Pope angers muslims

[Elok]

Originally posted by Arrian
Hey, that's what Islam needs! A New Testament! Maybe the Pope should suggest that.

As for Muhammad, I'm thinking we're talking about the chief of a bunch of desert nomads, yes? Violence, austerity... yeah, makes sense.

-Arrian

??? Desert nomads? Mecca was a trade city, rather cosmopolitan considering its location.

Oh, and Molly, you're off my ignore list, FYI. Either I've grown calmer or you've grown less objectionable, or else you just don't shock me after the more virulent hate that's come with some other posters. Anyway, I too like your example about how Jesus having a fit and driving out some moneychangers is analogous to Mohammed's massive war of conquest.

Personally, I don't think of Islam as especially good or evil. The impression I got of its prophet from what little I've read is of an exceptionally cunning, resourceful and ambitious man. Compared to Jesus or Gautama, he was terrible, but compared to Genghis Khan, Alexander or Napoleon (which is really much closer to what he appears to have been), he was strikingly humane and civilized, especially for his time. Certainly he wouldn't agree with the crazy buggers blowing themselves up in the street in his name. He'd have had way too much self-respect to associate with that trash.

[Robert]

Arrian, thanks for your reactions.
We do agree on the 'core' of the religion.
Popes are to roman catholics the core of their religion as well. As a non-catholic I of course don't agree with that. But if I may speak for the catholics, the former pope has spoken his mea culpa for that. That can't heal the wounds that have been made, unfortunately, though.

And I think christians are too blame. And I'm willing to carry that blame as well since I'm no better then any christian before me and in their circumstances I may have done the same things.
I just hope that you'll make the difference between christians and Christ and do not blame Christ for what his followers did.

And regarding the Islam, I'm worried about it.
And I'm worried about it because as far as I can see the Wahibistic (?) explanation of the Quran is close to it's core. I wish the liberals were right, but I'm afraid they're not and we're going to have much problems with the Islamitics in the future. I hope I'm wrong though.

I'm sure there are similar distinctions to be made in Islam as well.

That's the hard thing.
I can denounce what the pope has said and still be a christian. I can't denounce the Bible and Jesus and still be a christian.

Muslims can denounce the words of OBL or Mular Omar. They can denounce the Iranian president whoms name I can't spell, but they can't denounce the Quran and Muhammed, and still be a muslim.
And since they can't denounce these the violence is still there in Islam, b/c it's in the Quran and in Muhammeds deeds.

And I believe that therefor polls overhere in Holland show that our liberal-muslims still do not denounce the actions of OLB.

[C0ckney]

You post on these topics, purposely trying to get people's ire, and generally behaving like a jerk. Which you don't in other conversation. In Christianity threads you are worse then Asher is in Apple threads or Circumcision threads.

Now if you dont' see your self as such, then maybe you should ask yourself why others see you this way.

It isn't even a religion thing, as you primarly post in Christianity threads. Almost every post has some little nitpick negative thing, additionally, never a positive.

while i don't claim to represent anyone but myself, i would say i wholeheartedly agree with JM's assessment of molly here.

i would also add that his whole game, on any given subject, is based on nitpicking and spamming googled links to stuff irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

[Arrian]

Elok,

I should've put a "flippancy alert" on that post, sorry.
Flippancy + just pulling stuff out of, well, you know where. I thought for about 10 seconds before I wrote that one.

-Arrian

[Robert]

To not let the Quran quotes be buried in the texts I've typed I'll repost them here.

Slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out ... If they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.--2:191

Fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah--2:193

Give us victory over the disbelieving folk.--3:147

Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil.--4:76

Choose not friends from them [unbelievers]. ... Take them and kill them wherever ye find them.--4:89

Take them [unbelivers] and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.--4:91

As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. ... An exemplary punishment from Allah.--5:38

The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation.--5:45

How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.--7:4

Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.--9:5

O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.--9:73

O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you--9:123

[Jon Miller]

Note, I don't know enough to say that Islam is not a religion of peace. I am just agreeing with Cybershy in saying that 'core' Christianity (or in one interpreation of the NT) Christianity is a religion of peace.

I will also agree with Elok, and say that you are better then some (who I won't even respond to, although I never put posters on ignore).I just think that you are biased against Christianity, as does many others (will you agree with this hypothesis?) and want to bring it to your attention.

You purposely misunderstanding and misrepresenting my posts (that is the only way I can see you saying that I was bearing a false witness against you, and I know that english is your first language) on the other hand was foolish.

JM

[Arrian]

And I'm worried about it because as far as I can see the Wahibistic (?) explanation of the Quran is close to it's core.

Fundamentalism is generally scary, because fundamentalists are inflexible, or so it seems to me. They are also often rather excitable at times.

This goes for all the religions, unfortunately (because all religions are practiced by people and people are violent bastards). Perhaps Islamic scripture provides more ammunition that others, but honestly I don't know. There seems to be plenty of that available in the Old Testament for those who want to blow up abortion clinics or abuse gays or whatever.

A pissed off fanatic will find his justification somewhere, you know?

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian


Fundamentalism is generally scary, because fundamentalists are inflexible, or so it seems to me. They are also often rather excitable at times.

This goes for all the religions, unfortunately. Perhaps Islamic scripture provides more ammunition that others, but honestly I don't know. There seems to be plenty of that available in the Old Testament for those who want to blow up abortion clinics or abuse gays or whatever.

A pissed off fanatic will find his justification somewhere, you know?

-Arrian

I agree. Although, I think that fanaticism and fundamentalism doesn't always need to be negative. The quakers of the 19th century were fundamentalists.. and fanatics. And that is why they helped slaves.

And I think that we should be fanatical about freedom of conciense. Basically I think that certain groups in the Christian and Muslim communities have given fundamentalism and fanaticism a bad name.

JM

[Robert]

Arrian: Fundamentalism is generally scary, because fundamentalists are inflexible, or so it seems to me. They are also often rather excitable at times.

As Jon said, fundamentalism isn't the problem, as long as people do not force their believes on others.

The problem I have with Islam is that the political-fundamentalists (which is imho believing that others should be as fundamentalistic as you and you do everything to establish that) can base their ideas on the Quran. Read the quotes I posted above.

[BeBMan]

Let's look at the positive side of this. I think the entire climate makes some nice denunciations possible! Don't like someone? Neighbours always annoy you? No problem, just spread news they have insulted Islam and get rid of them easily!

[Arrian]

The Quakers are indeed an excellent exception to the general rule, but I think you will agree that fanatical fundamentalist pacifists are relatively rare.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

The problem I have with Islam is that the political-fundamentalists (which is imho believing that others should be as fundamentalistic as you and you do everything to establish that) can base their ideas on the Quran. Read the quotes I posted above.

Christian politicofundies can and do do the same (although they mostly seem to fall back on the OT, since the NT is much less fire 'n brimstone).

The Quakers are a damn good exception, though.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Indeed Bebro! One good turn-in deserves another!

-=Vel=-
(now where have we seen this before....)

[Heresson]

You post on these topics, purposely trying to get people's ire, and generally behaving like a jerk. Which you don't in other conversation.

Nah, You're judging him wrong here

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Both religions are peaceful in their teachings. I would assume most religions are peaceful. It's only idiots who bend the teaching to a perverse goal who aren't peaceful.

It is a statement of faith rather than mind. You can't have a judgement in such an important matter without something to support it. Is satanism peaceful? Are some canibalistic or human-sacrificial cults peaceful? Religions are not, as many want to believe, generally the same. It's an illusion letting some sleep calmly. It's a way of ignoring a problem. Islam is not peaceful, never was.
How can a religion that was created as a war machine and authoritarian, bah, totalitarian gouverment, be peaceful? Islamic civ, mostly thanks to conquering rich and cultural provinces of other cultures, was one of the greatests. But it is connected with state of mind, political and gouvermental practices as they were when the religion was in statu nascendi. What for other religions, like Christianity, may have been a passing phase, for Islam is the original form.

Originally posted by Arrian


I think Molly's point, Jon, is that Cyber's throwing stones from a glass house.

He's asserting that Christianity is, at its "core" a religion of peace and that Islam is violent at its "core." How you define core, and how much you care about events in the past, of course, may alter your opinion rather drastically.
-Arrian

Silly question. Isn't the founder of a religion and its holy scripture the most obvious "core"?

Who, you and Cybershy ?!?

And me. And many more, probably
And, how can You compare lone whipping someone with killing hundreds, if not thousands, of people? This alone proves You biased.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Arrian


Christian politicofundies can and do do the same (although they mostly seem to fall back on the OT, since the NT is much less fire 'n brimstone).

The Quakers are a damn good exception, though.

-Arrian

Christianity has nothing like shari'ah. It is much, much more flexible and, unlike Islam, can not be treated as a political - gouverment doctrine. You can influence politics or gouverment with christianity, or rather popular at that time and place interpretation of it. Islam has shari'a - a full legal system (in 4 main versions) ready to implement.
Off course, shari'ah used to be more flexible once. But the gates of igtihad were closed.