Some terrorists bomb My Country!

[Fragony]

MuslimRoman-Catholic Conversion Practice
1. Invade a region on jihad Crusade making it inherently holy
2. Tell all your followers how evil the enemy is
3. Kill every Muslim
4. Kill every non-Christian
5. Oh yeah, those that survive might be "persuaded" through aggressive questioning to convert to christianity; if fails, try 4).


Guess what, I have something for you; it's from the Qu'ran, 106.9;

"You have your way of life and I have mine."

How's that for forced conversion?



Like how Jesus killed a tree because it didn't want to give him any figs? Don't be ridiculous. Religion can be used for political means. It is not inherently good or evil, or whatever, it's how it's read. It's very typical for us in the west to want to speak of superiority and things of the like; "this is more than that", or "Islam is more violent than Christianity".

Haven't we learned in 2,000+ years of "civilized" history that "truth" is relative?



Does "Pope Urbanus II" ring a bell? Etymology:

Political wizardry, Urbanas II managed to combine roman war doctrine with christian ideals.

edit: the idea of violence in the name of christianity is rather complicated, it's based on a roman law of when violence can be used, don't have the specifics here but mr Urbanus has been a bit naughty.

[HoreTore]

Political wizardry, Urbanas II managed to combine roman war doctrine with christian ideals.

So.... When christians go crazy, they're abusing christianity.

When muslim do the same thing, they're following their religion.

[Fragony]

So.... When christians go crazy, they're abusing christianity.

When muslim do the same thing, they're following their religion.

Oh screw that, it just happens to be that there is a lot of confusion about killing in the name of christ and that it has been solved by the church rather smart, been a discussion for a while when Charlemagne was doing his thing, two swords and all that. I forgot the exact words but they made roman war-doctrine somewhat more convenient, sure someone can fill me in.

[rory_20_uk]

I think it depends on the reader. Theoretically, the same could be said about the Bible; they got it directly from Jesus, who got it directly from God.

Hardly. At least one of the Gospels states it is an amalgamated work. The letters and so on afterwards are clearly between two people and make no attempt to state they are the written word of God, but written by man.

Of course people can state it is the absolute word of God, but the Qu'ran explicitly states that the entirety is directly from God. No wriggle room there whatsoever.

Although there are loads of similar ones:

"Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.2:191-2"
"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. 9:5"
"Those who submit and convert to Islam will be treated well. 9:6"

Hats off if people can square this circle...

[HoreTore]

Hardly. At least one of the Gospels states it is an amalgamated work. The letters and so on afterwards are clearly between two people and make no attempt to state they are the written word of God, but written by man.

Of course people can state it is the absolute word of God, but the Qu'ran explicitly states that the entirety is directly from God. No wriggle room there whatsoever.

Although there are loads of similar ones:

"Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.2:191-2"
"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. 9:5"
"Those who submit and convert to Islam will be treated well. 9:6"

Hats off if people can square this circle...

Two major problems in your theory, rory:

1. There are plenty of people who believe that the holy ghost "possessed" the writers of the bible when they wrote, therefore making it the direct word of god, and as such is unalterable and final.
2. You say there is no wiggle room in the Quran. You state passages calling on believers to kill the infidel. How do you then explain that 99,9% of muslim do not kill a single infidel...? If there really was no wiggle room in Islam, every muslim would look to kill non-muslim. As they do not, this is proof that there is wiggle room in Islam.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Don't get me wrong, I don't see Iran as the shining example for Muslims lands, I'm stating that even in a land as Iran, the civil rights of Jews and Christians are defended by the law. I missed the nuance there, myself.

A law which enshrines their rights as inherently less than those of a Muslim? That was last progressive 1,000 years ago.

MuslimRoman-Catholic Conversion Practice
1. Invade a region on jihad Crusade making it inherently holy
2. Tell all your followers how evil the enemy is
3. Kill every Muslim
4. Kill every non-Christian
5. Oh yeah, those that survive might be "persuaded" through aggressive questioning to convert to christianity; if fails, try 4).


Guess what, I have something for you; it's from the Qu'ran, 106.9;

"You have your way of life and I have mine."

Actually, a Crusade is a war of liberation, at least originally. Further, conversion by force is expressly forbid to Christians.

Like how Jesus killed a tree because it didn't want to give him any figs? Don't be ridiculous. Religion can be used for political means. It is not inherently good or evil, or whatever, it's how it's read. It's very typical for us in the west to want to speak of superiority and things of the like; "this is more than that", or "Islam is more violent than Christianity".

Haven't we learned in 2,000+ years of "civilized" history that "truth" is relative?

Truth is not relative, perception is. The fig tree episode is problematic, but it's also purely about a naked display of God's power. Jesus asked for the tree to be destroyed, and it is. Never is it suggested that this validates violence against people.

Two major problems in your theory, rory:

1. There are plenty of people who believe that the holy ghost "possessed" the writers of the bible when they wrote, therefore making it the direct word of god, and as such is unalterable and final.

I think the distinction being drawn is what is actually in the Bible, and that is not. I believe Rory is reffering to the prologue to Luke, which makes it explicit that finding a reliable Gospel is nigh impossible. FYI Luke's protestations to accuracy are standard for Hellenistic history and biography.

[rory_20_uk]

Two major problems in your theory, rory:

1. There are plenty of people who believe that the holy ghost "possessed" the writers of the bible when they wrote, therefore making it the direct word of god, and as such is unalterable and final.
2. You say there is no wiggle room in the Quran. You state passages calling on believers to kill the infidel. How do you then explain that 99,9% of muslim do not kill a single infidel...? If there really was no wiggle room in Islam, every muslim would look to kill non-muslim. As they do not, this is proof that there is wiggle room in Islam.

1. Fair enough. How everyone else knows who was correctly "possessed" and who weren't must in itself be interesting.
2. I would be interested to hear how Muslims get around this aspect. The "wiggle room" appears to be against the Word Of God, whereas many Christians have managed to work intolerance into the message of "love thy neighbour"

[Rhyfelwyr]

Historically, most Christians believe the Bible is divinely inspiried, or at least all us 'Sola Scriptura' Proddies. Much like Calvin, I take a position on the matter that you can't really prove/disprove, in that I believe the scripture won't make sense unless you are actually 'saved' as they say. In my early Christian days, I didn't get a lot of the stuff I read in the NT. But as time has went on and I start to read more theology and grow in the spirit, the spiritual maturity shown by people in the NT often amazes me, it was just on too high a level for me to appreciate before. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean the NT is divinely inspirid, but I think that it could at least be said that is has a very clear message which provides us with everything we need to know on being Christian and forming doctrine.

EDIT: Clearly my spelling is not divinely inspired...

[Hax]

2. I would be interested to hear how Muslims get around this aspect. The "wiggle room" appears to be against the Word Of God

I asked my father, and will ask my family in Algeria about this; there is room for (constructive) criticism when it comes to the Islam. There is room for debate on how the Koran should be interpreted; whether every message should be taken literally; it's like you've totally forgotten about Liberal Islam. Also, I guess you are not familiar with the concept of Ijtihad and Fitrah? The first time, according to my father, means "using your intellect", in this case used to observe the Koran, but can mean using your intelligence under any circumstance; Ijtihad is also the being to read the Koran critically, using your intellect to decide for yourself what Surats are important and which one carry less weight, or disregard some surats altogether.

Fitrah is your natural sense of right and wrong; this can change dependent on location, time, virtually any circumstance.

Truth is not relative, perception is.

You will find the concept of truth differs per person. Your truth is not mine.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Historically, most Christians believe the Bible is divinely inspiried, or at least all us 'Sola Scriptura' Proddies. Much like Calvin, I take a position on the matter that you can't really prove/disprove, in that I believe the scripture won't make sense unless you are actually 'saved' as they say. In my early Christian days, I didn't get a lot of the stuff I read in the NT. But as time has went on and I start to read more theology and grow in the spirit, the spiritual maturity shown by people in the NT often amazes me, it was just on too high a level for me to appreciate before. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean the NT is divinely inspirid, but I think that it could at least be said that is has a very clear message which provides us with everything we need to know on being Christian and forming doctrine.

EDIT: Clearly my spelling is not divinely inspired...

Ah, excellent point for me to use as an example.

Regardless of Rhy's good intentions and his Grace, or lack thereof, he can never be trusted to interpret scripture correctly; even if it is infallable.

No offence Rhy, seriously.

[Centurion1]

look you do not understand latin obviously so let me give you a intro course. There are TWO different major latin dialects. There is Roman Latin (what you think of as latin, the roman empire), and there is ecclesiastical latin (church latin)

Urban took a word and perverted it from original latin and used it in church latin. You should analyze word origin more.......

Plus the original crusade was caused by fanatical seljuk turks. not saying it was right but there you go

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

look you do not understand latin obviously so let me give you a intro course. There are TWO different major latin dialects. There is Roman Latin (what you think of as latin, the roman empire), and there is ecclesiastical latin (church latin)

Urban took a word and perverted it from original latin and used it in church latin. You should analyze word origin more.......

Plus the original crusade was caused by fanatical seljuk turks. not saying it was right but there you go

Rubbish, the two are mutually intelligable, and crux means "cross" in both.

Also, there are multiple dialects, Eccesiastical, Vulgar, Medieval, Archaic, Silver, Golden, etc.

You are right it was a Pagan Roman word, it's the "cross" you hang up rebels on. Just like Jesus.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ah, excellent point for me to use as an example.

Regardless of Rhy's good intentions and his Grace, or lack thereof, he can never be trusted to interpret scripture correctly; even if it is infallable.

No offence Rhy, seriously.

None taken, it's like I said, what can you do, you can't prove it or disprove it. Maybe it's like you said, I'll be blinded from critically assessing it. Maybe I'm right and you can only understand the scripture by living by it and not just doing scholarly work, who knows, we can't prove it to each other.

As for Islam, I think it could easily be a tolerant religion, it just has a lot of cultural baggage. I remember in one guy's sig over at the TWC, there is a passage from the Koran that says Muslims, Christians, and even Jews, who genuinely follow their religions, will be good with Allah when they meet him. Can't remember the exact verse though...

[HoreTore]

Regardless of Rhy's good intentions and his Grace, or lack thereof, he can never be trusted to interpret scripture correctly; even if it is infallable.

Indeedelidoo!

Explain why that doesn't apply to Islam.

Please.

2. I would be interested to hear how Muslims get around this aspect. The "wiggle room" appears to be against the Word Of God, whereas many Christians have managed to work intolerance into the message of "love thy neighbour"

The fact is that they do. 99,9% of muslims do not follow the vile passages of the koran. 99,9% of the muslims are peaceful people. 99,9% of the muslims following the parts of the koran where it says you should be nice and respect people.

But of course, Islam is still evil and Christianity is a shining beacon of light in a dark world.

Look. If you want to find passages about massacring your fellow man, there will be plenty of it in both books(yes, the NT too). If you want to find passages about respect, peace and human dignity, you will also find lots of it in both books.

[Fragony]

Actually, a Crusade is a war of liberation, at least originally.

The first crusade should be seen as a pilgrimage really. They didn't really know what they would find, the objective was to go to the holy land, there was hardly any talk about the military aspect.

[Louis VI the Fat]

look you do not understand latin obviously so let me give you a intro course. There are TWO different major latin dialects. There is Roman Latin (what you think of as latin, the roman empire), and there is ecclesiastical latin (church latin)

Urban took a word and perverted it from original latin and used it in church latin. You should analyze word origin more.....

Actually, if one analyses the word origin of 'crusade', the first thing one will notice is that pope Urban II never used the word at all.

Also, if you want to give intro courses in Latin, perhaps one ought to be aware that 'crusade' isn't derived from Latin in the first place.
(Yes, I am aware that some online etymologies name Latin 'cruciata'. This is incorrect. Latin cruciata only meant 'marked with a cross'. In the figurative meaning of 'waging holy war' Latin cruciata is derived from Middle French 'croisement'. Later the suffix was changed to make 'croisade'. Whether French changed the suffix under influence of 'cruciata' having gained currency in Latin, or whether Latin only adopted 'cruciata' in the meaning of holy war after the suffix change, is unclear.)

[Ironside]

The first crusade should be seen as a pilgrimage really. They didn't really know what they would find, the objective was to go to the holy land, there was hardly any talk about the military aspect.

The first calling crusade were the Pope's response to the Byzantine emperor's request for military aid in reconquer the holy land (he had hoped on something more in style with payed mercs though). That would classify as a notable military aspect.

[Fragony]

The first calling crusade were the Pope's response to the Byzantine emperor's request for military aid in reconquer the holy land (he had hoped on something more in style with payed mercs though). That would classify as a notable military aspect.

Wasn't seen like that by the participants, most went unarmed in small groups, it wasn't an army heading to the holy land, it was very fragmented.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The first calling crusade were the Pope's response to the Byzantine emperor's request for military aid in reconquer the holy land (he had hoped on something more in style with payed mercs though). That would classify as a notable military aspect.

Wasn't seen like that by the participants, most went unarmed in small groups, it wasn't an army heading to the holy land, it was very fragmented.

Actually, you're both right. There was a military expadition which went to the the Holy Land, and a popular movement that initially followed it and eventually overtook it. It was the popular movement that committed most of the atrocities, the knights were generally much more circumspect.

HoreTore, I want you to find me a New Testemant passage advocating killing, let alone massacre.

[Centurion1]

Also, if you want to give intro courses in Latin, perhaps one ought to be aware that 'crusade' isn't derived from Latin in the first place.

It was taken from latin roots by the french.

The origin of the word "crusade" may be traced to the cross made of cloth and worn as a badge on the outer garment of those who took part in these enterprises. Medieval writers use the terms crux (pro cruce transmarina, Charter of 1284, cited by Du Cange s.v. crux), croisement (Joinville), croiserie (Monstrelet), etc. Since the Middle Ages the meaning of the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication.

True the french "made" the word but they used latin roots. Which makes it in my mind latin. Of course almost all words originating in western europe have latin roots......

HoreTore, I want you to find me a New Testemant passage advocating killing, let alone massacre.

He is going to talk about the fig tree like he did before

I want to make it clear that i dont hold muslims entirely to blame. i think Christianity has done some evil like the inquisition, treatment of native americans. But all i ever hear about in my history classes, is white males bad, western culture bad, Christianity bad. So all we ever learn about is the Middle East, south america, Near East, India, and Sub-saharan africa. In my AP World class we spent like a week on european and western history. This is supposed to be a college class mind you. In return we spent 4 weeks on sub-sahara africa. now i think these places should be learned about because they are very important. i dont even mind learning just about them, but i dont like my culture, race, gender, and religion to get trashed. yeah according to those standards white males did some bad , but i just get tired of hearing people talk about HOW evil we are and how we ruined their lives. Yeah, the south americans may have hated us when we first came, but i think at least some are happy they dont have to worry about being sacrificed to Quetzalcoatl. so yeah western culture has done ALOT of bad stuff, but we have also done a lot of good.

I am sorry for this rant. Basically, my point is we have all changed so there is no point in arguing with examples from hundreds of years ago. There is a very small chance that Muslims and Christians would annihilate entire cities of the others population for instance. I think Islam is not an inherently evil religion, but lately it has been twisted to embrace violence. I think blame really lies with their clerics like Khomeini and other such men. some (mind you some) use the power they wield over their fellow Muslims irresponsibly, much like pope urban did in the medieval era. Religion should NEVER be mixed with war and politics.

P.S. Gah, i am such a ranter, sorry.

[Cute Wolf]

I am sorry for this rant. Basically, my point is we have all changed so there is no point in arguing with examples from hundreds of years ago. There is a very small chance that Muslims and Christians would annihilate entire cities of the others population for instance. I think Islam is not an inherently evil religion, but lately it has been twisted to embrace violence. I think blame really lies with their clerics like Khomeini and other such men. some (mind you some) use the power they wield over their fellow Muslims irresponsibly, much like pope urban did in the medieval era. Religion should NEVER be mixed with war and politics.

P.S. Gah, i am such a ranter, sorry.

A very good point centurion... I totally agree with your arguments here... BTW, even if their religious scriptures said about that, it was based on condition of some 1200 years ago, when every king demands his subjects to follow his religion or face dire consequences.

Well, it was really right, a religion is being twisted for violence. And what that those terrorists aim isn't truly a religious "earthly heaven"... at least for their inner circle such as OBL, AK, AHM, NMT, and ABB (all are still free and can do more evil deeds in the wolrd, if any of us have a weak link in our security, what they aim is power.... power to control the deeds of people through sheer fear and twisted religious system. The pure religion inside (islam) isn't evil one.... as the Religion was just another victim.

[Odin]

The pure religion inside (islam) isn't evil one.... as the Religion was just another victim.

The primary orator, practioner and accepted prophet of said religion was a military general. Why we are still perplexed over the accurate implementation of the doctrines of Islam is surprising to me. If you are a non believer, you are to be converted. If you dont convert you are an afront to god and are to be killed.

Its not really complex and isnt masked in some deep inner logic within the religion, its crystal clear. The fact that the majority of Muslims dont adhere to the doctrines of thier faith (much like Christians dont) dosent mean that the "pure religion" isnt one that embodies and exports violent means to achieve its indoctrinated end.

We like to call them radical, but in truth they got the intent right they just happen to be applying it in an absolute way, which isnt prudent given that it was written as a social construct within a society structure that was highly factional. We are still to a degree but not nearly as much as we were 1400 years ago.

so essentially: KILL, MAIM,BURN

[Cute Wolf]

The primary orator, practioner and accepted prophet of said religion was a military general. Why we are still perplexed over the accurate implementation of the doctrines of Islam is surprising to me. If you are a non believer, you are to be converted. If you dont convert you are an afront to god and are to be killed.

It was a context quite common that time... more political than religious.... as they face bosth ERE and Sassanids that time...

Well, you should try to have more muslim friends... at least they aren't as evil as you might imagine, but their belief system is rather "unbeliefable" is much true. However, most "muslims" didn't follow their say religion strictly. They are flexible, just follow some skin deep procedures as cosmetics.... much same as today's most Christians are goes to church because their mom said they should go...

[Centurion1]

Christianity is a very easy religion to follow. we are not required to forsake certain earthly pleasures such as drinking or pork. The mongols of Genghis Khans time were intrigued with Christianity for these very reasons.

Cute Wolf is right however, the vast majority of people in the world right now are religion in name but not practice. However, compared to America the middle east is far more religious because of the very culture. The vast majority of Middle easterners are Muslim, therefore it is easier to be a practicing Muslim in the middle East than it is in America or some other highly diversified society.

[Hax]

Christianity is a very easy religion to follow. we are not required to forsake certain earthly pleasures such as drinking or pork.

Actually, drinking alcohol is one of the things that is typically Christian; wine representing the blood of Christ and all of that. It isn't meant in a negative or positive way, it's just interesting.

Becoming a Buddhist isn't very hard; take refuge in the three Jewels and you're done. Becoming a Muslim isn't very hard say the Shahada and you're done. Everything else is mandatory, in my opinion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It was a context quite common that time... more political than religious.... as they face bosth ERE and Sassanids that time...

Well, you should try to have more muslim friends... at least they aren't as evil as you might imagine, but their belief system is rather "unbeliefable" is much true. However, most "muslims" didn't follow their say religion strictly. They are flexible, just follow some skin deep procedures as cosmetics.... much same as today's most Christians are goes to church because their mom said they should go...

So, you're saying that most "Muslims" aren't really Muslims at all, and that is why they don't kill infidels.

That's not a great arguement.

[Odin]

Well, you should try to have more muslim friends... at least they aren't as evil as you might imagine, but their belief system is rather "unbeliefable" is much true. However, most "muslims" didn't follow their say religion strictly. They are flexible, just follow some skin deep procedures as cosmetics.... much same as today's most Christians are goes to church because their mom said they should go...

I dont think there evil, i just think they lack the humility to acknowledge that the mythology they created includes a god that gave them the ability to make rational decisions and to moderate themselves.

Its a nice backstop to have in your life when you can throw out a religous doctrine that is unassailable, you know "Well the bible says" or "thats gods will". I personally wouldnt mind a good old fashion war based on religous doctrines, it would be easier to comprehend motivations and justifications.

Plus I could come out of retirement although I dont think I could do Benning in July\August im to old now. thankfully we have plenty of ungrateful, spoiled, entitled idiots around between 18-28 that can go kill in my sted.

Cheers!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Christianity is a very easy religion to follow. we are not required to forsake certain earthly pleasures such as drinking or pork. The mongols of Genghis Khans time were intrigued with Christianity for these very reasons.

Well, there's the no sex thing. That's sort of hard to follow, virtually impossible for most people actually. There's an anecodote I quite like:

The Oxford Dons are arguing about what, if any, unique contribution Christianity has made. In walks C.S. Lewis, "What's the ruckus" says he, the Dons tell him and his response is, "Oh, that's easy. Grace."

Christianity is a religion of forgiveness, not contract. That's what makes it so unusual, in that it posits a unique relationship with (a) God.

[HoreTore]

HoreTore, I want you to find me a New Testemant passage advocating killing, let alone massacre.

Easy.

Romans 1:32 - the gays shall die.

But the thing with the NT, is that those who wrote it had no power at all. The christians were in no position to massacre anyone, so there aren't as much encouragement for violence and massacre as the old testament, for example. Does that mean the NT is peaceful? No, it simply means that god is the one doing the massacring in that book. The christians can't do it, so god will massacre every unbeliever for them. Just wait for jesus to return

[rory_20_uk]

So, you're saying that most "Muslims" aren't really Muslims at all, and that is why they don't kill infidels.

That's not a great argument.

I thought that not following religious dogma does generally mean you're not following the religion. I guess you could argue they're following a branch that believes that this is God's will which was revealed to Mohammed but right at this moment they're not 100% happy to go along with everything God said... possibly s/he was having a bad day on some bits of it... Sort of nearly practising Muslims.