(October 29, 2014 at 8:39 pm)Christian Wrote:

(October 29, 2014 at 8:28 pm)Beccs Wrote: Christian propagandists would have us believe that Christian terror atrocities have nothing to do with Christianity . . .

Any religion can be a religion of peace and any religion can be a religion of violence. The Qu'ran speaks of use of violence, the Old Testament speaks of it, but the New Testament doesn't because Jesus Christ preached only love and peace. Even Buddhism could probably be twisted into some kind of violent thing some how.

Jesus stated categorically, according to the bible, that anyone who doesn't hate his own family can't be his follower.

Yup: "love".

Quote:but the New Testament doesn't because Jesus Christ preached only love and peace.

Quote:From what I am given to understand, Monseigneur, there are two kinds of rebels who have risen up against the King and the Estates of the Kingdom. (1) The one, a fantastical sort of persons, who, under color of the Gospel, would put all into confusion. (2) The others are persons who persist in the superstitions of the Roman Antichrist. Both alike deserve to be repressed by the sword which is committed to you, since they not only attack the King, but strive with God, who has placed him upon a royal throne, and has committed to you the protection as well of his person as of his majesty.

-- John Calvin

Looks like at least one son of a bitch didn't get the word, eh?

(October 29, 2014 at 8:39 pm)Christian Wrote: Jesus Christ preached only love and peace.

Not quite.

Jesus also preached of Hell.

If you really do believe that people really do go there for eternity if they haven't accepted Jesus, that cranks up the stakes as high as they can be. This life is but a transitory blink of an eye compared to your fate in the afterlife. Saving souls for all eternity therefore becomes top priority, all else being dumped without hesitation when push comes to shove. Everyone you love and care for, including your children, are at stake.

So what if you kill or torture a few unrepentant heretics. It's all for a good cause. You're saving hundreds of souls that might have been led astray by their corruption, including your children. And all you're really doing is sending that heathen to Hell a little ahead of schedule, right? And hey, if you can get him to recant under torture and accept Jesus before you kill him, you're doing him a great favor that he'll thank you for when he meets you in Heaven.

After all, your fighting for God against the Devil and anything done in that cause can't be evil, almost by definition. You'll be winning countless souls for the future by stamping out heresy that might serve to lead so many astray.

Any religion that preaches the existence of Hell and a faith-based scheme of salvation is dangerous and will produce monsters. This is why both Christianity and Islam have proven themselves especially violent. All religions are dangerous, but these two especially so.

The only difference is Christianity has been restrained and muzzled by civilization. It's days of witch burnings and inquisitions are over ...we all hope I'm sure.

Islam is still running amok.

You know what Mr. DP...you do make sense.
Thinking of hell is the worst form of immorality that can exist. That is why I do not believe in hell.

So, you're saying that jesus was full of shit?

Quote:Mark 9:45,46…

“And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”

(October 29, 2014 at 8:25 pm)Minimalist Wrote: When these so-called islamic "moderates" stand up to the mullahs I'll believe they exist. Just like any fucking god needs evidence before I believe they exist. But if they sit there like sheep just watching then they and their bullshit religion can go fuck themselves.

There were certainly some Muslims who denounced the recent attacks on Canadian soldiers. I heard them on the news. Of course, I have no idea what percentage they form of the Canadian Muslim community.

(October 30, 2014 at 8:26 am)xpastor Wrote: There were certainly some Muslims who denounced the recent attacks on Canadian soldiers. I heard them on the news. Of course, I have no idea what percentage they form of the Canadian Muslim community.

I'm certainly willing to believe there are moderate Muslims in existence who condemn the extremists. It just doesn't mean anything to me. It doesn't mean anything to the extremists either.

This is the analogy that leaps to mind to convey why. Imagine extremist Islam is a pit bull. When the pit bull has once again attacked an innocent person on the street and the owner says "bad dog", it doesn't mean very much. The dog is still just as much of a problem.

(October 30, 2014 at 8:53 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(October 30, 2014 at 8:26 am)xpastor Wrote: There were certainly some Muslims who denounced the recent attacks on Canadian soldiers. I heard them on the news. Of course, I have no idea what percentage they form of the Canadian Muslim community.

I'm certainly willing to believe there are moderate Muslims in existence who condemn the extremists. It just doesn't mean anything to me. It doesn't mean anything to the extremists either.

This is the analogy that leaps to mind to convey why. Imagine extremist Islam is a pit bull. When the pit bull has once again attacked an innocent person on the street and the owner says "bad dog", it doesn't mean very much. The dog is still just as much of a problem.

You are right that these condemnations mean nothing to the extremists, but it does mean that secularists and Christians should not launch their own jihad against Muslims in general.

I don't think your canine analogy is very precise. Moderate Muslims are not like the dog-owner: they have no control over the extremists or immediate responsibility for their actions. They're more in the position of a dog lover who sees a pit bull attack and says, "That's a bad dog; it should be put down" but he has no power to do so himself.

Actually it is even more complicated than that. As I said before, liberal believers do have some responsibility because they keep insisting their holy books are divinely-inspired even though they have never really come to grips with the sometimes murderous content of those books.

Maybe the liberals are a bit like sentimental dog lovers who will accept that a particular pit bull has to be put down after a vicious attack but will fight against any attempt to ban the pit bull breed. In Ontario where I live pit bulls were banned about ten years ago after a series of high profile attacks on humans and other dogs—existing animals had to be neutered and kept on a leash in public. We still get soppy sentimental complaints about "breed profiling" but the number of serious dog bites has declined drastically. Disclosure: I am a big-time dog lover. I have a black Labrador and a Cockapoo.

MUslim moderates denounce terror attacks all the time.

Of course, that doesn't make for great headlines ... you actually have to look to find them. Not many people take the effort.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08...c-s/200498

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/07/...ns/1103410

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/01/08...da-and-U-S

http://baheyeldin.com/terrorism/do-musli...tacks.html

Against 9/11, 7/7, and a couple of other attacks, and with a list of links to other denunciations at the bottom: http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statement...terrorism/

These aren't very hard to find.

Also, I agree that the utility of the denunciations is not in holding back the extremists, who are going to pursue their violent agneda no matter what.

The utility of the denunciations is to demonstrate that contrary to the narrative propagated by a significant portion of the media, not all Muslims are bloodthirsty killers. Of course, it appears to have questionable utility in that regard, as well; this thread is in itself evidence of that.

(October 30, 2014 at 10:25 am)xpastor Wrote: In Ontario where I live pit bulls were banned about ten years ago after a series of high profile attacks on humans and other dogs—existing animals had to be neutered and kept on a leash in public. We still get soppy sentimental complaints about "breed profiling" but the number of serious dog bites has declined drastically. Disclosure: I am a big-time dog lover. I have a black Labrador and a Cockapoo.

Just to clarify, I actually don't believe pit bulls are bad if they're raised and cared for responsibly. The problem is some owners train them to be mean and the consequences are unfortunate. The fault lies not in the dog breed but the specific irresponsible owners.

Your point that my analogy is off the mark is well taken and I withdraw it.

What I am trying to convey, and did so clumsily, is that even if Islam only produces such radicals 10% of the time, that's still a problem. The moderates can say all they like, and I'm sure they're nice people, but that really isn't helping.

What I would like to see is a serious discussion of why Islam is so violently expressed with some of its followers. Perhaps there are other factors like politics and economics, and I'm sure there are, but I still would like to see a frank discussion of what Islam teaches. Unfortuantely, such discussions are immediately shut down as "racist" and "bigoted", as we saw with Ben Affleck.

Christianity was violent at one time and still is in some corners of the world. Once in a great while, Christian terrorism manifests even in the civilized first world countries (see Timothy McVey and anti-abortion assassins). Still, civilization seems to have done a good job overall of restraining and moderating Christianity. Is there a way to do the same for Islam?