Why?
It is clear that the Pope was correct in what he said based on the reaction of Muslims around the world.
As a group, they are intolerant and violent.
They are the sacred group now. They can act terribly and get what they want.
I am very, very confident that they are the new Hitler. It will eventually be the West versus the Muslims in WWIII....
Hopefully WWIII doesn't consist of Muslims setting off a bunch of nuclear weapons and ending the world
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Pope invites Muslim envoys to meeting on Monday
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
27 comments:
This is true...it is POSSIBLE to use Islam as an excuse. However, whether the religion condones it or not, people will use almost any religion as an excuse for violence, including all forms of Christianity and Jesus. Creating more hate and anger, in a situation pervasive with it, is stupidity.
Not all Muslims are religious fundamentalists who want sharia law everywhere, but a very large minority do. The Democrats' new support for this kind of rightwing, religious, gun-toting yahoo crap is why I'm no longer with the party today. Democrats embrace all Muslims without distinction because they see the world like an episode of Star Trek-- Muslims are a unified culture that must be respected because they are different than us -- it never occurs to democrats that many Muslims are completely reasonable and deserve our support against the fanatics.
Democrats need to return to their anti-totalitarian roots and resist fascists and theocrats -- there is nothing progressive about hanging homosexuals and stoning adulterers, and 911 shows we can't pretend those with global ambitions are not our problem.
This is true...it is POSSIBLE to use Islam as an excuse. However, whether the religion condones it or not, people will use almost any religion as an excuse for violence, including all forms of Christianity and Jesus.
The big difference: Jesus would not have approved of the spread of Christianity by the sword.
Mohammed ... clearly championed the spread of Islam by the sword and often participated.
In 2006, the crisis is not caused by Christians acting contrary to the beliefs of their prophet, rather by Muslims acting in accordance with the beliefs and actions of their "prophet".
With apologies to the mad man Al Gore: THIS is an inconvenient truth.
The Buzzmeister is correct. You can look at the past and find all sorts of statements and find they are based on misunderstood Scripture or science, but in today's world, we know of these misunderstandings and can clearly and easily refute them. But there is much in the Koran that justifies the fanatics' actions and they are more difficult to contradict. It's a big leap to find any justification in the Bible for the Inquisition, but not such a big leap to find justification for the violence perpetrated by Islamofascists. This is just the way it is and it must be recognized in order to successfully deal with the situation.
Democrats embrace all Muslims without distinction
Totally WRONG!! You are absolutelty wrong on that and I know that without a doubt because I am a Democrat and know many of them. You are making things up in your personal war with the left.
it never occurs to democrats that many Muslims are completely reasonable and deserve our support against the fanatics.
HUH?? Whatchew talkin bout Jason!!??
You just argued the opposite of the point you just made..what are you drinkin pal? Dems as rule think fundies, be the Christian or Muslim have no place in a democratic open government. It is anethema to such. It is the right that pines for the fundies. They just had a big rally this weekend and much of the political right showed up to support them.
Democrats need to return to their anti-totalitarian roots and resist fascists and theocrats -- there is nothing progressive about hanging homosexuals and stoning adulterers.
Dude get off the sauce! This stuff is why you appear as a lost cause. Why do you think we don't want to resist them? Because we prefer to try a different way of doing it? You need to get off the Kool aid and start working with your fellow americans to solve this problem and not fighting them and pretending they dont want to or favor the enemy. Until you are willing to do so we will not win. Could we stop all the family bickering and go to work pal?
Marshall, I can find all kinds of stuff in the bible that talks about wacky stuff that is no longer considered proper today. You argument is useless. Read your old testment and see how to treat your slave and sell your daughters etc.
ron--
You're doublethinking. If you want to deal with theocrats and fascists with the Alec Baldwin method of talk and reason, you are ipso facto supporting them.
The confusion comes from this. Democrats think supporting someone is the same thing as liking them. I'm not accusing anyone of liking people like Saddam Hussein-- everybody agrees he's a douche. However, many Democrats do prefer a course of action that lets evil people advance their goals, and that is support any way you cut it.
The international left seems to think they can oppose people with words alone. Well, it is good that their feelings are aligned in the right place for once, since I see a lot of support for Chavez and Nasrallah over on Kos. However, materially, "opposing" people by vibrating your vocal cords merely reinforces the status quo.
This is a 180 from when Clinton was in office, when we did things like preemptively launch airstrikes against Hussein. Now it is all about the UN and "international law," which is essentially what the UN says. Their resolutions are not meant to be enforced, as the left's interpretation of Iraq seems to indicate, but to paralyze the west so revolutionaries and jihadists can operate with impunity.
Mr. Buzzcut doesnt like to read. He just likes to listen(watch) himself talk. He makes no counterpoint of any kind. Having a degree in religion, I also can find several things counter to proper behavior that are in the Bible. Since most of these incidents take place in the Old Testament, Christians point to the New Testament as the better choice. However, it never bothers those who want to use it for their own ends. A true Christian would embrace their Moslem brothers, not create distance and strife.
The Reagan and Bush 41 administrations supported Saddam Hussein for years. What would you like to say about that? Were they pussies for talking and negotiating with him then, shaking his hand. Seems like he's OK when you can sell arms to him.
Jim--
We've been through this before.
Carter let Khomeini start the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Hussein started a war he couldn't win (I guess Allah was supposed to help where armies could not) and the west faced a choice-- let Iran become a superpower and export the revolution throughout the region, or aid Hussein.
We aided Hussein-- not with kind words, but with things like chemical weapons. If you know *anything* about Iran, it was the right thing to do.
I don't dispute that it was the right thing to do. I'm only pointing out the hypocracy of somehow blaming the Clinton administration for Saddam's evil deeds.
You said "However, many Democrats do prefer a course of action that lets evil people advance their goals, and that is support any way you cut it."
So did the Republics as I have just shown. Saddam served a purpose, to check the power of Iran. Now Bush has gotten rid of Saddam and then you wonder why Iran has increased in power and leverage. You wonder why Iran supports the Shia in their civil war in Iraq.
Everybody in the world, including Israel, understood the strategic usefulness of Saddam's position in the middle east. Everybody in the world except Bush and the COB. That's why Bush's Iraq invasion is viewed by many as perhaps the biggest strategic blunder in US history.
Mr. Buzzcut doesnt like to read. He just likes to listen(watch) himself talk.
Um, please find me an example of Jesus leading troops into battle as a means of spreading Christianity and this "non-reader" will have someone read it to him.
The quite obvious point is that Jesus was a man of peace, Mohammed a man of war.
Anyone committing violence in the name of the former is a heretic.
Those killing in the name of Mohammed are living by his example.
No degree in anything is required to grasp this.
Actually, a true Christian should appeal to peaceful Muslims to convert to Christianity, but the penalty for such is rather nasty.
As for the Bible v. The Koran -- the bad stuff in the former comes early and is thought to be trumped by the life and works of Christ.
The violence-inspiring Suras in the Koran come much later chronologically than the "tolerant" passages.
buzz, you're ignorant. Stop talking before you make a bigger fool of yourself. You make no points except how much you want to push whatever blather you are into. Read what other people have said in reference to your comments, then speak. Until then, you only look like an imbecile.
At the risk of making a "bigger fool" [great stuff!] of myself ...
Points:
1. Jesus was a prophet of peace. (Rebut if possible)
2. Mohammed was not (I learned this by reading ...hahaahaha).
(Rebut if possible)
3. Typing is not "talking".
4. Everyone pushes "whatever blather [they] are into".
I know it's scary accepting that there are tens of millions of savages who want to either subjugate or slaughter us because their "prophet" told them to, but such is life on Earth.
We can accept that frightening reality and address it, or we can pretend it doesn't exist.
For the sake of our survival, I hope 51% of the electorate are grown up enough to accept reality and defend Civilization.
Jason, your conservitive roots need a coloring. There are things between "just talking" and bombing and invading entire countries. Use your noggin boy.
Buzz...do you believe in the old testament or are you just a new testament person? Just curious cuz much of the bible is in the Koran and many things in the old testament are the warmongering killing things that you so detest. Jesus was a man of peace, maybe you should more often ask yourself, what would Jesus do.
Buzz...do you believe in the old testament or are you just a new testament person? Just curious cuz much of the bible is in the Koran and many things in the old testament are the warmongering killing things that you so detest. Jesus was a man of peace, maybe you should more often ask yourself, what would Jesus do.
I'm a Christian -- meaning I try (and fail miserably, of course) to follow Jesus' example, which, yes, is described in the New Testament.
I never deign to know what Jesus would do but I know what he DIDN'T do and that was spread his word at the point of a sword.
That has been my point all along -- that you can't compare Christianity and Islam due to the nature of their respective founders -- and it is apparently irrefutible.
If someone can show me where Jesus presided over mass beheadings I will happily reconsider this belief.
Jesus hung out with prostitutes, with sinners of all kinds. Converted a murderer, among other things according to the bible.
So, we should be like him, should we? This means we should be kind to all different kinds of peoples, whether they are of our own religion or not.
Jesus also preached tolerance.
Jesus also preached tolerance.
But He was willing to call a sin a sin.
He preached forgiveness for the truly penitent, not acceptance of Sin.
Above all he preached (obviously), Christianity. Thus, he would have tried to convince -- not coerce -- all Muslims to accept Him as Lord and Savior.
Yes, he was willing to call a sin a sin, yet he hung out with sinners. This in itself is acceptance of sin, that it exists.
When you accept someone as they are, that's what you're doing. If you hang out with them, then that's what you're doing also, is accepting them.
There is very little in the bible or anywhere else about him attempting to convert Mary (the prostitute Mary is who I mean). He just hung out with her. Yes, he imparted a lot of wisdom on her, but didn't try to convert her. Yet he hung out with her a lot. She is only one example of many.
There isn't much in the bible that I don't know, buzz. I'm very well versed, more so than most, and comprehend more than most. We could go on with this forever.
I don't want to turn this thread into a debate of Christianity or the bible. That's OTT. So, here I'll end this convo.
Yes, he was willing to call a sin a sin, yet he hung out with sinners.
True, because they needed Him most -- that and pretty much everyone is a sinner.
My problem with the current connotation of the word "tolerance" is that it implies that there are no sins, only different choices.
Jesus hung out with Mary M., but he undoubtedly didn't accept that prostitution was just a "lifestyle choice".
You're right, this is way OTT. Cheers!
One last one -- go look up the definition of tolerance.
One last one -- go look up the definition of tolerance.
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION
First of all "connotation" implies the currently accepted definition, not necessarily what's in Webster's.
But, fine, what does the above definition have to do with not calling a sin a sin? I'm not gonna try to physically stop people from committing adultery but I'm not going to pretend it's o.k. simply because I want to be known as "tolerant".
Oh, but I LIKE religious discussion!
First, the OT has numerous instances of God mandated war. The Israelites were guided and supported by God, but, and this is key, the wars had specific goals and once those goals were attained, there was no mandate to go on slaughtering other peoples. There was no order to kill apostates or infidels. The people annihilated by the Israelites were considered sinful in the eyes of the Lord and the battles were a means of cleansing the area that was to be the inheritance of God's chosen.
Within the community of the Israelites, transgressions were sometimes punished with death. Others required sacrifices for atonement. The similarity is in the well known phrase, "the wages of sin is death". Sin IS death. Thus, blood needed to be shed in order to atone. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a perfect atonement under that law, so Christ was born. His death on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice, and the practice was no longer necessary for those who accepted Christ as Lord and Savior. So, one of the major differences between Testaments is how one atones for sin. But the way we are to live is the same. That is, what is considered acceptable behavior to God. Christ also crystalized that message. He even said that He didn't come to change the law.
When Christ saved the whore from stoning, He told her to go and sin no more. He said this to others at other points in the Bible. (BTW, I don't believe it says that the whore is Mary Magdelene, but many people assume so.) As mentioned, Christ spent time with the sinners because they needed him more. He compared it to a doctor spending time with the sick as opposed to the healthy. But it was not to in any way condone their sinful behavior, but because he saw them as lost sheep and He was attempting to herd them back into the flock. That's a far cry from saying it's OK to be a whore. He considered His way the Life and sinful behavior death. He said, "Choose life." Jesus didn't preach tolerance, but He did preach loving thy neighbor as thyself. He also said to be salt and light and to spread His message. So in order to spread His message and be salt and light, one will most likely be at odds with the lifestyles and behaviors of others. To love someone who is different doesn't mean to tolerate bad behavior. Sorry. It just doesn't. As far as our Muslim brothers goes, if a segment of that society is murderous and barbaric, justice, another quality Jesus preached, requires doing SOMETHING about it. To protect the innocent from the murderers is a matter of justice and love for the innocent. In Genesis, God spells out what to do about murder.
Now I know that the Bible tells us to treat our slaves like they are God's children also, but for the life of me, I can't recall anything regarding selling a daughter. I believe Ron brought that one up. Please render book and verse so I can look it up. And between you and Rhyno, perhaps you could also direct me to those wacky things no longer considered proper, unless I've already covered them above.
He did preach loving thy neighbor as thyself
He didn't qualify who the neighbor is. This was a blanket statement, buzz, and I'm not going to pick 'n choose which neighbor I'll love, whether it be a Muslim, a Christian, a Druid, a Wiccan, or anyone else.
He didn't qualify who the neighbor is. This was a blanket statement, buzz, and I'm not going to pick 'n choose which neighbor I'll love, whether it be a Muslim, a Christian, a Druid, a Wiccan, or anyone else.
That wasn't me ... I love all my neighbors until and unless they threaten the existence of myself, my loved ones, other people's loved ones and Civilization in general.
Jesus loved 'em anyway.
People mamed him, mocked him, betrayed him, and killed him.
He loved them anyway.
& he was under constant threat.
Post a Comment