Basics That Every Non-Muslim Should Know About Islam

[MikeK]

I know that you are going to move the goal posts, but here we go. You can look up these on the SPLC website using the title of each article. I'm not going to post links to the left-wing propaganda.

In the SPLC article, "Timeline: The Christian Right and Public School," they equate being on the "Christian Right" and being against the LGBT agenda to racism.

In the SPLC article, 'War on Women,' they blame the recent California shooter incident on a larger supposed "war on women."

And in the SPLC article,"The Anti-Gay Lobby: The Family Research Council, the American Family Association & the Demonization of LGBT People," they talk about how they put the FRC and the AFA on their hate list.

Based on this, I think it's safe to assume that they don't like the Catholic Church either even if She's not officially on their hate list.

Your evidence doesn't support your conclusion. In fact, it is noteworthy that while you states that the SPLC thinks something about Catholics, and that all people who didn't vote for Obama are racists, you are STILL unable to find anything to back up your outlandish claims. The SPLC is not afraid to put people on their list. They've got radical Islamist groups on there, white supremacists, black supremacists, violent socialist groups, you name it. They have not called out either the Catholic Church (though they DO criticize some racists who abandoned the Church) not those who didn't vote for Mister Obama. They could have. They didn't. You make broad brush statements that you cannot back up because it makes it easier for you to go on without challenging what you believe. The irony that you will accept a man who has been denied an opportunity to speak by multiple Bishops but believe the SPLC is anti-Catholic is. Well, it's really something.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

MikeK,

I admitted that the SPLC doesn't officially have the Catholic Church on their hate list. What more do you want?

 

[MikeK]

MikeK,

I admitted that the SPLC doesn't officially have the Catholic Church on their hate list. What more do you want?

I want to see Catholics live up to what they are called to, especially when the public can observe them. Where would you like atheists, Muslims or Protestants to direct their peers to learn about Catholicism? Would you prefer they were sent to a detractor's site or to a site recognized by Catholics as being a legitimate source for teaching about the faith.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Where would you like atheists, Muslims or Protestants to direct their peers to learn about Catholicism? Would you prefer they were sent to a detractor's site or to a site recognized by Catholics as being a legitimate source for teaching about the faith.

What would be wrong with both?

 

[MikeK]

What would be wrong with both?

Both would be better than just one, but the obvious advantage is with the accuser as there is not an equal, opposite person on the Catholic side to address those concerns raised.

I would prefer, if someone felt they needed to "expose" the Catholic faith that they would first ensure that their audience had a taste of Catholocism straight and unfiltered from Catholic apologetic sources, ready to explain our truths and why popular objections don't really hold water before they started in with their anti-Catholic spiel.

I'm reminded of my dear friend who was a devout Mormon at one time. Rather than try to convince me that the Book of Mormon was true with arguments for it or against my Church, he sent me the book and asked me to read it and follow up with prayer over it asking God to help me to know the truth. He said he'd be available if I had questions but would not try to convince me, and he never did. I thought that was very honest, very faithful, very respectful ministry. He's a Catholic now

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I want to see Catholics live up to what they are called to, especially when the public can observe them. Where would you like atheists, Muslims or Protestants to direct their peers to learn about Catholicism? Would you prefer they were sent to a detractor's site or to a site recognized by Catholics as being a legitimate source for teaching about the faith.

You still haven't shown how Jihadwatch qualifies as a hate group. All you say is that they are called hateful by the left-wing SPLC, the same ones who equate being on the "Christian Right" and being against the LGBT agenda to racism and who believe that there's a "war on women." And the SPLC are the same ones who include the Family Research Council and the American Family Association on their hate list. At least Jihadwatch doesn't have to resort to the cheap tactic of name-calling.

 

[MikeK]

You still haven't shown how Jihadwatch qualifies as a hate group. All you say is that they are called hateful by the left-wing SPLC, the same ones who equate being on the "Christian Right" and being against the LGBT agenda to racism and who believe that there's a "war on women." And the SPLC are the same ones who includethe Family Research Council and the American Family Association on their hate list.

Even if they are not a hate group (and they are), they exist not to educate about Islam but to educate against Islam. There are plenty of sites that exist to show people how wrong the Catholic Church is. I don't want people going to them to learn about Catholicism.

 

[brewmama]

Even if they are not a hate group (and they are), they exist not to educate about Islam but to educate against Islam. There are plenty of sites that exist to show people how wrong the Catholic Church is. I don't want people going to them to learn about Catholicism.

I haven't seen anything that qualifies them as a hate group, at least nothing that y'all have posted. You ignored all the quotes from wikipedia that I posted. And I am baffled that you refuse to acknowledge anything critical about Islam. You only want advocates to give information. Since it is well established that lying to infidels is encouraged that leaves you at a distinct disadvantage and also somewhat ignorant of perilous things at work in the world.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Even if they are not a hate group (and they are), they exist not to educate about Islam but to educate against Islam. There are plenty of sites that exist to show people how wrong the Catholic Church is. I don't want people going to them to learn about Catholicism.

The Catholic Church has had 2,000 years of the most intense scrutiny possible, but the Church is still here because even though Christians aren't perfect the deposit of faith that we have is flawless. But with Islam the problem is with the religion itself. So its defenders have to go to extremes to silence any criticism whether it be through censorship or by Muslim clerics issuing out a fatwa for the death of anyone who criticizes Islam. But when people do this they prove the point made by websites like Jihadwatch that Islam is a totalitarian religion. We have to keep in mind that the Koran isn't a living person. It's a religious book. So criticism of it does not equate to hating Muslims as people.

 

[MikeK]

The Catholic Church has had 2,000 years of the most intense scrutiny possible, but the Church is still here because even though Christians aren't perfect the deposit of faith that we have is flawless. But with Islam the problem is with the religion itself. So its defenders have to go to extremes to silence any criticism whether it be through censorship or by Muslim clerics issuing out a fatwa for the death of anyone who criticizes Islam. But when people do this they prove the point made by websites like Jihadwatch that Islam is a totalitarian religion. We have to keep in mind that the Koran isn't a living person. It's a religious book. So criticism of it does not equate to hating Muslims as people.

And still you persist in avoiding the topic of the golden rule and how your behavior here falls short of it.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

And still you persist in avoiding the topic of the golden rule and how your behavior here falls short of it.

The Golden Rule doesn't say that we have to agree with a false religion.

 

[MikeK]

The Golden Rule doesn't say that we have to agree with a false religion.

I didn't say anything about agreeing with a false religion. You shouldn't suggest that I did. Again, let that golden rule guide you.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I didn't say anything about agreeing with a false religion. You shouldn't suggest that I did. Again, let that golden rule guide you.

If you aren't against criticism of Islam but say that it's not that I criticize it but how I do it, show me an example of how you would criticize Islam.

 

[MikeK]

Then how would you criticize Islam? Show me an example of how you would do it.

Religions who do not recognize the Pope in Rome are in grave error. Among them, religions that do not recognize Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and One of The Trinity with the Holy Spirit and God the Father are particularly errant.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Religions who do not recognize the Pope in Rome are in grave error. Among them, religions that do not recognize Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and One of The Trinity with the Holy Spirit and God the Father are particularly errant.

What about a religion that specifically tells Christians to abandon their faith in the Holy Trinity? Would you say that a religion such as this is even worse (whatever religion that may be)?

 

[MikeK]

What about a religion that specifically tells Christians to abandon their faith in the Holy Trinity? Would you say that a religion such as this is even worse (whatever religion that may be)?

Yes. Beyond stating that they are in grievous error, I don't care to criticize Islam or Budhism or witchcraft or paganism or satanism - or even Jusaism which while better rooted than the others, still obstinately denies Our Savior. All of these are incompatible with Christianity, whether specifically or implicitly stated matters little to me. There are all sorts or reasons that each are wrong, but I think we're more effective demonstrating the inimitable love of Christ than burning down other houses. I don't think that's very effective at changing minds and only polarizes bases.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Yes. Beyond stating that they are in grievous error, I don't care to criticize Islam or Budhism or witchcraft or paganism or satanism - or even Jusaism which while better rooted than the others, still obstinately denies Our Savior. All of these are incompatible with Christianity, whether specifically or implicitly stated matters little to me. There are all sorts or reasons that each are wrong, but I think we're more effective demonstrating the inimitable love of Christ than burning down other houses. I don't think that's very effective at changing minds and only polarizes bases.

Okay. You make a good point. That sounds more reasonable than when people simply accuse people of hating when they criticize Islam.

 

[MikeK]

The biggest issue I have with sites like jihadwatch is that those same tactics can be and have been used against us. The Bible and ECF statements are full of what appear to be direct contradictions. There are people who exploit these to discredit us. With patient study, of course, we learn that these statements are often (always?) less absurd than they might originally seem. I suspect that's the case with Islam too. That doesn't mean I think Islam is true or right or an authentic path to pleasing our Lord, but I do think we have to be careful about /how/ we criticize other's books. There is so much text in our faith that has been exploited by dishonest people to harm Christ's Church that I don't want anything to do with those methods.

 

[LJSGM2]

but I do think we have to be careful about /how/ we criticize other's books.

The Q uran is so disturbing that I think his original post is correct.

 

[LJSGM2]

I heard one person respond, "wife beating is only for those women that are completely out of line." As if that justified the Q uran....