Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What "scapegoat" did Joshua use when he slaughtered all the women and children of the Canaanites, keeping the virgins for him and his men, of course?
What "scapegoat" was used when the hearts of the Canaanites were "hardened" to ensure a more complete slaughter?
What "scapegoat" is used to condone the practice of slavery and the barbaric treatment of slaves?
I know. But I think the Iraq/Afgan wars could have been more successful if they hadn't been made to be so complicated. I mean, they (the government) declares victory after Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were killed, but they made it out to be so much more, such as building schools, holding elections, and trying to make people think the way we want them to. In the past, we defeated the enemy and declared victory, such as in WW2. Now they turn war into a nation destroying/rebuilding/reeducating process.
BTW, my original question about 9/11 was to point out that the bad guys attacked us before there was anything done by Bush or Blair.
Christianity had its reformation in an age when the biggest weapons were a cannon ball.
Islam is still 200 years behind but in an era of nuclear weapons.
Christians follow Christ not Joshua.
Muslims still follow Mohammed and still revere the Caliphates.
If Christians followed Joshua, you'd have a point. But we dont. so you dont.
The wars were ILLEGAL WARS
Everything they had on Hussein was actually doing nothing that they said, it was to do with power and greedy nothing to with the ENEMY.
So because of one terriost group means that 1 million desevered to die for an ILLEGAL WAR .
*Sigh* step away from the tv seriously..........
The 'Western' media and government always look for someone to blame and demonise. In recent years this has been Islam and the Middle East.
It's Orientalism - trying to make it seem like 'they' are some uncivilised culture who want to destroy 'us', when that's completely false. Governments make business of going to war.
Joshua's actions are seen by Christians as being God-endorsed. Joshua acts as an agent of God. They see what he did as being perfectly justified.
I don't necessarily disagree that the Qur'an and Hadiths are violent at times, but it is categorically untrue that the attitudes of ISIS are 'not unusual' in Islam.
Musims for the most part are peaceful, loving, normal people, some of whom are more godly than some Christians. The majority of Muslims are just as shocked and appalled at what ISIS do as we are.
The 'Western' media and government always look for someone to blame and demonise. In recent years this has been Islam and the Middle East.
Yes.
But they don't follow Joshua. They follow Christ, who set a different standard.
The muslims still follow their "joshua".
I disagree, and I think that your post is fear-mongering.
ISIS do terrible, sickening things under the guise of religion.
I don't necessarily disagree that the Qur'an and Hadiths are violent at times, but it is categorically untrue that the attitudes of ISIS are 'not unusual' in Islam.
Do you actually know any Muslims? Have you asked them what they think of their prophet? Have you asked them whether they would agree to the statement: "not all of what Mohammad did was perfect"? Would they agree that Mohammad's killing of prisoners of war by decapitation was wrong? Would they agree that Mohammad's decision to "marry" (=deflower) a nine-year-old girl when he was fourty years old was wrong?
Ask them that, and then we'll talk.
I have yet to find a single Muslim that would agree that Mohammad committed acts worthy of condemnation.
Seriously, ask them - I'm not kidding - if you can find a majority of Muslims that will agree that Mohammad was wrong to decapitate prisoners of war for no reason whatsoever other than bloodlust, then I will agree to the notion that "most Muslims are peaceful".
In my home country, the Western media is trying to convince me that Islam is an absolutely peaceful religion being hijacked by a handful of extremists. I used to buy into the narrative and knew many Muslims that I considered to be my friends.
Then came the last Israel war, and they chanted "Gas the Jews" and mocked the Holocaust, saying "Adolf Hitler didn't kill all Jews so that there would be some left so we'd know why he did it". They also said that they do participate in a moment of silence for the Charlie-Hebdot assassination because they believe the men "deserved it" for "insulting the prophet".
These weren't your beard-wearing turban-muslims, but ACADEMICS in their MID TWENTIES.
We can debate about the use of war and the way our government is corrupt, but you can't try to sell me that the Western media is "demonizing" Islam.
Come to Europe and see for yourself.
Yes, I would agree with Sam Harris on this one - "It's not only Islamic fundamentalists that should worry us - it's the fundamentals of Islam." Or words to that effect.
But we could have made the same analysis of most religions at various times.
This is why I say it will take longer and be more difficult. The 'cherry' for Christendom was that people could see life getting better as they turned away from superstitions and old fears and began embracing new technologies, education, etc. These enticements now already exist for the Islamic world, but large sections of them eschew the benefits that would follow. It will take time. And it ultimately has to happen from 'within', just as it did in the West.
I believe the difference to be rooted in scriptural basis.
The idea of a Christian reformation was going on during a time in which most of the populace could not understand Christian scripture because it was written in Latin. As the sermons were also held in Latin, they were lead to believe that paying off sins had any biblical merit.
Luther pretty much said: "Hey guys, here's a translation - READ what's in the Bible, the clergy is taking advantage of you!"
In Islam, the scriptural basis is inherently violent and despicable, which is why a reformation would only be a legitimate possibility of parts of the Hadiths or Quoran are explicitly condemned.
Kind of like someone saying "Hey guys, your book is wrong. DON'T READ what's in the Quoran, it's just plain wrong!"
Someone who condones and encourages violence is not taking Christianity too seriously, but not seriously enough.
Someone who condones and encourages violence is taking Islam seriously.
Do you actually know any Muslims? Have you asked them what they think of their prophet?
In my home country, the Western media is trying to convince me that Islam is an absolutely peaceful religion being hijacked by a handful of extremists. I used to buy into the narrative and knew many Muslims that I considered to be my friends.
We can debate about the use of war and the way our government is corrupt, but you can't try to sell me that the Western media is "demonizing" Islam.
Come to Europe and see for yourself.
Different standard? Aren't Jesus and God one? Did the 'old' God get it wrong and had to be shown a new way? Was he shown that his system of morality was wrong? Must have been an interesting discussion he had with 'himself'!
We are discussing the people, their behaviour and the role-model, not their theology.
Muslims still follow Mohammed's behaviour (which was vile). They have not repudiated his behaviour. It is the core of their values. The occasional "nice" Muslim is actually apostate (and it is good that they are - cafeteria muslims), but Islam itself still takes Mohammed as its guidestone, hence they still behave today as he did then.
Yes, I would agree with Sam Harris on this one - "It's not only Islamic fundamentalists that should worry us - it's the fundamentals of Islam." Or words to that effect.
But we could have made the same analysis of most religions at various times.
Would that be the same enlightened Luther whose extreme antisemitic ravings brought on a series of vicious pogroms against the Jews in Germany?
I know lots of Musims, there are several that I consider friends, and two of my closest friends are Muslim.
I have never asked any of my Muslim friends and acquaintances what they think of violent passages, and perhaps I will consider doing so. But that doesn't change the fact they are nice, peaceful, ordinary people! They absolutely believe ISIS are awful just as we do.
I said in my earlier post that I don't wish to debate the violence of the religion itself, because although I am a scholar of religion and I do study Islam, I don't feel I am well educated enough on the subject to be commenting. However, I do want to be quite clear that to say that the majority of Muslims are violent or think violence is okay or think ISIS are doing a good thing is completely false.
In my opinion you must be blind if you don't see that the media is demonising Islam. And I live in Europe.
And I would very much welcome the growth of 'cafeteria Muslims' (marketplace Muslims perhaps?) in the same way that I welcome the same effect in Christianity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?