CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Islam...

[BugI02]

I simply put up a comparison to the standard the poster did. If the same argument can be used against "plug in your major religion" then the original premise is weakened. Meaning that one needs not speak in such generalizations, and specifically cite the instances theyre speaking of. Unless one believes that in the past 14 Centuries, Christianity hasn't been just as oppressive as Islam.

Well, Islam doesn't get along very well with the Buddhists, either. Please enlighten me about their centuries-long record of mayhem

 

[BugI02]

What does that mean? I consider everything I can see to be an easy target with a decent rifle and good fundamentals.

It means you paint the bullseye on the back of your own shirt

 

[hog slayer]

See... this is what I'm saying (and not only about you, but most people in this thread.) This isn't a conversational post. This is a confrontational post.

I've sat on this for several minutes now. While I'm not entirely sold that my initial post was unethical, I will apologize because I am also responsible, to some degree, for how I am perceived.

I must also admit that I am very frustrated by this thread. So far no one has actually said that Islam is not a religion rooted in violence. Most have openly admitted that. But nobody wants to accept that Believers in Islam, or Muslims, would then be followers of that violence.

The effort continues to be made to compare Islam to Christianity. There are many similarities, but not enough for that to be an Effective argument. The best stance in opposition so far has been that with 1.8 billion Muslims in the world they surely all are not suicide bombers. I don't deny that. But I cannot trust someone who believes in a religion rooted in violence, or someone who says they are someone who believes in that religion but are not. Somewhere, that individual must be lying. Either to me or to themselves. And just like raisin cookies that look like chocolate chip cookies, they are not.

For those that really want to discuss Christianity, I'm open to that. There's a really good thread already for that topic. Here, it just clouds the issue unnecessarily.

 

[ATM]

It means you paint the bullseye on the back of your own shirt

...and trust everyone else to expose their fundamental errors to me?

Hmm... I like it!

 

[ATM]

...For those that really want to discuss Christianity, I'm open to that. There's a really good thread already for that topic. Here, it just clouds the issue unnecessarily.

Wasn't it a Muslim who brought Judeo-Christianity into this discussion? It's right there in the Quran, and that can't be ignored or separated from it. Those revisionist claims are a huge component of any discussion of Islam.

Islam begs the comparison and contrast, so it gets it. All of it.

 

[JettaKnight]

Well, that's one of my favorite verses from the bible:
[John 17:3]

It reminds me how the message of all Prophets of God is the same in its core

My refutation, in pithy form:

1. Jesus was not a prophet of God. He was as he claimed to be - God incarnate.
2. In that passage Jesus speaks as if he's separate from God, because, yes he is an individual, yet still God (see John 14).
3. Jesus makes very specific statements regarding the exclusively of his salvation (again see John 14).
4. Jesus makes it clear that the work of salvation is complete in him, therefore no one can come after him and promote a new path (again... John 14, John 19)
5. You haven't made a compelling case for why Mohamed should be considered a Prophet of God. Your only statement was, "Mohamed was known to be an honest man, therefore he must be who he said he was."

Question for you:
If Mohamed was a Prophet of God, and so was Jesus, and their message is the same at it's core, do you consider Joseph Smith on par with them? If not, why? What would disqualify his prophecy?

 

[JettaKnight]

Wasn't it a Muslim who brought Judeo-Christianity into this discussion? It's right there in the Quran, and that can't be ignored or separated from it. Those revisionist claims are a huge component of any discussion of Islam.

Islam begs the comparison and contrast, so it gets it. All of it.

Indeed. If a Muslim apologist quotes the NT, then, as the Judge on Law & Order would say, "Councilor, you opened the door, the prosecution has a right to walk through it now."

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, Islam doesn't get along very well with the Buddhists, either. Please enlighten me about their centuries-long record of mayhem

lol

 

[hog slayer]

Fine. Will include Christianity and Latter Day Saints. It's not like the Muslims have given any real strong evidence for Islam as it stands. Let's throw some other obstacles they're away and see what they do with those. I've been really hoping for a thought-provoking conversation about Islam. Mostly because I've been in numerous conversations about it and never had a thought-provoking conversation about it.

 

[BugI02]

Well, Islam doesn't get along very well with the Buddhists, either. Please enlighten me about their centuries-long record of mayhem

lol

Yeah, I'd dodge that one too, if I was you

 

[Benp]

Mostly because I've been in numerous conversations about it and never had a thought-provoking conversation about it.

Islam doesn't appear to spread very well from people reading about it and thinking "Hmm, yes, this makes sense," so I doubt you will have a thought-provoking conversation about it. It appears to spread more either through fear, or by those that are trying to be different and are wanting to stand out of the crowd and are hoping "being Muslim" will do that for them. The "friendly Muslims" (non-killing) aren't for Islam in it's entirety (those that follow Islam in it's entirety would be referred to as "Extremist" by some people, but this is exactly how it was meant to be followed).
If someone were to take a class in gun safety then they are taught basic principles that those who own a gun should follow (some would dispute the rules, but I'm just referring to them as "principles"). They could take what is being taught and choose to follow those guidelines or not, the choice is up to them. Islam teaches violence and intolerance as part of the curriculum, and while the choice is up to the followers if they want to subscribe to the violence or not, it's still being taught as what they should be doing. And I'm calling the teacher the Koran since it is their inspired revelation.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Fine. Will include Christianity and Latter Day Saints. It's not like the Muslims have given any real strong evidence for Islam as it stands. Let's throw some other obstacles they're away and see what they do with those. I've been really hoping for a thought-provoking conversation about Islam. Mostly because I've been in numerous conversations about it and never had a thought-provoking conversation about it.

Have you ever considered that Islam simply might be a religion that hasn't grown up? For all the rhetoric cited in the Koran as proof of the "evil" of Muslims, one can find similar "proof" in the Christian Bibles. There's really not a quantum leap in the notions. The question you should be asking isn't if the religion is evil, but why do some of the followers continue to do evil things, and hasn't pushed out it's loons like Christianity generally has. That's where your discussion should begin.

 

[Benp]

Have you ever considered that Islam simply might be a religion that hasn't grown up?

I sure hope it doesn't grow up any more than it has already. Are you talking about a total change in doctrine? Throw out the Koran? Because that is what is needed if they are to "grow up."

For all the rhetoric cited in the Koran as proof of the "evil" of Muslims, one can find similar "proof" in the Christian Bibles.

The bible does not teach killing someone because they do not believe the same as you do. There is evil in the bible, but it's there to show us an example of what NOT to do, and to encourage us to overcome evil with good.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I sure hope it doesn't grow up any more than it has already. Are you talking about a total change in doctrine? Throw out the Koran? Because that is what is needed if they are to "grow up."

The bible does not teach killing someone because they do not believe the same as you do. There is evil in the bible, but it's there to show us an example of what NOT to do, and to encourage us to overcome evil with good.

Yes, it most certainly does.

 

[foszoe]

Let's say both the Koran and the Bible teach killing someone because they do not believe the same as you do.

Let's say both Christianity make use of abrogation for interpreting their sacred texts.

Which group is most clear about which text would abrogate another?

Which group is most clear in the teaching of non violence in our day?

Yes, it most certainly does.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Let's say both the Koran and the Bible teach killing someone because they do not believe the same as you do.

Let's say both Christianity make use of abrogation for interpreting their sacred texts.

Which group is most clear about which text would abrogate another?

Which group is most clear in the teaching of non violence in our day?

Valid points, hence why I stated earlier that Islam hasn't "grown up" comparatively to Christianity, and pushed out those who take their teachings out of context, and use it for bad purposes.

 

[PaulF]

The bible does not teach killing someone because they do not believe the same as you do. There is evil in the bible, but it's there to show us an example of what NOT to do, and to encourage us to overcome evil with good.

Read the book of Joshua again. There is plenty in that book alone to justify violent action to an extremist...remember, an entire sub-sect of Christianity justifies handling snakes based on a single verse.

The problem with Islam is not the violence written in the book...it is a problem with the violence written on their hearts. Violent people with find a reason to be violent.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

 

[Benp]

Read the book of Joshua again. There is plenty in that book alone to justify violent action to an extremist...remember, an entire sub-sect of Christianity justifies handling snakes based on a single verse.

Joshua, along with other books in the bible, do have killing in them, but the difference is God was working with His people physically at that time and he was telling them what to do, and He had a purpose, but God didn't instruct us now to kill any nationalities. There was also a few people who died in the flood, but that doesn't mean that God wants us to drown people. Christ said for us to do as He did, and this was important enough for God to come in the flesh and show us personally.

The problem with Islam is not the violence written in the book...it is a problem with the violence written on their hearts.

There is violence in their hearts, but part of the problem is that they are being taught that from their youth.

Violent people with find a reason to be violent.

Absolutely!

 

[hog slayer]

Read the book of Joshua again. There is plenty in that book alone to justify violent action to an extremist...remember, an entire sub-sect of Christianity justifies handling snakes based on a single verse.

The problem with Islam is not the violence written in the book...it is a problem with the violence written on their hearts. Violent people with find a reason to be violent.

Some of this I can accept. Let's not forget that, while we discuss these things, the idea of a Christian is to follow Christ's example. The idea of a Muslim to follow Muhammad's example. For each group it is necessary to have a means of determining that example so one can more accurately follow it.

Let's take a look at what you speak of in Joshua. Do you want me to use the entire book of Joshua as a reference, or do you have a few select verses that you'd like to point out? I'll happily do either for you.