| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Here is yet another moral equivalence argument, the likes of which we have seen many times before, from a professor in New York State. I continue to point out the weaknesses in these arguments because the idea that Christianity and Islam are equal in their capacity to incite violence is not only false, but it distracts from the reality and magnitude of the global jihad -- and weakens our ability to resist that jihad, since if all religions are equally likely to inspire this sort of thing, we can not legimately do anything to limit the spread of the jihad ideology in the West.
"Bible, Koran are violent, but 'read between lines,'" from the Sydney Morning Herald, with thanks to Mathew:
THE Bible has as many invocations to violence as the Koran, if not more, says an American biblical scholar and peace activist. There is a darker side to the sacred text that many Christians will not admit.
"If not more"? Please tell me more about this, Dr. Stanley. You only quote four below. Here, on the other hand, are eighteen invocations to violence from the Qur'an: 9:5, 9:29, 2:190-193, 2:244, 3:125-126, 3:169, 3:195, 4:71, 4:74-77, 4:84, 4:89-91, 5:33, 5:35, 8:9-10, 8:15-17, 8:39-40, 9:123, and 47:4. Now, I am fully aware that a single newspaper article cannot possibly contain the entire substance of your argument. So please send me the other Bible verses you have in mind (I can be reached at director@jihadwatch.org), and I will then post the more than 100 other Qur'an verses that incite or encourage violence. And then we'll tally them up. I look forward to hearing from you.
Alongside passages exhorting believers to love their neighbour and turn the other cheek are verses that refer to hellfire, encourage acts of violence or call for God to carry out acts of vengeance against sinners.
If you want to add in hellfire verses or calls to God to carry out acts of vengeance, the Qur'an has plenty of those as well. I'll add them to my list
Even the Book of Psalms, generally regarded by Christians as uplifting and comforting, referred to the dashing of "little ones" against rock, said Chris Stanley, a professor of theology at St Bonaventure University in western New York state.
This is the point at which those in Stanley's audience should have asked him, "Where are the Jewish and Christian terror groups that dash little ones against rock and point to this verse as their inspiration and justification? What, there aren't any? What about in history? No, Jews and Christians never took this verse as a mandate for violence? Why is that, exactly? You mean it's always been understood as rhetorical excess, not as a call to action? Then how does it compare to verses of the Qur'an that exhort Muslims to 'slay the unbelievers,' (9:5), a verse for which Osama bin Laden praised Allah?"
"There is the angry violent god of the Old Testament, but there is plenty of language in the New Testament that portrays God as a violent judge, and some that can be taken that human violence is something that God would ordain," Dr Stanley said.
"Can be taken"? Possibly. "Have been taken or are being taken"? No.
Dr Stanley spoke at a two-day seminar hosted by the United Theological College that explored how religious texts have been used to validate violence - and can be reinterpreted to encourage dialogue between faiths.This month, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, was criticised by Islamic leaders when he said the Koran was riddled with invocations to violence and described the central challenge of Islam as the struggle between moderate and extremist forces.
Dr Stanley said religious violence was not distinctively a Muslim problem and those who engage in violence and claim support from scripture are not necessarily twisting words, but picking up on past elements.
False opposition. To say that religious violence is distinctively a Muslim problem would be asinine, and unsupported by history. But to suggest that all traditions have this problem equally would be also asinine, and unsupported either by history or the situation of the present day.
Christians and Jews each had to face up to, not paper over, their violent antecedents, and no religion could claim the moral high ground.
That's true as far as it goes: Muslims need to face up to, not paper over, the violence in their theology and history. But here again, the equivalence is faulty. Christians and Jews and everyone else have done evil things. But there is no doctrine of warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers in Christianity or Judaism. In Islam there is. This is a matter of fact, abundantly established by the texts not just of the Qur'an, but of Hadith and fiqh.
It was, however, sometimes harder for Muslims to deal critically with the violent statements in the Koran because of the belief that every word of the Koran is spoken by God.The challenge, he said, was to have people follow those parts of the scriptures that espouse non-violence....
Indeed. But then there are people such as the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia arguing that the elements of the Qur'an that espouse non-violence, such as the 109th sura, have been superseded by the violent verses. Nor is he the originator or sole proponent of this concept. This kind of exegesis is what needs to be addressed by people like Stanley and self-professed Muslim moderates. The world is still waiting.
The things that you're liable to read in the Bible …Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
See above.
Matthew 10: 34-36 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
Uh-oh. Get ready for the Christian jihad against mothers-in-law!
Seriously, here we have no command to violence, nothing like "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29). We have, instead, a verse that has been traditionally interpreted by all Christian sects as referring to differences between people that would be created by the Christianity of one and the non-Christianity of the other. Nothing to do with fighting or killing people at all.
Deuteronomy 7:2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them.
This one would be frightening indeed if it were an open-ended, universal command for all believers to wage war against all unbelievers, such as is found in the Qur'an (9:5, 9:29, etc.). But in fact, it refers to the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. And it is not in force for all time, but only until the Israelites take possession of the land God gave them. Evidence for this is found in the fact that no Jewish or Christian group that committed acts of violence in any context ever invoked Deuteronomy 7:2 to justify their actions. The contrast with the Qur'an and contemporary jihad groups couldn't be more stark.
Psalms 58:10 : The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked
Here again: when we see Jewish and Christian terror groups washing their feet in the blood of the wicked, we may have something to be concerned about. Until then, we can rest on the assurance that Jewish and Christian interpretative traditions -- mainstream traditions -- mitigate the force of the literal understanding of this in various ways. Again, the contrast with mainstream Qur'anic interpretation couldn't be more stark.
Posted by Robert at May 29, 2006 7:34 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Christian Jihad against mothers-in-law?
Must resist the urge to convert.
Posted by: Shy Guy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 29, 2006 9:03 AM
If Christianity, which in its history was able to reform itself and grow stronger because it was able to go back to its Biblical roots, then why is it that people still come to faith in Christ?
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 29, 2006 9:06 AM
I know for a fact that, although the Anglican church goes through the psalms throughout the year in its lectionary, the verse this man quotes may be omitted by Anglican clergymen - one specifically told me that. In fact, he showed me that it was marked as "optional" in their lectionary, so there is no argument here.
This - basically dishonest - exercise in picking a quotation here, a quotation there, from the Bible is of nugatory value. There are few; they are nothing like anything in the Koran; they often require a highly strained interpretation to be considered as violent (Matthew 10: 34-36); they go against much else that is in the book. This isn't a question of whether there is a violent verse here or there in the Koran. (Archbishop Pell gave up counting these.) The thing to note is, considered as a whole, what kind of a society does the text of the Koran both reflect and - more seriously for the present - legimate?
Stanley is exhibiting nothing other than a will to dishonesty. It is shameful, utterly shameful.
Posted by: Yojimbo at May 29, 2006 9:10 AM
"THE Bible has as many invocations to violence as the Koran, if not more, says an American biblical scholar and peace activist. There is a darker side to the sacred text that many Christians will not admit."
Could this fruitcake be a member of the Christian Peacemaker Teams - those moonbats who deliberately venture into the dangerous front line zones where Islam and the infidel world clash, at the risk of having their heads sawn off whilst screaming mercy with their last spluttering breaths, and if they get rescued, they compare their rescuers to Satan. Of course, it seems the only qualification necessary to be a professor these days is to be as dense and stupid as a housebrick if this is anything to go by.
at May 29, 2006 9:16 AM
There's also the issue of the sheer density of violence in the Quran, it's a far smaller text than the Bible and every other damn verse refers to hellfire or head chopping. Its a shame we don't have any remaining Aztec religeous texts, might be able to give it a favourable comparison then.
Posted by: QueeQueeg at May 29, 2006 9:43 AM
Would it be true to say that the Bible can be viewed as historical and that the Koran cannot, or that the violence in the Bible is descriptive and the violence in the Koran is prescriptive?
Posted by: Silvester at May 29, 2006 9:46 AM
There is no moral equivalence- Christians have slaughtered millions more in the name of their Bible than Muslims (or indeed all other religions put together) have with the Quran
Posted by: truth speaker at May 29, 2006 10:01 AM
"It was, however, sometimes harder for Muslims to deal critically with the violent statements in the Koran because of the belief that every word of the Koran is spoken by God.
The challenge, he said, was to have people follow those parts of the scriptures that espouse non-violence...."
So, Dr. Stanley, how well are the Muslims meeting the challenge so far?
at May 29, 2006 10:03 AM
Dr. Chris Stanley can be contacted by email at
cstanley@sbu.edu
Perhaps it's time that some of us told him what we think. Unchallenged he will believe that everyone agrees with him.
The SBU site has some details about him at
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 29, 2006 10:06 AM
Now let us assume for the argument, that the Bible calls for killings.
Does that mean we have a justification for killings in our western and secular states? The answer is no. Because our laws are not derived from some verse in the bible, they are made by society in a democratic process. And they can be changed, abolished, or replaced in this democratic process, whatever is written in some bible or other so-called holy book.
There actually would be no problem with the violent Quran if the process of legislation was the same as in our states.
And the latter is not the case. Definitely not. Some people want to do away with our man-made laws to impose their laws not subject to a democratic process. That's all the trouble with Islam. And only with Islam.
They claim their law is revealed by Allah, and that's it. And if we don't buy it, they'll show us.
at May 29, 2006 10:14 AM
Silvester,
Agreed, and there is another difference in the approaches to the Bible and the koran. See my posting at
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011589.php#comments
about a third of the way down.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 29, 2006 10:20 AM
scholar?...someone that cannot make any difference between OT and NT and that cannot put into context Matthew 10: 34-36 !!!!
Even my sister that is 12 sees through the words of Jesus in Matthew, and sees the context!
Can I name him as a nominee for this year contest as dhimmi of the year?
to "spaeker"
a) What has been done has not been done in the name of Jesus, and even if, it was not in his "guidelines"
b) you should take an history book bcs you what you are saying is just your opinion, but where are the facts???? Ever heard of Hindu Kush? for exemple?
at May 29, 2006 10:26 AM
Truth speaker needs a refresher course in history and to keep up in his reading of current events.
Posted by: the poetess at May 29, 2006 10:34 AM
"Truth speaker needs a refresher course in history and to keep up in his reading of current events."
from which sources? zionazis? even in this age Christians have killed far more Muslims than vice versa - everyone talks of the 3,000 killed on 9/11 but never of the 100s of 1000s of Muslims killed by Christains in Afghanistan and Iraq. People recount the horror of Beslan and the killing of 300+ russian children but not the killing of tens maybe hundreds of thousands of Muslim Chechens by Russian Christians.
What are the bloodiest wars of our age/history ? WWI , WW II - Christain wars !!! - the bloodiest war since WWII has been in the Congo - between christians!! 5 million killed by peace loving Christians. the worse massacre in Europe since WWII? Srebinca - Muslims slaughtered by Christians
Posted by: truth speaker at May 29, 2006 10:45 AM
These "learned religious" men, examining the leg of the elephant, have come to false conclusions and have made ignorant pronouncements.
Have they read the hadiths of Bukhari or Muslim?
Have they read Ibn Ishaq's Sirah, the biography of mohammed? Have they read and watched MEMRI translations and television clips of the foul spewing of respected Muslim scholars? I doubt it.
Perhaps Dr. Stanley's time would be better spent going to Muslim websites and asking the Imam to clarify his understanding.
Posted by: the poetess at May 29, 2006 10:47 AM
"truthspeaker": are you a dolt? Ask India about their murdered millions.
Prophet Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at May 29, 2006 10:49 AM
"those moonbats who deliberately venture into the dangerous front line zones where Islam and the infidel world clash, r"
or you mean where Christians invade and terror bomb Muslim lands - all under the inspiration of their devoutly Christian president Bush (and Blair and Howard) and wildly supported by Christians in the US? - but astonishly you mention a few christians beheaded by fringe loony Muslim fanatics which appaled Muslims - but not the thousands of Muslim civilians beheaded by Christian bombs in a war supported strongly by most US Christians -who now yearn for MORE muslim blood in Iran
Posted by: truth speaker at May 29, 2006 10:50 AM
Poor truth speaker. He sees no politics involved in the spread of Islam, when for the most part, Islam is a political ideology with its of worship of an Arabian god/warrior king and his primitive moon god.
Posted by: the poetess at May 29, 2006 10:52 AM
""truthspeaker": are you a dolt? Ask India about their murdered millions."
Ah yes the Muslim "massacres" in India -which is why there are now no Hindus left in India today after 800 years of Muslim rule - apart from the 800 million Hindus who make up 80% of the population .
This is distinct from Australia, Canada, America and South America after only 300-500 years of Christian rule and tolerace - where indigenous people/aborigines make up 80% of the population
Posted by: truth speaker at May 29, 2006 10:54 AM
spaeker,
you are quite ignorant (in the sense that you don't know)!
you cannot make a difference between the West and Christianity!
to say that WW1-WW2 (sic!!!) or Afghanistan or Iraq are Christian wars would make everyone laugh!
At the contrary for example Beslan was make under "the protection and will of Allah"...or haven't you seen the Qur'ans brandished by the followers of the religion of peace (sic)!?
and how about the xx'000 people slaunghtered in ALGERIA?...AND 9-11 OR 7-7 or Madrid...were all this not made in the name of al Il-lah?
at May 29, 2006 10:55 AM
truth speaker:
do you seriously still believe the story of Srebrica??,
7000 muslims killed by Serbs while the Dutch were looking on??, ...which turns out to be one of the brilliant pieces of EU and US propaganda to lick some Saudi dick, and put Milosevic onto the war tribunal ??
If very soon that massgrave is gonna be opened they won´t find the remains of 7000 bodies there... wonder why??
at May 29, 2006 11:07 AM
Christianity in action
The Lord's Army Uganda
"Lord's Resistance Army
The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) is a rebel group based in north Uganda which was formed in 1987. It is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaimed himself a prophet and APPARENTLY WISHED TO ESTABLISH A STATE BASED ON THE BIBLICAL TEN COMMANDMENTS. The rebels have been accused of many atrocities in the area, including kidnapping children to train as soldiers or use as sex slaves. The group draws its members primarily from the Acholi people, but it lacks widespread support among the Acholis, who have also been the victims of many of its tactics. Atrocities have been reported in the area around the towns of Kitgum, Gulu, and Burlanyo. The Ugandan government blamed the LRA for a massacre of over 200 civilians at a refugee camp in Burlanyo on February 21, 2004."
These are bible beleving Christians who take the murderous verses in the Bible very seriously
http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0920-12.htm
http://www.hrw.org/reports97/uganda/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2982818.stm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/1997/09/18/uganda1528.htm
These are true Bible believing Christians
at May 29, 2006 11:11 AM
A very Christian war - the Christianity inspired genocide of the Serbs against Bosnian Muslims
"
One of the most striking features of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia has been the muscular Christianity of the Serbs. Many of the atrocities recorded by journalists, including impalements, throat-slitting and rape, have been preceded by appeals to convert to Orthodox Christianity. Detailed reports have surfaced in the Belgrade press describing the forced baptism of Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) in occupied areas of Bosnia, and it is known that at least some have accepted the sacrament in order to save their lives.
None of this is new. Forced baptism has been part of the militant Serb agenda for many years. Back in 1917, Yugoslavia's future prime minister Stojan Protic remarked: "We have the solution for Bosnia. When our army crosses the Drina, we will give the Muslims twenty-four hours, or even forty-eight hours, of time to become Christians. Those who do not wish to do so are to be cut down, as we did in Serbia earlier."
This consistent attitude of hatred grows from several roots. One is the hoary myth that Serbs were forced to convert to Islam during the centuries of Ottoman rule. But by far the strongest support for this genocidal attitude has come from the Serbian Orthodox Church, historically a dark, seething mass of phobias about Jews and Muslims."
complete article:
http://www.geocities.com/famous_bosniaks/english/serbian_orthodox_church.html
Posted by: truth speaker at May 29, 2006 11:13 AM
What "truth speaker" (i.e. pedlar of lies) has tried, with some success, to do is derail the discussion, because it's simply too embarrasing. No one in his right mind and concerned to be honest could deny, as Stanley has, that the Koran is a shockingly violent text and the Bible is not. Pedlar of lies would rather move the discussion somewhere else - although, frankly, he'll lose there, too; so it's of little account.
Posted by: Yojimbo at May 29, 2006 11:14 AM
"truth speaker:
do you seriously still believe the story of Srebrica??"
and you people complain about holocaust denial amongst Muslims ...go figure....
Posted by: truth speaker at May 29, 2006 11:15 AM
" the Koran is a shockingly violent text and the Bible is not."
"Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce
anger...Whoever is found will be thrust through and whoever is caught will
fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes,
their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished."
..........Isaiah 13:9, 13:15
"..the Lord will smite with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion, and
the Lord will lay bare their secret parts."
..........Isaiah 3:17
"Slay and utterly destroy after them, says the Lord, and do all that I have
commanded you."
..........Jeremiah 50:21
"'Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and
you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little
children and women...'"
..........Ezekiel 9:5
"David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the
Philistines; and David brought their foreskins, which were given in full
number to the king, that he might become the king's son-in-law."
..........1 Samuel 18:27
"When men fight with one another, and the wife of one draws near to rescue
her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand
and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand; your
eye shall have no pity."
..........Deuteronomy 25:11
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman
who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not
known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
..........Numbers 31:17 (Moses)
"Samar'ia shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God;
they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces,
and their pregnant women ripped open."
..........Hosea 13:16
at May 29, 2006 11:22 AM
here is a very visual picture series of early mujahedin terror attacks on srebrenica, have a look (warning: some persons may fall sick upon viewing these photographs)
it is emphasized that these were early muslim terror attacks to which the serbs (christians)had to react...
http://www.serbianna.com/features/srebrenica/030.shtml
(slow loading)
Posted by: cosmicAvenger at May 29, 2006 11:45 AM
"here is a very visual picture series of early mujahedin terror attacks on srebrenica, have a look (warning: some persons may fall sick upon viewing these photographs)
it is emphasized that these were early muslim terror attacks to which the serbs (christians)had to react..."
Oh i see so Srebinca was just a Muslim terror attack the Serbs had to react to - so why did they do so by expelling and eradicating all the Muslims in Srebinca men, women and children rather than just the mujahedin?.
And which Muslim attacks were the Serbs responding to when they raped, extreminated and expelled Muslims from ever terrority they invaded in Bosnia*? Banja Luka, Doboj, Foca, Pocitelj, Omarska, Prijedor, Stolac Tuzla, and Visegrad etc
Oh yes I forgot - the 1389 battle of Kosovo
(*they also did the same to Christian Croats - why was that?)
at May 29, 2006 11:52 AM
I have not been there, but I dispute your version of the actual happenings. One of my Dutch colleagues has been there, and dribbeling some classified information he strongly questions the official EU and US versions of the event.
Posted by: cosmicAvenger at May 29, 2006 11:57 AM
truth speaker is a musim or dhimmi troll. And obviously a Christian hater.
(back now turned to him/her)
at May 29, 2006 12:03 PM
ruth seeker-
Christian jihadists?
But, if the "Christians" you cite behaved just as Mohammedans are instructed to do by the violent verses in the Koran, then they are not behaving as "Christians" ("love thy neightbor as thyself") but like Muslim jihadists (Sura 9:29-30, ad nauseam).
So, I agree, when "Christians" betray their faith and behave like intolerant Muslims, I deplore them as I deplore anyone foolish enough to follow the despotic and tyrannical preachings of vengeance, murder, deceit, plunder, assassination and pedophilia like the "prophet" of "Al-lah", Mohammad.
Thanks for clearing this up.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 29, 2006 12:14 PM
"professor and peace activist...."
-- from the article above
We all know, by now, what the phrase "peace activist" means. It does not mean someone who furthers the cause of genuine peace. It means someone who wishes to obtain a false "peace" by appeasement of the most aggressive and hostile forces opposed to everything that is worth preserving in the Western world. That is what a "peace activist" is today.
And one more note. Though the comments of the "professor and peace activist" were apparently limited to the usual nonsense about passages in Leviticus and the Qur'an, he forget about the Hadith. He forgot about the main point of comparison: the figure, and model, of Jesus, as compared with the figure, and model, of Muhammad. One preached peace and charity and all that other good stuff and practiced what he preached. The other took part in 78 military campaigns, watched approvingly as 600-900 bound hostages were decapitated, expressed his delight at the murders of people, including a woman and an old man, whom he felt had mocked him, took a nine-year-old as his wife, took as a concubine a woman whose father, husband, brother his men had killed, attacked the innocent farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, established the rules by which he would take 20% of whatever loot was taken from the non-Muslims, practiced in his treaty-making with the Meccans, and in many other ways, his preaching that "war is deception," and continually justified, and promoted, attacks on non-Muslims and seizure of their women and property.
And much of the Qur'an and all of the Sunna, are devoted not to Allah but to Muhammad. He is the Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil. Allah may "Know Best" but Muhammad is the embodiment of all that is good, admirable, all that is to be mimicked and imitated.
What would you rather have as a Christian? A "moderate Christian" who tried to live up to the example of Jesus, or one who didn't try? You would prefer the former. And what would you rather have as a Muslim? One who tried to live up to the example of Muhammad, or one who didn't try? The latter.
Your answer to those two questions reveals, even perhaps unwillingly or unwittingly (try it out on your friends) the main difference between Christianity and Islam.
Posted by: Hugh at May 29, 2006 12:23 PM
truth seeker,
Yes, there is violence in the Bible but these quotes are referring to specific places at specific times. Isaiah refers to Babylon.
Isaiah 13:9 says what God will do to Babylon, not what people should do to it. Isaiah 13:15 once again predicts what will happen to the people of Babylon, it does not say that the Israelites are instructed to do it, in fact it says that it'll be the Medes who do it. Isaiah 3:17 again says it is God who is going to do this, it is not an order for people to act in such a fashion.
Jeremiah is referring to a specific place, Pekod.
Ezekiel 9:5-6 refers to Jerusalem at a specific time, and accordingly the instructions are recorded in the past tense. Numbers 31:17 is referring to the Midianites who were dealt with so that the Jews could establish themselves in the Promised Land.
None of these is an open-ended call to war against the whole of humanity, unlike Islamic Scripture.
Posted by: Elephant at May 29, 2006 12:39 PM
Stanely has published several books, one at Cambridge Univ. Press, and another forthcoming from Princeton. It is hard to believe that he could read the Qur'an and Hadith and come away with the opinion that jihad ideology, the glorification of martrydom in battle, and the Islamic moral divide between believers and non-believer find even remote analogues in the bible. And then, of course, there are practices and traditions interpreting canonical texts; how one could compare the odessy of Judaic traditions from slavery to a mysterious, self critical, moral destiny with Islamic traditions that were born from warfare and a fatalistic belief in total domination, and show absolutely no evidence of change? And how could it change, because as Stanely himself admits, immutable scriptures that dictates these beliefs are held to come directly from Allah.
Posted by: JTF at May 29, 2006 12:40 PM
Hugh's depiction of Mohammed's bellicosity (contrasted with Jesus) misses one crucial additional feature: Mohammed's eschatological pothos to conquer the Ecumene by force of military arms and other violent means in order to subjugate it to Islam: this added feature makes his bellicosity worse, injecting it with a metastatic instability that foments an unappeasable mythical Lebensraum and that will never cease to inspire hatred and violence as long as there are souls in the world who resist being subjugated to Islam.
Posted by: Television at May 29, 2006 1:08 PM
"Eschatological Pothos"? Wasn't he one of the Three Musketeers? I didn't realize there was anything eschatological, much less scatological, about him. I was concentrating purely on the sword play.
Posted by: Hugh at May 29, 2006 2:01 PM
There is no doubt that there is intolerance and violence in the Old Testament, but to compare it to the level and frequency in the Koran is ridiculous.
A more accurate comparison would be between the Koran and the Eastern Front directives given to the Wehrmacht during WWII.
Posted by: amana39 at May 29, 2006 2:25 PM
Dr. Stanley tends to forget that those passages from the Bible that do speak of violence were restricted to the times and places in which the events occured. As a matter of fact, in the Jewish/Christian scriptures the stronger position has always been to seek and persue the course of peace and justice. Has Jews and Christians forgotten and have sinned in these areas, yes, but the big difference is that there is aways the call to repentence and spiritiual change.
When I see passages from the Koran that call for violence against non-Muslims, it reads like both a command and a blessing. The passages posted in the main news article show that there is more calls to violence coming from the Koran then from the Bible itself.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 29, 2006 2:26 PM
Television,
Even though I struggle with the words, you do try to make it into a teaching session. Some of these words you put in are new for me.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 29, 2006 2:28 PM
Good points about the actual wording/context of Biblical violence (and perceived calls to violence).
Old Testament violence is clearly "descriptive": Specific group of people, specific time period, specific reason. It was limited in area, scope and time. Even in the Old Testament, there are no universal and prescriptive commands to hate and kill "infidels". There are only 2 of 150 Psalms that deal with violence against the "others". Interestingly, these two Psalms ask GOD to bring the violence. They both end with the with the prayer that God's will be done. In other words, this is a Psalmist faced with unbelievable evil and he asks God to bring revenge (this was national evil vs. Israel and not personal evil against the Psalmist). However, the Psalmist then asks that God keep judgement in His will. Similar to Christ asking God to take the Chalice of crucifixion away if possible, but then saying God's will be done.
For Christians, the teachings of Jesus Christ give the prescriptive universal commands in relation to "others". The commands: to "love your enemy" (and Jesus' example of forgiving those who pinned Him to the cross) forgive (in fact, if you don't forgive others God will not forgive your sins). There are no commands from Jesus to hate other humans. Certainly no commands to bring violence to others in God's name.
Only verse used by Muslims to show some kind of violence from Jesus (in Matthew): "I didn't come to bring peace, but a sword". However, not only does it go on to describe internal family issues between Christians and non-Christians (not violence). The Gospel of Mark uses the term division: "Do not think I came to bring peace, but division".
The only future violence in the NT is the violence of the judgement of God. The New Testament is clear that those who reject repentance and Jesus Christ will not go to Heaven. That at Jesus' second coming, he will bring judgement to God's enemies. However, think about something: THIS ALLOWS HUMANS TO MORE EASILY LOVE ENEMIES, FORGIVE ENEMIES, AND PRAY FOR THOSE WHO PERSECUTE. Knowing that God is responsible for future judgement allows the person to put judgement and revenge in God's hands.
The Christian is to understand that he deserves Hell, but through the grace and forgiveness of God through faith in Jesus Christ, he is granted a pardon. Therefore Christians can never boast of being better than the "other. In this, a Christians soul is not destroyed through hatred, bitterness, etc. In this, the Christian puts all judgement and revenge in God's hands.
The major difference in Islam: the universal prescriptive commands to hate and kill "others" (109 verses in Koran). Revenge is not something Muslims leave to God, but are commanded to get revenge themselves. In getting revenge, they are told that Allah is actually cutting off heads. What garbage!!!!! It destroyes the Muslim's soul, as hate, revenge, bitterness do to all humans. This is the reason for the deadfish eyes on Muslims who take the religion seriously. I have seen it, and it is quite evil.
Frankly, I have no problem with the Theology in Islam promising Hellfire to "infidels". I don't really care what Muslims believe about the afterlife. Personally, I believe Muslims will go to Hell unless they come to a faith in Jesus Christ to save them from their sins. People can live together, work together, etc. if they leave judgement to God. Christianity leaves judgement to God, Islam teaches that Muslims must get the revenge themselves. The afterlife is separate from temporal existence, as Christians accept that we are in a fallen condition together on Earth. Heaven is a different domain.
Now, this doesn't mean Christians shouldn't fight for their nation (or those who would harm the innocent). Not protecting the innocent is a greater sin than killing aggressors. Therefore, Christian soldiers can love and forgive their enemies while killing in a just war. I have tried to live this as an Infantry officer for over a decade.
Think about something: Why would an Almighty God (who could end the entire universe within a split second) require his created beings to hate and kill each other? Is He not powerful enough to bring judgement Himself? Aren't we all sinners in need of God's grace and forgiveness?
Posted by: hello123 at May 29, 2006 2:31 PM
truth speaker,
Trying to compare the passages calling for violence in the Koran to what is written in the Bible is simply like comparing apples to oranges. The passages of the Bible speaking of violence are few and are time and place directed.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 29, 2006 2:32 PM
I'm still waiting for just one person to cite any comment or teaching from Jesus that endorse harming others , Christians live under the authority of Jesus and the New Testiment is what they should use for the Tenets when being a Christian.
The paradox for Muslims is that hey love to darg Jesus into the Quran to fool people that Islam is inclusive, but Jesus warned about a False-Prophet that would promise peace by only bring wars,lies,and suffering.
I'm also waiting for one example of any person slaughtering civilians while praising Jeasus and citing a verse that encourages the killing of non-Christians.
NO ISLAM - KNOW PEACE
at May 29, 2006 2:42 PM
the taqqiyist so-called truthspeaker is a total dolt. No mention of the 1.5 million Muslims murdered by fellow Muslim Saddam Hussein in Iraq, no mention of the 3 million deaths in Bangladesh chalked up courtesy of Islam, nor the 500,000 deaths attributed to Idi Amin in Uganda (the crocodiles of Lake Entebbe were never better fed), the 400,000 who were murdered in the first year of Ayatollah Khomeinis' rule in Iran. The fact is, Islam is 1,000-plus years behind everyone else, and wishes to suck us down the medieval plughole. And I assume truthspeaker lives in the West, and if this is the case, perhaps its time he was deported to the primeval Islamist craphole Pakistan where he belongs.
Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at May 29, 2006 2:44 PM
The Quran commands Mohammedans to kill to spread their religion. Islam has always been spread by war, murder, terrorism and military conquest. Islam has murdered more people than all other religions put togeher. The Quran commands it and also commends its followers for murdering infidels. There is no equivalent in either the Old or New Testaments. Mohammed was a murderer and a liar like his father, the devil.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at May 29, 2006 3:01 PM
TV Guide:
eschatological = with an eye to the apocalyptic final battle between all Believers and all Unbelievers that will end history and begin the eternal Paradise for which all Muslims yearn more than anything.
pothos = a Greek word used by Polybius to characterize the military expansionism of Alexander the Great that would not rest until the whole Ecumene was conquered (Muslims admire Alexander the Great, whom they call Dzu'l-Karnain, the "Two-Horned One"). Napoleon and Hitler were possessed by a similar pothos, as were the Communist ideologues (energized by what Eric Voegelin calls an "immanentized eschaton" -- a secularized version of religious eschatology).
Ecumene = the known world.
Eschatological Pothos = the Fourth Musketeer, the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse, the Sixth Groucho Brother; take your pick.
at May 29, 2006 3:08 PM
Oh yes, there is the small matter of 70-80 million Hindus murdered by Muslims, at a time when the population of the planet could be measured in terms of a few hundred million. Over the last 1,380 years, it wouldn't surprise me if over 3 billion people have been murdered in cold blood in the name of Allah, and billions more forced to lead a life of misery - either as Muslims, dhimmis or as slaves. And Mohammed was a vile mass-murdering paedophile - that cannot be dispurted.
Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at May 29, 2006 3:09 PM
A critically important distinction that needs to be made in these discussions surfaces in an examination of the motives for the Crusades. They were defensive responses (long delayed, unfortunately) against Islamic attacks on Christendom. Their purpose was NOT to convert Muslims to Christianity. Islamist violence from day one has been to convert the "infidel", or, if the infidel is the less offensive kind (Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians) to offer the choice of death or second class citizenship.
Posted by: Tom at May 29, 2006 3:16 PM
I think that it is best to leave trolls like "truth speaker" in peace. Such people do not come here to listen, learn, or discuss, but to attack. When one makes global claims that Christianity has killed more people than all of the other religions of the world combined, without any substantiation, one is not engaged engaged in an honest debate, but rather a tantrum. Also, claiming that World Wars I and II were Christian wars is about as big of a stretch as it is possible to make, especially when one looks at World War II. The motivations behind German and Japanese aggression were nationalist and racist, rather than religious.
Posted by: Worry at May 29, 2006 3:19 PM
Another important distinction when examining troublesome passages in the Bible is between a religion that sees its sacred text as literally the Word of God (Islam) and one that sees its sacred texts as the Word of God in the words of men. The former regards the hermeneutical enterprise as primarily grammatical - historical-critical questions being disallowed. The latter never separates the interpretive task from the community's ongoing deepening of its understanding of these sacred texts (whether this is interpreted as "development" as in Catholic circles, or as reformists fidelity, as in Protestant circles). Fundamentalist Protestantism's biblical interpretation is not literalist in the sense that Muslim interpretation is literalist. All Christian fundamentalists speak of figures of speech, growth in understanding of the text, etc. Finally, the Catholic approach which insists that Scripture must be interpreted in the community which produced it finds an echo in growing Protestant appreciation that both Old Testament and New Testament texts are the chrysalization of Israelitic and early Christian community tradition - a key hermeneutical theme.
Posted by: Tom at May 29, 2006 3:24 PM
New Yorkers should be the angriest of all who witnessed the Islamic sucker punch on 9/11. It is sad to see that many of them are so passive, and are actually defending Islam.
It is pathetic.
Posted by: Prickzilla at May 29, 2006 3:33 PM
Tom,
Also another big difference is that when it comes to Bible studies, Christians are always encouraged to use good Bible commentaries.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 29, 2006 4:06 PM
Folks, it is trolls like truth speaker is why sites such as JW/DW are needed to get the truth out about Islam and Jihad.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 29, 2006 4:09 PM
That should be "the Sixth Marx Brother" of course.
Posted by: Television at May 29, 2006 4:14 PM
There is one very important matter that has not received much attention. Christians follow the New Testament ander Grace. The Old Testament is an historical text covering a period where people were covered by law. Christians try to live the New Testament and acquire knowledge from the Old.
Posted by: vulcan at May 29, 2006 4:45 PM
There is one very important matter that has not received much attention. Christians follow the New Testament and come under the doctrine of Grace. The Old Testament is an historical text covering a period where people were covered by law. Christians try to live the New Testament and acquire knowledge from the Old.
Posted by: vulcan at May 29, 2006 4:46 PM
oh truth sqeaker, what a sad life being a muslim, you victimize non-muslims, you trample women's rights, your islam controls all what you can say, you have to be very dishonest with youself to remain a muslim. you cannot reform your so called religion as you would be an aposate and lose your head. you poor little man oh truth speaker you have to submit to allah and kill in his name. keep bowing down fives times a day, hey what the heck do it ten times a day, maybe you can find a hundred virgins when you blow up.
Posted by: Lulu at May 29, 2006 4:51 PM
oh truth speaker.. you fogot the Armenian genocide, dont Armenias count when you kill millions of them?
Posted by: Lulu at May 29, 2006 4:53 PM
Hello, truth speaker,
I'd like to answer your question about Serbian atrocities against Muslims. They were wrong, sinful, and horrific according to Christian standards. The perpetraters were often those who'd been socialized toward the end of a half-century of Marxian socialism (by definition a project that tries to suppress by force Christianity). Christians in the First Crusade (when they sacked Jerusalem and killed Muslims and Jews who were non-combatants) violated Christian norms and ethics. They were wrong. But, IMHO, those Muslims who attack Christians in a jihad are acting IN ACCORDANCE WITH Muslim ethics. There's a difference. My problem with Islam is not its beliefs about Allah (some of which I share as a Christian), but its practice and teaching from the time of Muhammad's death to the present that God wishes to force faith. Christians, when we operate according to the teaching of our faith, INVITE others to faith. It cannot be forced. Muslims FORCE others to embrace the truth (as they see it). Islam has no apologetic (a carefully reasoned defense offered in courteous conversation with opponents), but only an announcement of death for those who disagree about its tenets. Isn't it just possible that the reason Muslims must resort to jihad is that Islamic ethics on the topics of slavery, women, human rights, the ethics of war, criminal sanctions, etc. is markedly inferior not only to Christian ethics, but even to a number of secular Western norms? There is much about Western society that is more than troubling today (unwillingness to procreate, objectification of women through pornography, equating the human rights of homosexuals with placing homosexual activity alongside of heterosexual marriage as equally valuable to society, widespread attack on the lives of the unborn). Muslims in the West, on occasion, have joined with Christians to deplore these evils. But widespread support of extremely violent solutions to social, cultural and political problems (e.g., shooting tennis players for wearing shorts, killing members of a rival Muslim sect for no other reason than their membership in a rival sect, flogging young people for kissing in public, etc., etc.) move those who are not Muslims to reject Islam as a religious option. Are there any Muslim converts that can compare with high profile converts to Christianity (like C.S.Lewis, G.K.Chesterton, etc.) who've embraced the Christian faith after extended reading, study, reflection and prayer? If so, why have they written no books answering common and widespread objections to Islam? It seems to me that the sword (or the gun or plane directed to innocent non-combatants) ends discussion. My complaint against Muslims is that they don't want to talk about their faith in a civil fashion with "unbelievers and/or infidels". What passes for Islamic-Christian dialogue (in marked distinction from Jewish-Christian dialogue) is often an opportunistic coalition of anti-Zionist Christian leftists. It's about politics, not about religion. The local mosques in my area distribute tracts about Christianity that contain calumnies and huge distortions of Christian beliefs. But then the "holy" Quran itself says that Mary is part of the Trinity. If Muhammad got it wrong, not suprising that Muslims get it wrong.
Posted by: Tom at May 29, 2006 5:36 PM
Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.I have no idea what that's talking about, despite searching the Psalm in question.
This is the most militant passage:
"Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, 'Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals. Now did the Lord say, 'First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.'" - Armaments 4: 16-20
at May 29, 2006 5:47 PM
truth speaker,
The truth is that for 1400 years Islam has been at war against Christians in an effort to bring about a Muslim empire. Christians more often then not were the victims because of Muslim aggressions. The crusades were a defensive response to, though delayed against unjust Muslim aggression. Now that is the truth.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 29, 2006 6:00 PM
In a polemic with a defender/falsifier of Islam's attitude to war and peace, I suggest pointing out that Islam openly advocates perpetual until total world conquest has been achieved. There is no need to cite a critic of Islam like Robert Spencer or Bat Yeor or Bostom, etc. Simply point out that Majid Khadduri explained the issue very well, very clearly in his book The Law of War and Peace in Islam [or a similar title]. Khadduri was a loyal Muslim. In this book, he is rather frank and is not trying to put a likeable, peaceable, lovable face on Islam. He was rather frank. Now Jews and Christians and Hindus, Buddhists, etc., have all made war at different times. But no other religion advocates pepetual war till total world conquest.
Others above have cited the cases of India and the Armenians, as well as the Muslim on Muslim slaughters in Iraq and Algeria. How does "truth speaker" explain all of those mass murders? How about the massacres of Croats and Serbs [and Gypsies] in various parts of Yugoslavia by Muslims? He throws out figures for Iraq that are tendentious at best. Anyhow, the bulk of the slaughter in Iraq is being perpetrated by Muslims on fellow Muslims.
Posted by: Eliyahu at May 29, 2006 6:21 PM
Correction: ...Islam openly advocates perpetual war until...
By the way, where do these bizarre professors come from?
Posted by: Eliyahu at May 29, 2006 6:23 PM
TS,
Noting that a source is “Zionist” doesn’t imply that what the source reports is false. Attacking the source doesn’t imply that what is put forward is false. This is a well known fallacy in logic. Second, sources reporting on such matters in history are far from being “Zionist” but far more secular or from a variety of perspectives, which lends plausibility by virtue of their convergence.
There seems to me to be a rather significant difference between unintentional killing of civilians in a war zone, like Iraq and the deliberate and intentional killing of civilians in a non-warzone area. Certainly in Germany and Japan many civilians were killed by Allied bombs. That was a necessary evil given the technological development of the time. In any case, Muslims in Iraq have killed far more Muslims in Iraq than the coalition forces have, with the former doing it intentionally and the latter only by accident. (If Allah predestinates everything, is anything "by accident?")
It simply doesn’t follow that because a war like WW2 was participated in by Christians that the war was a Christian war. WWI and WW2 were hardly “Christian” wars. Were they “Muslim” wars because the Turks participated in them as well? Hardly. In Serbia, it is true Christians and secular Serbians killed Muslims, but it is also true that the killing went the other way too. In any case, the Orthodox Church has always decried such killing.
The Muslim incursions into Byzantium, Persia, North Africa, and the Western kingdoms in the 8th-16th centuries were hardly provoked and hardly done by a few “fringe” individuals. I mean, the Muslims sacked Rome in 822 AD! The first Crusade isn’t till 1096! “Truthspeaker” simply doesn’t understand what a secular state is because he it isn’t a possible concept in Islamic thought. Thus he cannot make the distinction between a Christian state, such as Justinian’s in the 6th century and a state with lots of Christians IN IT, like the U.S.A, which most definately is NOT a Christian state.
As for native American populations, the vast majority (about 60-80%) were not killed by the governments, though they didn’t help matters, but by unseen causes, namely disease, like small pox, chicken pox, etc. “Truth speaker” should therefore be aptly renamed, “Ignorant speaker.”
The “Lord’s Army” in Africa is more of a cult with well recognized theologically aberrant belief’s by the standards of every major Christian tradition, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. You are fallaciously comparing apples and oranges. As for Serbia, the Orthodox don’t accept forced baptisms, so that actions of some military officials, reprehensible as they are, don’t amount to official teaching from the Orthodox Church in Serbia, even if sancitoned by some local clerics. Just compare for example, the treatment of Mosques in say Free Cyprus with the treatment of Churches or Synagogues in Turkish Occupied Cyprus. No churches or Synagogues are left in the latter while plenty of Mosques survive in good condition in the former case. In settled situations, the same can be seen across Europe, North Africa and Asia throughout history. As an aside, when Turkey invaded Cyprus, they emptied out their prisons and armed convicted murders, rapists and child molesters and let them loose on the Cyprian countryside. Such persons slaughtered entire families, castrated monks, nailing their penises to icons along the altar. A personal friend of mine spent threedays under her bed as a child watching her entire family raped (the men too) and slaughtered by the Turks. This was in the 1970's. (Where is John Kerry where you need him?-"razed villiages in the manner of Ghengis Khan...")
As for Biblical texts, there is a big difference between talking about God coming in judgment in some future period to met out judgment (“vengeance is MINE says the Lord.” Romans 12:9) and a universal call for any Christian or Jew to be the instruments of that judgment. Again, false analogy. The call to eradicate specific people groups in ancient Mesopotamia should be put in context. Recent archaeological discoveries of the artwork on pottery of such peoples was so horrible and pornographic, that it could not be published in peer reviewed journals or for public consumption in western countries. It seems understandable, even if not morally unquestionable, why God would command the eradication of such people groups. The same can’t be said for the general march of Islamic aggression, both East and West.
Given the Christian distinction between the very words and the very voice of God and Christ Christ, such passages in the OT have been allegorized by century upon century of Christian commentators beginning with Origen. The same could be said for Jewish writers beginning with Philo at the least. The New Testament only contains the “very voice” of Christ, not the literal exact words, which is why there are variant readings between say Matthew and Luke’s account of the Sermon the Mount. Such is not the case with Islam, because they have a dictation theory of inspiration where every single word is eternal and comes from God and is, ironically enough, co-eternal with him. So much for Allah having no companions!
Geez, do they teach logic in Muslim lands?
at May 29, 2006 6:52 PM
Gee, thanks Tom, for placing me and the rights that I as a gay person want from my secular government (all people are equal in front of the law and the law doesn't exist just to put across the Christian view of society) right up there with abortion and pornography and then implying that my relationships have far less value than your's (and, presumably, my life also?). Remind you of anything? Maybe you just thought that no gay person could possibly be on this site and therefore you could be as rude as possible. I am deeply offended. However, I won't pronounce a fatwa nor advocate your beheading, but I do wonder whether or not you would be so kind to me if the boot was on the other foot.
Ever cross your mind that the reason gays want legal partnerships is because they grew up in families and are aspiring to the role models of their parents' marriages - that we see lifelong commitment as good, marriage as good. Ever cross your mind that the reason there are gay people on this site is because we have brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces and we don't want them to have to grow up in a world dominated by the barbarism of islam and its followers. In short, that we value our families. I guess not, it's just easier to take cheap shots at us and question our morals and deny us our rights. Remind you of anything? Because it sure as hell reminds me of something!
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 29, 2006 6:52 PM
necessitasnonhabetlegem,
To those who provide the benefits, go the benefits. Marrige, classically understood, is not only a pre-existing social institution and therefore not capable of being defined, but only recognized by a state, but provides the benefits to the state, namely future citizens and therefore taxation and revenue.
Moreover, it seems odd that the definition of a term should be arbitrarily separated from a rigidly designated component, namely reproduction, for the sake of one people group who naturally fail to meet that condition. It is therefore essential to keep before the mind the difference between a natural right and a legal right, the existence of the latter doesn't imply the former.
Expanding the definition of marriage arbitrarily implies, not only extreme Nominalism in social taxonomies, which is bad enough, but also opens the flood gates for other, and I'd argue, far more obviously natural states, such as polygamy and that certainly won't be good for western society.
The Secular or Saeculum, from St. Augustine, is the intersection of common intrests or desire for common earthly goods by people who have different eschatological destinies. The Saeculum therefore doesn't of itself imply a non-religious or non-metaphysical perspective, for in fact, such a theory neutral or "God's eye" point of view is impossible.
As for tolerance, you are quite right. Tolerance means that I think you are dead wrong, but I am not going to string you up for it, and that is something that you will get from Christians and Jews, but not from Muslims. Therefore it is a non-sequitor to think that the criminalization of abortion is on a part with homosexual behavior. That is, most pro-lifers don't think that abortion doctors should be executed and the same goes for those who engage in homosexual behavior.
Most conservative Christians are willing to tolerate those who engage in homosexual behavior in the work place and social sphere, but that is a far cry from asking them to publically sanction it and endorse your view of things. This is why abortion is still legal in the US and homosexual marriage is not, because people don't see the former but they do see the latter. As Aristotle noted, we like vision the best, because it makes us know more than all the other senses. (Meta Alpha)
Posted by: American_Palamite at May 29, 2006 7:09 PM
American_Palamite,
Yep, same old Christian c***. We're inferior and therefore cannot have have a legally recognised partnership - I did not say marriage because I agree with you that that describes one particular relationship. What about all the hets that decide not to have children? Should they be told to get divorced? What about all the hets that can't have children. Should they be told that they musn't marry? Sex is about more than just having children, it's about cementing relationships as well and sometimes that's all it can be about. Male, female, gay or straight if you can't have children then sex is only about relationship. So, if I understand you aright you'll countenance the relationship of the straight couple who can't have children but not the relationship of the gay couple. If that's your position then that's simple prejudice.
Fortunately, I live in the UK where we have grown up a bit and provision has been made for legally recognising gay relationships, as it has been in many other EU countries. Not marriage, just legal recognition by the Government and courts (that we gays also help to pay for through our taxes). Gays in the armed services would give their lives for you but you can't give them a legally binding partnership contract all because some Christians don't want a neutral law they want a religious law. Remind you of anything, yet?
I didn't put abortion on the same level as being gay - Tom did in his/her post.
As far as I can see many conservative Christians just want to feel superior to someone and we gays are as good a whipping boy as any because you know you can get a knee jerk reaction from idiots world-wide.
I am an Anglican Christian. I attend Church regularly both here in London and at home. I am also gay. I am also actively looking for a life partner.
I never implied that Christians would like to kill their opposition. (Some fanatics who describe themselves as Christian do murder gays but personally I don't believe that that is a Christian stance nor could any rational person.) Barbarous islam, however, certainly does advocate the murder of gays, and gay people have been attacked and killed by moslems putting this into practice.
By the way, we don't want your toleration - that's just a Christian version of dhimmitude applied to gay people. We want our legal rights - not rights in your Church or synagogue, just in court and from our government, which, as I said earlier, we pay for too. As for opening the floodgates. Why should this be so? That's just a red herring. Only the barbarous moslem believes in polygamy and polyandry is just about as rare as hens' teeth. We face a bigger threat from the barbarous moslem hordes who are trying to force us to open the floodgates. A few loyal gay people are hardly a threat compared to that.
Anyway, my point was the blind assumption by Tom in his/her post that no gay person could be listening and that therefore he could be as rude about us as he wanted. I objected to being bracketed with abortion as an evil - in fact I am deeply offended. And if I let that past I have just played right into the hands of the barbarous moslems.
Finally, you spoke about gay marriage. I speak about legally recognised partnerships. If I occassionaly use the word marriage it is a slip, an infelicity, a shorthand, nothing more. Denying gay people legal rights is exactly analagous to denying any other group of taxpayers legal rights. I thought the USA Constitution promised equality before the law for all citizens. Obviously not. It's only for some and only for those that conservative Christians (whatever that phrase means) approve of.
Still, I thank God that you're not one of those barbarous moslems.
Dominic.
at May 29, 2006 8:06 PM
Well, we seem to have gotten pretty far afield here, with discussions of two world wars as alleged wars of Christianity (of course they weren't), and gay marriage no less. I have just a couple points I want to make:
First, whenever you see one of these "peace activists" or self-appointed "experts" in the news media, always use Google to find out where the guy is really coming from. Google is your friend. Thanks to Google, they can run but they can't hide. I did a Google search on "Chris OR Christopher Stanley", and I found out that this Chris Stanley is associated with such causes as:
banning Depleted Uranium (DU), a cause celebre of the lunatic-fringe loony Left;
http://traprockpeace.org/rokkemidwesttour.html
a petition to "Stop U.S. Aggression against Iran," with the usual "tu quoque" dredging up of the U.S. atom bombing of Hiroshima and a dark warning that the real threat to the world is U.S. military power:
http://stopwaroniran.org/statement.shtml
By the way, take a look at the other names and organizations on this petition besides Chris Stanley. It reads like a "Who's Who" of neo-Communists. (Your homework assignment is to Google for them too)
As for the ridiculous assertion by "truth speaker" that the world wars were about Christianity, all that I need to say is that the fact that Christians sometimes commit violent acts does not mean they commit them in the name of Christianity. Hitler was also a vegetarian. Perhaps "truth seeker" should consider whether World War II was fought in the name of vegetarianism.
at May 29, 2006 9:03 PM
I have been searching the Book of Psalms ever since Robert posted this article but I can't find any Psalms that talk of 'dashing little ones against rocks'. I'm not saying it's not there, just that I can't find it. Can anyone help?
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 29, 2006 9:20 PM
I don't care too much for the Old Testament. It is a little bit like the Koran in some places. But remember that both the Koran and the Old Testament were written by semites. The New Testament was writen hundreds of years after Christ and was written by Christians. Semites, whether they be Jew or Arab, follow a law-based scripture that tends to be more punitive.
However, holy books are not the issue. No rational person would commit crimes simply because it is sanctioned in a book. Only people of poor intelligence, poor moral character could commit rape and murder simply because they read it in a book. Nor would such a manifesto be so spectacularly well received in a culture where people have a conscience for right and wrong. In the islamic cultures, such a conscience does not exist, and I submit to you that it did not exist prior to mohammad, either.
So the Koran/Bible topic is a red herring. The real issue is one of race and culture.
Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 29, 2006 10:11 PM
Dominic-
Deuteronomy, not Proverbs, has some grotesquely violent advice (3:6, 7:2, 7:5, 7:16 etc.) about obliterating the enemies of the Mosaic Jews as the Hebrew army entered the "promised land" and took it from those living there.
Thankfully, we no longer live in 1,000 B.C. or honor gods who advise genocide.
Unless you follow Mohammad.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 29, 2006 10:22 PM
American_Palamite
This sounds false:
Recent archaeological discoveries of the artwork on pottery of such peoples was so horrible and pornographic, that it could not be published in peer reviewed journals or for public consumption in western countries.
at May 29, 2006 10:36 PM
Dear TruthSpeaker
"Ah yes the Muslim "massacres" in India -which is why there are now no Hindus left in India today after 800 years of Muslim rule - apart from the 800 million Hindus who make up 80% of the population"
Did you know Hindus stayed in Afganistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Iran, Indonesia, Malaya and so on.
All the confrantations were wars. Resulting Muslims killing the hindus.
They slaughtered in the thousands a day in Afganistan & pakistan.
If you have read history you would know that the hindus defended india from islamic aggression.
So you are asking how did India's Hindu survived?
The muslims forcefully converted many hindus by the tip of the sword, many died & many more migrated to the southern area. Those who stayed had to pay dearly or died. They retaliated bacause they wanted to end the suffering.
The Sikh was conceptionalized to defend the hindus/india & therefore evolved with the Singh (lion) annexed to their name.
Theres no where in history hindus/bhuddist community had aggresively attacked other religion for the name of god.
There are lots of evidence to prove Islam was the aggressor in the countried mentioned above. They NEVER conqured in peace.
People that fight for them are naive to the Arabs to had brainwashed them with the promise of god & people like yourself believed it word to word.
The Crusades started because of the Islamic invasion of Turkey. But in every islamic books, you will see that the crusades were engineered to destroy islam.
I mean, Why will wars like this start in the 1st place? Islam attacks other religion but says its ok because their allah says so. They when people retaliated, they blame them for killing innocent muslims. You should not blame others for the mistakes islamic goverments had done.
I take it that you didnt know about the missing quran, the outcome of Bahdiyah & Yamama's battles.
This is something they dont teach you in Islam 101 classes.
That Mohammad had an agreement & says that those who dont believe in Islam could leave Islam in peace. No procecution of the Islam leavers are needed.
People that left were asked to officially plegde that they do not believe that Mohammad is not the phrophet of god. Allah is a general name for god at that time (the other names of god were pagan names).
This is also how the de-islaminization in india took place.
Also note that the quran was never complete, Zaid, the one responsible to write every part down found suspicious that he had memorized the quran & still found that others had extra verses that were deemed political.
And what is really sad is Mohammad never gave his last commandment to the Arabs before he left earth. He said that they dont deserved the last instruction of god. Read the Pen story. This concludes that the Quran is not complete.
If you need clarification, Il provide it to you. But please read before posting something stupid.
Posted by: tjwork at May 30, 2006 1:59 AM
Hello, Dominic, [necessitasnonhabetlegem]
Normally, I find self-disclosure inappropriate in this sort of forum, but in this case I'm hoping that you'll have the humility after reading this to acknowledge that YOU are the one who's made assumptions about ME rather than the reverse. I never assumed that there'd be no "gay" persons posting. YOU, however, assumed that because I agree with the view that homosexual activity is not a path toward human flourishing that I'm a bigot or unable to understand the challenges facing those who experience same sex attractions.
I, myself, for a number of years participated in the "gay" scene - both in promiscuous contexts and the so-called committed relationship. [I say "so-called" because, while I've known many gay couples, I've never known any who were monogamous. My experience, far from being atypical, is backed up by virtually every study done of male "gay" couples.]
After a period of reflection on my life and a desire to move more deeply into my Catholic faith, I discovered (through therapy and spiritual discipline) that I had untapped heterosexual capacity. Eventually, I married a woman. I know (from personal experience) both the pain AND the excitement of the "gay" scene. I would never go back.
I believe that homosexuals should be treated with dignity and respect and their human rights respected. I don't believe, however, that placing anal and oral intercourse between two males on the same plane as the deep intimacy of two COMMITTED people of the opposite sex on the same plane can be justified before the bar of reason. Same sex intercourse is justified by gay activists not only in committed, but also in non-committed relationships. And the typical gay understanding of a committed relationship involves openness to non-committed sexual encounters with others if both agree. This is something radically different than the experience of marriage by people of the opposite sex. Are many heterosexuals unfaithful in their marriages? Unfortunately, yes. But when typical heterosexuals GET married, they're usually not planning adultery. Virtually all of my "gay" friends from the past regarded fidelity as appropriate for straights, but not for gays. While I don't doubt that somewhere there are gay male couples who exclude sex with others, such couples are so rare that they hardly surface in the research. Professor Robert George of Princeton University's philosophy department has constructed very compelling arguments, not from faith, but from reason, against same sex marriage. He is not a bigot and treats his ideological opponents in the culture wars with respect.
Dominic, I was active in the gay rights movement in the sixties and seventies. I was part of Stonewall and even accepted the arguments of "gay" theology. However, intellectual honesty forced me over a period of time to acknowledge that the arguments of such a theology were incompatible with a serious look at the entirety of the Christian Tradition as articulated both in Scripture and the unchanging view of the Church throughout the ages that God made us male and female - not gay and straight. And our dimorphic sexuality has a purpose which is revealed not only in Scripture, but even in biology.
I think it's important to face the issue of bigotry. When I was active in the gay scene I had many heterosexual friends who knew about my lifestyle and accepted me (even though not always characterizing my choices as ethically neutral). The only hatred that I've experienced has been from gay people who believe that I've betrayed the gay agenda by no longer agreeing with the propaganda and by discovering that my sexuality was not fixed in stone. My "lover" of ten years [who'd always been treated with special kindness by both of my parents] didn't even attend my mother's funeral so strong is his hatred of my current choices.
There's no reason whatsoever for gays to be hysterical about prejudice. Society has changed rapidly and today probably the majority of heterosexuals (thanks to the overwhelmingly positive and quite distorted picture of the gay world presented by mainstream media) view homosexuality as nothing more than a life-style choice. Those whose rights of free expression are often denied today are the thousands of ex-gays who are almost invariably denied a forum by gay activists. In my own neighborhood, high school students are given questionaires asking if they've ever had a heterosexual experience and whether they are sure that they're not homosexual if they've never had a homosexual experience. But the rare kid who wears a "God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" tee-shirt is suspended. So much for free speech.
Finally, I believe that God has a passionate love for every human being and for every gay and lesbian and transexual. But I don't believe that choices to indulge same sex attractions in genital expression of such feelings leads to human happiness or human flourishing. I personally know many men and women who continue to struggle with same sex attractions who agree with everything I've said here. I also know many who've discovered that they have the capacity for heterosexual interest despite a period of homosexual involvement.
In the context of this forum, we Christians who affirm traditional Christian teaching - that all sexual expression should serve the values of family founding and intimacy - do NOT want to punish or exclude sexually active homosexuals from the human community. We do want to show respect for their choices while inviting them to deeper reflection about how to find their place in society and in the Church. Sharia law, on the other hand, calls for the execution of gays. Sistani has called for the most horrible form of execution for homosexuals. Intelligent and compassionate Christians who identify with classical teaching call for love and understanding AND challenge to further growth. I wish you well and pray that you'll be able to receive this in the spirit in which it was written.
Posted by: Tom at May 30, 2006 3:09 AM
Hello, again, Dominic,
Psalm 137: 8 and 9.
Fair Babylon, you destroyer, happy those who pay you back the evil you have done us!
Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock.
This, of course, is a prayer that those who've destroyed Judah and brought the people into captivity will be destroyed themselves. The psalms are not just pious laments, but give full expression to a broad range of feeling connected with the experience of desolation and despair. Obvioiusly, such verses are not a source for ethical reflection about war.
Posted by: Tom at May 30, 2006 3:39 AM
To whom it may concern:
Please take your off-topic discussion elsewhere.
Many thanks.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 30, 2006 6:37 AM
Why should the Bible be compared with kuran at all ? There are no Christians wanting to behead people across the globe. There is no record of Christians destroying temples and synagogues and statues uniformly across the planet. And I have yet to see a Christian blow himself up.
Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 30, 2006 9:10 AM
arjun.sevak-
The closest Christians ever get is catching a sleazy t.v. preacher with a blow-up doll.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 30, 2006 11:18 AM
Tom,
Thank-you for finding the reference for me. I agree with your interpretation of the Psalm.
Robert,
Many and sincere apologies. It's all too easy to get carried away. I'll try to keep within the bounds. Sorry.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 30, 2006 11:36 AM
Robert,
Forgive me for straying somewhat from our topic.
There is some good news here, though. Dominic and I show that deep and serious disagreements about fundamental issues of interpretation among Christians are adjudicated with words and dialogue, not with excluding the opponent from the land of the living.
Posted by: Tom at May 30, 2006 1:36 PM
Ah yes the Muslim "massacres" in India -which is why there are now no Hindus left in India today after 800 years of Muslim rule - apart from the 800 million Hindus who make up 80% of the population .
- truthspeaker, dolt, above
And you are perhaps unfamiliar with the fact that Hinduism once extended all the way to Persia? Incorporating - horror of horrors! - Pakistan and Afghanistan?
But of course you're ignorant of that. In islamofascism, ignorance truly is bliss. None so deaf as those who will not hear.
Prophet Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at May 30, 2006 2:49 PM
Truth Speaker (i.e. Liar)
By your brilliant reasoning, since there are 6 million Jews alive today, the holocaust never happened.
There might be a job for you waiting in Teheran.
at May 30, 2006 7:18 PM
Maybe Dr. Stanley can bring his equivalence argument to the Sunnah. While Jesus was traipsing about the Holy Land preaching turn the other cheek, Mohammed was leading 80 military campaigns, slaughtering pagans Jews, and Christians, and trading in sex slaves.
Don't remember anything about Jesus leading military campaigns or trading in sex slaves, do you?
Where was Jesus' Banu Qurayza? Did he order 800 heads to be lopped off?
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 31, 2006 1:26 AM
Truth Speaker:
You are not being truthful in your posts.
Muslim Turks were behind the genoicide of millions of Armenian Christians in Armenia:
http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide
Muslims Sudanese are behind the slaughter of black Africans in Sudan.
http://www.merip.org/mero/mero101804.html
Muslims in Russia are behind the killing of children in Beslan
http://www.time.com/time/europe/html/040913/story.html
Muslims in Kasmir are behind the killing of innocents
http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs4852
Muslims in India killed millions of Hindis
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/moghal_atro.html
Muslims in Serbia have done quite a lot of destroying and killing.
http://www.st-george-church.org/English/Kosovo_News.htm
Muslims from North Africa conquered Spain by violence.
http://www.answers.com/topic/islamic-conquest-of-iberia
Islam permits violence towards dhimmis because of Muhammad and his arrogant beliefs.
Islam was spread by violent conquests:
http://www.san.beck.org/AB13-MuhammadandIslam.html
at May 31, 2006 2:15 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)