fascist, would you bother if we leave all that relativistic nonsense aside and declare you guilty by association?
Nazism is not an ideological equivilent to Fascism. Compare Fascist Austria under Dollfuß to Nazi Germany, or Franco's Spain to Nazi Germany. You'll see several major differences.

By the way, the Swiss guard, by wearing those outragously sexy uniforms (I want one), prove that they have balls of steel.

[Meneldil]

Yeah right, nazi are socialists.

And mind you, the Swiss Guards are probably one of the best trained and most effectve army of the western world.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Okay, I admit it. We Muslims are currently conspiring to impose our rule in the western world. I can’t wait to get PanzerJager to polish my shoes.Get back in line, buddy. Conspiring to impose our rule in the western world is France's business.

Conservative America is going to polish our shoe's first... ~:smoking:

[scooter_the_shooter]

Not as long as we spend more on our military then the rest of you combined ~D

[Ja'chyra]

2003, the group around the neonazi Martin Wiese planned to blow off the Jewish center in Munic

That'd be blow up ~:cheers:

At least I hope so.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Yeah right, nazi are socialists.

And mind you, the Swiss Guards are probably one of the best trained and most effectve army of the western world.
Nazism is an ideology unto itself, it takes economic ideas from Socialism and blends in it's own unique brand of hatred and opression, forming National Socialism (which, before Hitler brought in the hate, wasn't that bad), and Nazism.

Saying that all Fascists are the same is like saying that Socialism is Nazism.

[rasoforos]

A very provocative piece of article-like nonsence. Who is that lady btw?

Isnt it time we stop tollerating direct religion bashing in here? We are allready tollerating nazism and fascism and all that...is it ever gonna stop?

Articles like this, if they stir up anything at all, is religious sagregation. Their only purpose is to actually make muslim people support radical fanatics. Which is every fundamentalist americans dream anyway since deep in their hearts they do see all this as a religious war...

[Big_John]

Dariush/Daryush/Darius owes it's popularity as a name to the fact that three (at least?) achaemenid persian kings had this name. i believe it appears in the bible too. it's a fairly common modern iranian name, iirc. it means "one who is kind" or something like that.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

A very provocative piece of article-like nonsence. Who is that lady btw?

Isnt it time we stop tollerating direct religion bashing in here? We are allready tollerating nazism and fascism and all that...is it ever gonna stop?

Articles like this, if they stir up anything at all, is religious sagregation. Their only purpose is to actually make muslim people support radical fanatics. Which is every fundamentalist americans dream anyway since deep in their hearts they do see all this as a religious war...
How harsh.

[scooter_the_shooter]

A very provocative piece of article-like nonsence. Who is that lady btw?

Isnt it time we stop tollerating direct religion bashing in here? We are allready tollerating nazism and fascism and all that...is it ever gonna stop?

Articles like this, if they stir up anything at all, is religious sagregation. Their only purpose is to actually make muslim people support radical fanatics. Which is every fundamentalist americans dream anyway since deep in their hearts they do see all this as a religious war...




How the hell can you see into people’s heart? Tell me where you learned this mystical power ~D


I see many people here bash America I will give quotes (but not names so no one is singled out) I used to see french bashing on here. If we can have that why not this. You also see christian bashing to on here too.

So why should islam be given better treatment.

[Steppe Merc]

Dariush/Daryush/Darius owes it's popularity as a name to the fact that three (at least?) achaemenid persian kings had this name. i believe it appears in the bible too. it's a fairly common modern iranian name, iirc. it means "one who is kind" or something like that.
It sounds similar to Darius... Oh, you said that. Um, I know that the last Darius was the Third, but there might have been another that wasn't counted.

[Kagemusha]

About the topic.Its essential that we stay multiculturally correct.Because the thing that wahhabist priest is that we westerners hate all the muslims,and there fore we should be killed.Do you guys want to prove them right?

[A.Saturnus]

Saying that all Fascists are the same is like saying that Socialism is Nazism.

Or like saying... all Muslims are dangerous??

[Kaiser of Arabia]

How the hell can you see into people’s heart? Tell me where you learned this mystical power ~D


I see many people here bash America I will give quotes (but not names so no one is singled out) I used to see french bashing on here. If we can have that why not this. You also see christian bashing to on here too.

So why should islam be given better treatment.
Because Islamists taste good on crackers? I dunno...

[PanzerJaeger]

This thread proves the author's point.

No one will stand up and say "Theres a problem within Islam that must be dealt with." Instead we've seen attacks on me, the author, ect. :no:

If the "moderate"(ie the ones who dont blow people up) muslim leaders dont address the problem and if the West continues to close its eyes and pretend there isnt a problem then we can only expect more terror attacks. Its like trying to kill a weed without killing the roots.

[Kagemusha]

If you mean that we should rout out Islam in order to rout out extremist.I say you are having a nightmare. :bow:

[Steppe Merc]

PJ, haven't some already condemmed the radicals? Didn't English and Spanish leaders issue fatwas?
And yes, normal Muslim leaders need to condem the nutjobs. But what can we do about it? It's not like the government can order a condemnation.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's not like the government can order a condemnation.

Its not the government . There is no government of Islam. Its up to the Muslims to clean up their mess. So far their doing an extremely poor job of it.

[Steppe Merc]

Perhaps. But I think you get what I'm saying: even if non Muslims say "Normal Muslims need to condem the bad ones", they still have to do it. Non Muslims can't make them do it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Perhaps. But I think you get what I'm saying: even if non Muslims say "Normal Muslims need to condem the bad ones", they still have to do it. Non Muslims can't make them do it.

Isnt that what I just said? I also dont think you will get an arguement out of PJ on this.

[Steppe Merc]

Oh. I'm confused now... :hide:

[Azi Tohak]

Fatwa...

fatwa

n : a ruling on a point of Islamic law that is given by a recognized authority

So a fatwa was given...about the attacks...for or against?

Azi

[Steppe Merc]

Um, it was against the attackers, I believe. Someone else knows more about it, and the what it actually means, though.

[bmolsson]

Not as long as we spend more on our military then the rest of you combined ~D

And still you can't catch a rag like bin Laden ?? ~;)

[Productivity]

Fatwa...

fatwa

n : a ruling on a point of Islamic law that is given by a recognized authority

So a fatwa was given...about the attacks...for or against?

Azi

It was against the attacks.

[Azi Tohak]

Thanks. Just checking. I kept seeing the darned word...and it does make sense.

Too bad there is no Pope of Islam. One figurehead who could tell all the extremists 'No! Bad! Quit shooting us in the foot!'

:embarassed:

Sorry that was bad. I wonder if it would be possible to motivate the rest of the Moslem world to get rid of the extremists. Probably not...but at least they could help ameliorate their influence.

Azi

[Productivity]

I do get the impression that by far the majority of leaders are trying to calm it down, it's just the radicals who are stuffing the whole thing up. Here's part of a transcript from an interview with a muslim leader from an (Australian) ABC show I like to watch Lateline.

When reading it (and indeed watching it) I gave the Sheikh some leeway because it is obvious English isn't his first language, and so some of his words are somewhat clumsy sounding, but to me it seems the intent is good.


TONY JONES: Alright. Let's move on to the other thing you said that has get people upset, and that's your position on jihad. You are saying to young Australian Muslims, it appears, that it's not right to do jihad in Australia, but it would be righteous to fight a jihad in Iraq. Is that correct?

SHEIKH OMRAN: No, I didn't say that. I never said that and I always trying to calm my people and teach them that we need the youth to build Australia. But, again, this is a different view and a different time. Jihad, as I said, is a sword with two edges. It could cut you, which means you could understand it in the right way, and you could understand it in the wrong way. But we don't say jihad is not something we need. I don't say that.

TONY JONES: But would you say it is right to fight a Jihad in Iraq?

SHEIKH OMRAN: If there's a Jihad in Iraq I don't believe what's happening in Iraq today, with all of this interruption and misconduct with everyone against everyone is a jihad, I don't say that, no.

TONY JONES: So it would be wrong for any young Australian to go to Iraq to fight jihad, is that right?

SHEIKH OMRAN: That's less or more about what I'm saying, yes.

TONY JONES: Well, can you say that clearly so young Muslims will understand what you are saying? Is it wrong to fight a jihad?

SHEIKH OMRAN: Of course it is wrong. Especially nowadays it is wrong to do anything. I don't believe, as I said in Channel 9, and I believe you are aware of that, I said it maybe a year ago or more than that, jihad need establishment of a government to lead the jihad in the right order. I don't believe jihad can be done by everyone and anyone by no means and no target on it and achieving nothing at all.

TONY JONES: Alright. Now, again, the last time we spoke, you claimed that no true Muslim would have done anything as awful as the London train and bus bombings. It's now quit clear that young British-born Muslims carried out those bombings. Are you shocked by that?

SHEIKH OMRAN: Yes, I am. Absolutely.

TONY JONES: So what is the lesson for young Australian Muslims out of the bombings in London?

SHEIKH OMRAN: That to stay with their sheikhs, learn more about their religion, not to be led with mischief people to do a mischief action.

TONY JONES: Is suicide bombing an evil and a perversion of Islam?

SHEIKH OMRAN: Well, I can't say that as a general term, but it is for what they are doing now. Yes, it is.

TONY JONES: So how does it stand with you, Sheikh? Will suicide bombers end up in hell having broken one of the strictest commandment in the Koran against the killing of innocent people?

SHEIKH OMRAN: Hell or paradise is not in my hand or your hand, but we condemn the action and God only himself can judge these people when they pass to the next life. But what I say, the action - like what happened in London or what happened anywhere else - killing innocent people is not an Islamic action.

TONY JONES: What do you say to the delusion that many of these young suicide bombers have that they will go straight to heaven and be attended by 72 virgins?

SHEIKH OMRAN: I'm saying they got it wrong, and I hope the listeners understand that going to heaven is not just killing yourself, you go to heaven. You don't go to heaven if you don't have the right intention, and the good intention and the good deeds, and this is the only thing that can take you to heaven.

TONY JONES: Sheikh Mohomed Omran, we thank you once again for taking the time to come and talk to us tonight.

SHEIKH OMRAN: You're most welcome.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I think he illustrates just what wrong here. He should be outright condeming these people . Hes hedging his words. Its this well of course their wrong but what do you expect me to do attitude thats to blame. At least thats the perception of many here in the West. Again if christains were doing this we would be the first to hunt them down.

[Productivity]

I disagree with you. He's hedging in some cases because he feels he can't do it due to his beleifs (ie. he can't say someone will go to hell, neither can he saysomeone will go to heaven), but where he can he's absolute enough.

Q: So it would be wrong for any young Australian to go to Iraq to fight jihad, is that right?
A: That's less or more about what I'm saying, yes.

That's pretty clear to me.

Q:It's now quit clear that young British-born Muslims carried out those bombings. Are you shocked by that?
A: Yes, I am. Absolutely.

Pretty clear that he feels shocked that people who claim to follow Islam would commit such atrocities.

Q: Is suicide bombing an evil and a perversion of Islam?
A: Well, I can't say that as a general term, but it is for what they are doing now. Yes, it is.

Again, pretty clear. He's hedging in sayign suicide bombings could be acceptible in some circumstances, but then goes on to say that in the circumstances of terrorism and the killing of innocents it is evil and a perversion of Islam.

Re. condemming.

SHEIKH OMRAN: Hell or paradise is not in my hand or your hand, but we condemn the action and God only himself can judge these people when they pass to the next life. But what I say, the action - like what happened in London or what happened anywhere else - killing innocent people is not an Islamic action.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Q: So it would be wrong for any young Australian to go to Iraq to fight jihad, is that right?
A: That's less or more about what I'm saying, yes.

So is it more or is it less? That doesnt seem clear to me.


Q:It's now quit clear that young British-born Muslims carried out those bombings. Are you shocked by that?
A: Yes, I am. Absolutely.

Pretty clear that he feels shocked that people who claim to follow Islam would commit such atrocities.

Its not to me. He could be saying hes shocked they were born in Britan. I would imagine everyone but those who knew the plan were shocked by what happened. This proves nothing.


Q: Is suicide bombing an evil and a perversion of Islam?
A: Well, I can't say that as a general term, but it is for what they are doing now. Yes, it is.

Again, pretty clear. He's hedging in sayign suicide bombings could be acceptible in some circumstances, but then goes on to say that in the circumstances of terrorism and the killing of innocents it is evil and a perversion of Islam.

Again he very vague. He doesnt point out exactly what it is now that their doing wrong.


Re. condemming.

SHEIKH OMRAN: Hell or paradise is not in my hand or your hand, but we condemn the action and God only himself can judge these people when they pass to the next life. But what I say, the action - like what happened in London or what happened anywhere else - killing innocent people is not an Islamic action..

Well he comes close here. At least he condenms the actions but again all hes really saying is hey were not all like that. He should be telling his people if you know any radicals like this turn them into the authorities. They should be screaming this from on high. They should call for a Jihad against the Jihadists. Dont hold your breath waiting for it though.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Well he comes close here. At least he condenms the actions but again all hes really saying is hey were not all like that. He should be telling his people if you know any radicals like this turn them into the authorities. They should be screaming this from on high. They should call for a Jihad against the Jihadists. Dont hold your breath waiting for it though.
__________________

Thats never going to happen gawain. American britain any country not to afraid to help are going to have to deal with it. If they were going to do anything about their own people they would have done it already.

[Tribesman]

"Normal Muslims need to condem the bad ones"
Well that can sometimes be a little difficult , there were several protests held in Egypt , but unfortunately the protesters were threatened with arrest , because in a freedom loving Western backed nation that has been under emergency laws for the past 24 years you cannot protest , even if you are protesting againsnt terrorists who are attacking your own country . :dizzy2:

They should call for a Jihad against the Jihadists. Dont hold your breath waiting for it though.
Why not , it would be a very short breath to hold since it has already happened , many times by many people in many countries .

[Ronin]

I think he illustrates just what wrong here. He should be outright condeming these people . Hes hedging his words. Its this well of course their wrong but what do you expect me to do attitude thats to blame. At least thats the perception of many here in the West. Again if christains were doing this we would be the first to hunt them down.

i don´t think he´s hedging.....on the contrary...the intervier was trying to stuff words down his mouth, and he´s not going with that....he´s just making his position, he says that the london situation was wrong....can´t get much clearer than that.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

i don´t think he´s hedging.....on the contrary...the intervier was trying to stuff words down his mouth, and he´s not going with that....he´s just making his position, he says that the london situation was wrong....can´t get much clearer than that.

Your only proving my point. Oh my he said it was wrong. How courageous of him. He should be screaming his head off.

What did you expect him to say he supports it? ~:confused:

[A.Saturnus]

No one will stand up and say "Theres a problem within Islam that must be dealt with." Instead we've seen attacks on me, the author, ect.

PJ, you don`t understand. I was not trying to attack you but to demonstrate you via a counter-example that your conclusion that "there`s a problem with Islam", is not valid. I was not trying to make a point about you or the other, but about your argument.

Gawain, ever heard of the Principle of Charity?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain, ever heard of the Principle of Charity?

What of it? Once more if a group who claimed to be christians were doing this we would be just saying hey thats wrong. We would be killing the bastards ourselves. If you need any help killing them just ask us. Not hemming and hawing. He does seem to leave room for Jihad does he not?

[Ronin]

What of it? Once more if a group who claimed to be christians were doing this we would be just saying hey thats wrong. We would be killing the bastards ourselves. If you need any help killing them just ask us. Not hemming and hawing. He does seem to leave room for Jihad does he not?


when the IRA was bombing london i don´t recall an international catolic movement to help kick their ass.....neither would i expect it to happen.......the situation in london isn´t the responsability of Islam as a whole just like the Pope wasn´t responsible for the IRA back in the day...

the does hint that jihad can be acceptable in some situations.......so what?...jihad does not equal terrorism and i imagine it can be conducted in several ways.

[econ21]

One thing Sheikh Omran said that is significant is that jihad should be declared by a government, not done by individuals. This conservative doctrine means that jihad is rather like conventional war in non-Muslim thinking and the concept cannot be used to justify terrorism. Unfortunately, this interpretation is obviously not shared by OBL and fellow Islamic terrorists.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Ronin, the IRA may be overwhelmingly Catholic but neither Catholicism nor a certain strand of Catholic theology is behind the current situation in Northern Ireland.

With the IRA you may have expected ordinary citizens of the U.K. to condemn what they did: they did so. You may expect the armed forces (and loyalist terrorists) to go after the IRA: they did so.
You wouldn't expect a mass Catholic movement against them unless they became religious fanatics which they do not tend to be.
You may as well have expected massive Catholic movements against the Argentine govt. when they invaded the Falklands.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

when the IRA was bombing london i don´t recall an international catolic movement to help kick their ass.....neither would i expect it to happen.......the situation in london isn´t the responsability of Islam as a whole just like the Pope wasn´t responsible for the IRA back in the day...


I said christains not catholics. Or is the british army now mostly made up of Muslims? Wasnt it other christains who fought them? I know my church here condmend their actions. Also Taffy makes excellent points.

[Ronin]

I said christains not catholics. Or is the british army now mostly made up of Muslims? Wasnt it other christains who fought them? I know my church here condmend their actions. Also Taffy makes excellent points.


the british army were fighting in their own country.....you talked about an international movement....

also...."condemned"?...talk is cheap....specially in a country were part of the irish population was helping fund the IRA....

it´s all nice and dandy talking about wanting the muslim world to give "strong condemnation"...it´s a little harder to live up to those lofty ideals i see.

[Axeknight]

That'd be blow up ~:cheers:

At least I hope so.
Although having a group of neo-nazi skinheads burst in and blow you off would most likely be pretty frightening too ~D

[Gawain of Orkeny]

the british army were fighting in their own country.....you talked about an international movement....

Ireland is their country? Also every protestant accross the world basicly opposed them. I would think that qualifies as international.


also...."condemned"?...talk is cheap....specially in a country were part of the irish population was helping fund the IRA....

These people were no better than the Muslim terrorists. This was done by Irish Catholics here not catholics in general. . What do you want christains from around the world to invade Ireland? I dont think Britain would care too much for that. Try finding a better analogy like a place where Christains are terrorizing another relgion like Islam and not themselves. I havent seen the IRA use the bible to justify their actions or say that anyone who doesnt join the IRA or become a catholic is an infidel and worthy of death. Its more of an Irish thing.

[Kagemusha]

You cant find any "deacent" terrorist orginization based on extrem Christianity,because there arent any.So the question should be why?Because we have better education system than the Arabs.Who tend to get these grazy ideas from those so called Koran Schools.So should we give little bit support to their governments to start some public schools there?

[bmolsson]

One thing Sheikh Omran said that is significant is that jihad should be declared by a government, not done by individuals. This conservative doctrine means that jihad is rather like conventional war in non-Muslim thinking and the concept cannot be used to justify terrorism. Unfortunately, this interpretation is obviously not shared by OBL and fellow Islamic terrorists.

Just because somebody say they are on jihad, it doesn't mean they are on one.

[Tribesman]

edit ...Just because somebody say they are on jihad, it doesn't mean they are on one.
but I am having a wonderful time snow boarding in the Islands of
aMuritiuos


Ireland is their country? Also every protestant accross the world basicly opposed them. I would think that qualifies as international.
Could you show me anywhere in the annals of history where Ireland was a united nation ? Possibly show me where it was a united catholic nation.

Typical narrowback Gawain , you probably think Wolfe Tone was catholic and Liam Mellows was an Irishman who was killed by the Brits .
Do you condemn terrorism ? or do you condemn terorism only when it is not "Catholic "?

Catholics don't only want to take over this world , they want the whole Universe . ~D ~D ~D

I havent seen the IRA use the bible to justify their actions or say that anyone who doesnt join the IRA or become a catholic is an infidel and worthy of death.

No , but unfortunately some "christian "movements do , and some that because God is on their side then any nasty thing they have to do is relly Gods workand notthe unrighteous murder that it really is

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Typical narrowback Gawain , you probably think Wolfe Tone was catholic and Liam Mellows was an Irishman who was killed by the Brits .
Do you condemn terrorism ? or do you condemn terorism only when it is not "Catholic "?

Yeah right . Did you even read my post.?


These people were no better than the Muslim terrorists.

What more do you want me to say? You do know my opinion of Muslim terrorists do you not?


No , but unfortunately some "christian "movements do , and some that because God is on their side then any nasty thing they have to do is relly Gods workand notthe unrighteous murder that it really is

Name one that the world should fear like radical Islam. This is a farce.

[Ronin]

What do you want christains from around the world to invade Ireland?


thanks for answering your own question.......


take out christians...put in muslims and i ask you...what do you want muslims to do??

other than say that the atacks are wrong(like many muslim authorities have said lots of times), what else do you want?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

take out christians...put in muslims and i ask you...what do you want muslims to do??

If the IRA attacked the US and Ireland did nothing about it I bet it wouldnt be long before we invaded there or at least send men to help destroy them. Again theres no comparison between the IRA and AQ in this matter. The IRA isnt a christain organization. In fact its a anti christain organization if you please. They dont attack muslims only other christans.

[A.Saturnus]

What of it? Once more if a group who claimed to be christians were doing this we would be just saying hey thats wrong. We would be killing the bastards ourselves. If you need any help killing them just ask us. Not hemming and hawing. He does seem to leave room for Jihad does he not?

That`s not the point. The point is how you read what he said. For example, he has good reason to leave room for Jihad, it would be against his religion not to do. But before you cry "there you have it", jihad does not necessarily involve violence. The more traditional meaning of jihad is that of an internal struggle, one to be a better muslim.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That`s not the point. The point is how you read what he said. For example, he has good reason to leave room for Jihad, it would be against his religion not to do. But before you cry "there you have it", jihad does not necessarily involve violence. The more traditional meaning of jihad is that of an internal struggle, one to be a better muslim.

More of the wizard of Oz. Pay no attention to the man in the booth. I am the great and powerful OZ. Tell that to AQ, Islamic Jihad, Hezbolah and countless other radical Muslim extretemist groups killing people all over the world. All any of you can ever fall back on is the IRA.

You leave room for one kind of Jihad you leave room for the other.

[Papewaio]

IRA,
KKK,
Nazis,
Neo-Nazis,
Apartheid South Africa (opposite of a working multicultural state is this type),
French Rainbow Warrior Sinking,
Waco Texas Branch Davidian,
Timothy McVeigh,
JDL,
AQ,
Hamas,
Hezbollah,
Tamil Tigers,
etc

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What is that supposed to be a list of?

[Papewaio]

Short list of some of the worlds terrorists groups and anti-mulitcultural governments.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Waco Texas Branch Davidians were a terrorist group? ~:confused:

Well at least I dont see any Christian organizations there.

[Papewaio]

It is easy for a Christian to see a nutter terrorist who call themselves Christians and go 'No, you certainly are not'.

I would call some factions of the Neo-Nazis, KKK, Apartheid South Africa and IRA as extremist Christian groups just like I would call AQ an extremist Islamic group and JDL an extremist Jewish group. Most mainstream followers will condemn the extremists, but rarely do they step in and use lethal force on them...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I would call some factions of the Neo-Nazis, KKK, Apartheid South Africa and IRA as extremist Christian groups just like I would call AQ an extremist Islamic group and JDL an extremist Jewish group

Then you would be wrong. You cannot use the words of Christ to back what any of these organizations do. They dont what they do to spread christianity. Your comparing apples and oranges here. Heck to me the police are a terrorist group.

[Papewaio]

This thread is about getting rid of multiculturalism. I am listing both terrorist groups and anti-multiculuralist governments. They are not 1:1 but there is a cross over as most fundamentalists are more prone to being racist/anti-other religions/'purests'/'anti-mixing of race' they are prone to wanting things like the White Australia Policy and a single culture.

[PanzerJaeger]

Who did the Branch Davidians terrorize?

[Byzantine Prince]

Then you would be wrong. You cannot use the words of Christ to back what any of these organizations do. They dont what they do to spread christianity. Your comparing apples and oranges here. Heck to me the police are a terrorist group.
You don't necessarily need the voice of Jesus. If you read the Bible closely enough, there's lot's of little things that condone slavery and even killing of homosexuals. The Bible is a very contradictory and flawed book.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You don't necessarily need the voice of Jesus. If you read the Bible closely enough, there's lot's of little things that condone slavery and even killing of homosexuals. The Bible is a very contradictory and flawed book.

No its not . And again that the old testament. Thats why I say using Christs words because a christain is one who does so. Theres the difference between christianity and Islam . You can use Mohmad and the Korans words to do just what Bin Laden does. In fact he does. Try to twist Christs words anyway you like you cant do it. Chritianity is a religion of love, Islam is a religion of submission.

[Spetulhu]

Try to twist Christs words anyway you like you cant do it. Chritianity is a religion of love, Islam is a religion of submission.

Love? Have you actually read the New Testament? There's no shortage of threats against anyone that displeases Jesus.

[PanzerJaeger]

If you understood the nature of Jesus, such threats would be seen in a completely different light. ~;)

[Papewaio]

Who did the Branch Davidians terrorize?

They belong to the mixed bag of fundamentalist extremists who hate outsiders.

[Azi Tohak]

Okay, I figure I should point this out before someone else does: Matthew 10:34-39


34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[a]

37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

a. Matthew 10:36 Micah 7:6

However, this passage is in reference to Matthew 10:21-22


21"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

That is what I like about the Bible. You've got to read the whole section at once. NOT just one passage. 10:34-39 was quoted to me once and I was very confused. Then I read chapter 10 myself and, 'ah ha!' it all makes sense.

Azi

[PanzerJaeger]

The biggest problem with the bible is that its so partitioned. It makes it extremely easy to quote things out of context.


Oh and..


They belong to the mixed bag of fundamentalist extremists who hate outsiders.

I dont mean to be a stickler, but do you really thing they belong up there with AQ and the IRA? To me, they were more the victims of terror than terrorists. Ive never heard of them terrorizing anyone.

[Papewaio]

They certainly weren't mainstream nor peace loving...

[Samurai Waki]

Pffffttt. Christianity is just as guilty as Islam is, both aren't really guilty in a cosmic sense what-so-ever, Both Christianity and Islam preach tolerance, love, compassion, honor, valour, courage. If I remember right Christianity was at one time a very hateful sect of religion, and if you say "no. that was just the catholics" thats utter Bullsh*t because Protestantism certainly had it's low moments too, such as Cromwell persecuting Irish Catholics, then there was many witch trials, etc. etc. It's more to do with the people interpreting the books, rather than the books themselves. Sure, both have controversial stuff, but keep in mind that they were written at a time when many of the practices mentioned within were accepted by everyone. Thats why in most modern Bibles and Korans you'll find a nice little Part right before the first page that says "This is not based on fact, but for spiritual guidance" or something along that line. Also Christianity has had time to mature, unlike Islam which has for the most part, been the practiced faith of oppressors and dictators, not by choice per ce' but more by Internal Struggles, and influences of Monarchs.

One of the worst moments I have ever felt was me and one of my friends (who happens to be a muslim) were talking to an Iranian woman in her late 60's who escaped Iran a few years back, she told us that she cries everyday because of how terrible her religion is, and that most people in Iran don't even practice Islam any more because the Ayatollahs tell them that everyone hates them, and that only God loves Muslims. And my friend almost completely lost his faith in Islam too, even though he happens to be the most compassionate and kind person I know BY A LONG SHOT. It's not the machine, its the man behind it.

[TonkaToys]

The biggest problem with the bible is that its so partitioned. It makes it extremely easy to quote things out of context...

Can't you say that about the Koran as well? Could the extremists be picking passages out that support their views and quoting them out of context?

[Ronin]

I dont mean to be a stickler, but do you really thing they belong up there with AQ and the IRA? To me, they were more the victims of terror than terrorists. Ive never heard of them terrorizing anyone.


i see how they couldn´t be really classified as terrorists....they didn´t really try to impose their political views on other....so they aren´t terrorists...


but victims of terror themselfs?????....were do you get that from?

at the very least they were criminals.....with some pretty freaky loony ideas thrown in....the atf and the fbi kicked their ass like they should..

[Gawain of Orkeny]

but victims of terror themselfs?????....were do you get that from?

I would consider what our government did at Waco to be state sponsored terrorism and a truly low point in our history.

[PanzerJaeger]

They certainly weren't mainstream nor peace loving...

How does that make them terrorists? And where do you get the fact that they werent peaceloving?



at the very least they were criminals.....with some pretty freaky loony ideas thrown in....the atf and the fbi kicked their ass like they should..

In this country its not against the law to hold strange or unpopular beliefs.

The davidians were guilty of a crime that thousands of Americans are guilty of - buying and selling unregistered and illegal guns.

That is absolutely no reason for the FBI to go in and kill them all, including women and children. What a few of the branch davidians were doing required fines, and if they didnt stop maybe some jail time.

[Ronin]

In this country its not against the law to hold strange or unpopular beliefs.

The davidians were guilty of a crime that thousands of Americans are guilty of - buying and selling unregistered and illegal guns.

That is absolutely no reason for the FBI to go in and kill them all, including women and children. What a few of the branch davidians were doing required fines, and if they didnt stop maybe some jail time.


a simple matter of issuing some fines that turned into a full scale siege because of the davidians extreme positions.......you can have whatever belief´s you have....but the police is still the police.

as far as i´m concerned if you greet law inforcement officers by shooting at them then said officers are free to respond with deadly force...which they did.

the level to which that situation got out of hand, resulting in the deaths that you mentioned is hardly the fbi and atf´s fault but that of the davinians themselfs.....if they had just complied to the law the entire situation wouldn´t have happened.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

as far as i´m concerned if you greet law inforcement officers by shooting at them then said officers are free to respond with deadly force...which they did.

I dont think that the way it started. Also its against our laws to use the military against civilians within US borders. Did those tanks belong to the police ? And werent some other military organizations involved?


'No Doubt FBI Fired
On Davidians' - Waco
Slaughter Proof Emerging
NewsMax.com
1-26-2000


The Waco controversy has been raging for seven years,
and last night CBS' "60 Minutes II" finally decided to
investigate.

"60 Minutes II's" Dan Rather hosted the segment "What
Really Happened at Waco?"





On April 19, 1993, the Branch Davidian compound was
raided by the FBI, and more than 70 people died, some by
fire, others by gunshot.

The FBI has consistently claimed none of their members
ever fired into the compound that fateful day. Though
more than a dozen corpses were found in the compound
with gunshot wounds, the FBI still claimed no federal
agent fired into the burning house.

The Waco controversy was rekindled last year when
Michael McNulty, a documentary film producer,
discovered shell casings from a tear gas round that had
incendiary characteristics, something the FBI had stated
they had not used on the climactic day of the standoff.

McNulty's film, "Waco: The Rules of Engagement," also
showed infrared film taken by an FBI aircraft of what
appeared to be gunfire aimed into the compound and
coming from FBI-controlled areas.

The FBI has claimed the infrared film does not indicate
gunfire.

But an expert consulted by "60 Minutes II" examined the
tape and says the film does indeed show gunfire.

Paul Beavers, an expert on the subject who had extensive
experience with infrared imagery for the British army, said
he had no doubts the FBI had fired on the compound.

"There's some flashes there, which to
me look exactly as if they're gunfire,"
Beavers said, examining the film.

"They have all the right characteristics.
There we go. There we go. Two
rounds. It's what's called a 'doubletap.' It's what you
expect a trained marksman to do, to fire two rounds within
close proximity of each other," he added.

"One, two - yep, it's not a glitch in the camera," Beavers
said. "It's not the sun striking something. It's not swamp
gas reflecting off the planet Venus. This is somebody
shooting."

"Congress was misled on this; there is no question about
it," Assistant United States Attorney Bill Johnston told
CBS before resigning today. Johnston fears the Justice
Department has engaged in a cover-up.



"Let's examine what really happened here...
Whatever you think of us, it doesn't give anybody a right
to come and kill helpless women and children."
-- Stan Sylvia (a sect member)

[PanzerJaeger]

Well Gawain said what I was going to... its become quite obvious, despite attempts at a cover up, the FBI went in there looking for a fight and started one.

[Ronin]

Well Gawain said what I was going to... its become quite obvious, despite attempts at a cover up, the FBI went in there looking for a fight and started one.


the FBI said it didn´t shoot in the last day for the same reason that you saw the chief of scotland yard apologising(spelling?) on the other day for the situation with the brazilian guy....

they do it because the situation looks bad...not because they were on the wrong...and not because they wouldn´t do it again, because it was the right thing to do.


and nonetheless....the quote that gawain posted refers to the last day of the wacko situation.....i continue to state that if the davidians had obeyed the law there wouldn´t have been a siege in the first place.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

and nonetheless....the quote that gawain posted refers to the last day of the wacko situation.....i continue to state that if the davidians had obeyed the law there wouldn´t have been a siege in the first place.

So if you disobey the any law the FBI can be called in and kill you and burn your home to the ground? How can anyone on the left support this travesty? Because it was the Clinton adminstrations fault is the only reason I see.


they do it because the situation looks bad...not because they were on the wrong...and not because they wouldn´t do it again, because it was the right thing to do.

They were in the wrong and tried to cover it up. If this had happened under Bush and Ashcroft you best believe the left would be demonizing them.

[Ronin]

So if you disobey the any law the FBI can be called in and kill you and burn your home to the ground? How can anyone on the left support this travesty? Because it was the Clinton adminstrations fault is the only reason I see.



one of these days we´ll have to adress this belief that circulates on these boards that i´m from.."the left"...whatever that means...

but to anwser your question if you disobey the law and when then when law inforcement shows up you start a quasi-battle situation with them then yes....i expect you take your chances with what might happen to you....


and here i was thinking that those on the right were for strong police and anti crime actions....

[Steppe Merc]

The FBI were wrong, IMO. The Davidians may have been even more wrong, but the FBI lied, and that is unecaptable.

There have been other instances of the American goverment using state sponsored terrorism. In any war where civilians were delebratly targeted, that was terrorism. I certaintly view many of the actions commited by the US army against American Indians, in particular the ones already in the reservations (Wounded Knee, etc.) to be terrorism.


Gawain Jesus was about peace yes. But part of the Bible is the Old Testament, and that could (and was) used to justify violence. If there was just the old Testament, I'd agree with you, but because there is the very violent Old Testament, then it is not all about peace.

[econ21]

That is absolutely no reason for the FBI to go in and kill them all, including women and children.

Strange that you accused John Pilger of slander when making a similar accusation about the marines in Fallujah. Do you really believe the FBI killed everyone in Waco? The CBS material that Gawain cites seem to mentions only two shots. Or are you using "kill", in the same way some use it to say George W. Bush "killed" 100,000 in Iraq?

[PanzerJaeger]

There is no basis to draw relativity. The FBI is not a military organization and the Branch Davidian siege was not a wartime situation.

[Steppe Merc]

So only soldiers are allowed to murder innocents and get away with it?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain Jesus was about peace yes. But part of the Bible is the Old Testament, and that could (and was) used to justify violence. If there was just the old Testament, I'd agree with you, but because there is the very violent Old Testament, then it is not all about peace.

I take you mean if there were only the new testament do you not? The words of Jesus are all about peace. Christianity is not based on the old testament but on the words of Christ otherwise we would be Jews.

[Steppe Merc]

Yes, I meant only the New Testament. And Gawain, I already said I agree with you, Jesus was about peace. But because it includes the Old Testament, which potrays a very mean and violent god, and similiary violent followers, there is easily room to find allowance of violence.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes, I meant only the New Testament. And Gawain, I already said I agree with you, Jesus was about peace. But because it includes the Old Testament, which potrays a very mean and violent god, and similiary violent followers, there is easily room to find allowance of violence.

I never said you cant find allownaces for violence in the bible but that you cant find them in the words of Jesus. Christains do not follow the old testament other than the 10 commandments.

[Steppe Merc]

Then why are there Christians that believe that homosexuality is abomnation? Does Jesus say that, or is it all stuff from the Old Testament?
Besides, even the New Testament isn't Jesus's words, so its more like following the words of the followers of Christ, as I understand it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Then why are there Christians that believe that homosexuality is abomnation? Does Jesus say that, or is it all stuff from the Old Testament?

Good question


Jesus' teaching on sexual matters

Secondly, Jesus appears to have been quite rigorous in applying what we would call Old Testament teaching or Torah, often called `the Law', in matters of sexual behaviour. According to Matthew, Jesus quoted and affirmed the seventh commandment, "thou shalt not commit adultery", parallelling it with murder and theft; he intensified that commandment in the Sermon on the Mount; he generalised about the culture of his day as "an adulterous and sinful generation"; he appears to have used the term "adultery" inclusively to refer broadly to sexual immorality; and he was specific in spelling out his view on divorce and remarriage in the context of his time. (Matthew 19:18; 15:19; 5:27 28; 5:32; 19:9.)

Therefore when our Lord Jesus Christ spoke about adultery, we should not limit his teaching only to extramarital heterosexual intercourse but assume that he was speaking about sexual immorality in general (including the particular breaches of morality referred to in the Old Testament), unless he is shown clearly to be doing otherwise.

In the debate between the rabbinic schools of Shammai and Hillel about the grounds on which a man may divorce a woman (Mathew 5:31, 32; 19:3ff.), Jesus transcended the debate by taking his hearers back to first principles and reaffirming the divine plan of male/female complementarity cemented and expressed in lifelong marriage.

"Have you never read that in the beginning the creator made them male and female? . That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and the two become one flesh" (Mt 19:4f)

But it is also true that the effect of Jesus' teaching was a rigorous reaffirmation of the traditional place of marriage in Judaism. While Jesus' teaching does not completely exclude either divorce or marriage after divorce, it forcefully deprives men of the easy option. Perhaps that is the secret, because the tension between Jesus' apparent personal warmth towards those entangled in immorality and the rigour of his teaching about divorce and adultery is only resolved if the effect of his teaching is to protect the weak and the abused especially in the area of sex and relationships - especially women.



2.3 Jesus and homosexuality

Thirdly, we hear it said that Jesus made no reference to homosexuals or homosexuality - although that is questionable in light of the fact that he seems to have commended two and only two possible ways of life for his followers: lifelong heterosexual marriage, or consecrated celibate singleness (Matthew 19: 10 - 12). "While some are incapable of marriage because they were born so . There are others who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let those accept who can".

It is always dangerous to argue from silence but we must surely say that the reason why much of Jesus' teaching is preserved in the Gospels at all is because it was striking or novel, and aroused controversy. If Jesus had wanted to say something as novel and challenging about homosexuals as he did about women, we should certainly expect to find some trace of that in the records. The fact that there appears to be none would suggest either that the matter was not of great interest to him, or that he was entirely comfortable with the moral stance inherited from his ancestors.

On the evidence, the least probable scenario is that our Lord Jesus Christ would have legitimised homosexual conduct.

[Steppe Merc]

No offense man, but that guy is making assumptions, and he is even more likely to mix up Jesus's message than the writers of the Bible.
This in particular is just silly:

If Jesus had wanted to say something as novel and challenging about homosexuals as he did about women, we should certainly expect to find some trace of that in the records. The fact that there appears to be none would suggest either that the matter was not of great interest to him, or that he was entirely comfortable with the moral stance inherited from his ancestors.
There were many bibles not included into the current one, so who it is foolish to assume that any mention of him about gays will result in "some trace of that in the records".

This is also quite odd to me:

Therefore when our Lord Jesus Christ spoke about adultery, we should not limit his teaching only to extramarital heterosexual intercourse but assume that he was speaking about sexual immorality in general (including the particular breaches of morality referred to in the Old Testament), unless he is shown clearly to be doing otherwise.
Which is it, do Christians follow what Jesus says, or just assume that he meant all "sexual immorality"?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Which is it, do Christians follow what Jesus says, or just assume that he meant all "sexual immorality"?

This stuff is from the Anglican Church. Would you like me to post the whole article? . I though what he was saying was pretty clear and obvious.

[Azi Tohak]

Wasn't homosexuality (okay, bisexuality) still around in Judea in Jesus' time from the Greeks? I have always thought there was some... If so, it seems to me Jesus would have noticed it and mentioned something about it...

I'm just curious. I really don't know about that particular part of Greek culture and its spread.

Azi

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wasn't homosexuality (okay, bisexuality) still around in Judea in Jesus' time from the Greeks?

In a word NO. That is if you came out of the closet they would let you life but take away most of your rights as a citizen. If you stayed in the closet and they caught you death could be the penalty. They practised Pedestry(sp) which is something quite different.

[bmolsson]

There is no basis to draw relativity. The FBI is not a military organization and the Branch Davidian siege was not a wartime situation.

I think there is... :bow: