Terrorism

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Or, are you just another bigoted hypocrite, too?[/quote]

He’s baaaack!

Honestly, I don’t think you and I have much of a disagreement here dude.

When looking at the socio-political contexts of the three big abrahmic faiths, one is really struck at the differences of situations, and therefore the difference in their respective missions (as experienced–not necessarily as proscribed).

I mean Christianity started as a resistance movement against a very strong empire.

Islam started as a unifying faith during the dark ages in the absence of any unified political structure.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
For, Brian, if you’re going to castigate Christianity so savagely, shouldn’t you reserve as much ire for Islam? After all, you are for the rights of gays to marry, correct? You are for women’s rights, correct? You are for freedom of speech, that most basic and important right, correct? Fair trial and due process under law and the rule of law?

Or, are you just another bigoted hypocrite, too?[/quote]

I don’t see what is so vitriolic about guessing that Surveyor belongs to a Chinese or Korean evangelical church.

Yes, I should equally, if not more so, castigate Islam.

But I was responding with regard to Surveyor’s arguments that Muslims must be a certain way because of some texts he read.

There are all kinds of Christians and there are all kinds of Muslims, regardless of what the holy texts say, and regardless of the sermons given by certain preachers.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
For, Brian, if you’re going to castigate Christianity so savagely, shouldn’t you reserve as much ire for Islam? After all, you are for the rights of gays to marry, correct? You are for women’s rights, correct? You are for freedom of speech, that most basic and important right, correct? Fair trial and due process under law and the rule of law?

Or, are you just another bigoted hypocrite, too?[/quote]

I don’t see what is so vitriolic about guessing that Surveyor belongs to a Chinese or Korean evangelical church.

Yes, I should equally, if not more so, castigate Islam.

But I was responding with regard to Surveyor’s arguments that Muslims must be a certain way because of some texts he read.

There are all kinds of Christians and there are all kinds of Muslims, regardless of what the holy texts say, and regardless of the sermons given by certain preachers.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
For, Brian, if you’re going to castigate Christianity so savagely, shouldn’t you reserve as much ire for Islam? After all, you are for the rights of gays to marry, correct? You are for women’s rights, correct? You are for freedom of speech, that most basic and important right, correct? Fair trial and due process under law and the rule of law?

Or, are you just another bigoted hypocrite, too?[/quote]

I don’t see what is so vitriolic about guessing that Surveyor belongs to a Chinese or Korean evangelical church.

Yes, I should equally, if not more so, castigate Islam.

But I was responding with regard to Surveyor’s arguments that Muslims must be a certain way because of some texts he read.

There are all kinds of Christians and there are all kinds of Muslims, regardless of what the holy texts say, and regardless of the sermons given by certain preachers.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
For, Brian, if you’re going to castigate Christianity so savagely, shouldn’t you reserve as much ire for Islam? After all, you are for the rights of gays to marry, correct? You are for women’s rights, correct? You are for freedom of speech, that most basic and important right, correct? Fair trial and due process under law and the rule of law?

Or, are you just another bigoted hypocrite, too?[/quote]

I don’t see what is so vitriolic about guessing that Surveyor belongs to a Chinese or Korean evangelical church.

Yes, I should equally, if not more so, castigate Islam.

But I was responding with regard to Surveyor’s arguments that Muslims must be a certain way because of some texts he read.

There are all kinds of Christians and there are all kinds of Muslims, regardless of what the holy texts say, and regardless of the sermons given by certain preachers.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
For, Brian, if you’re going to castigate Christianity so savagely, shouldn’t you reserve as much ire for Islam? After all, you are for the rights of gays to marry, correct? You are for women’s rights, correct? You are for freedom of speech, that most basic and important right, correct? Fair trial and due process under law and the rule of law?

Or, are you just another bigoted hypocrite, too?[/quote]

I don’t see what is so vitriolic about guessing that Surveyor belongs to a Chinese or Korean evangelical church.

Yes, I should equally, if not more so, castigate Islam.

But I was responding with regard to Surveyor’s arguments that Muslims must be a certain way because of some texts he read.

There are all kinds of Christians and there are all kinds of Muslims, regardless of what the holy texts say, and regardless of the sermons given by certain preachers.

[Arraya]

Allan-Sure I’ll concede that many muslims interpret the more violent aspects of Islam. However, there is also a progressive movements that ascribe to the Hadith over the Koran.

Several generally accepted tenets have emerged:
The autonomy of the individual in interpreting the Qur’an and Hadith.
A more critical and diverse examination of religious texts, as well as traditional Islamic precedents.
Complete gender equality in all aspects, including ritual prayer and observance.
A more open view on modern culture in relation to customs, dress, and common practices. Though certain rules on modesty amongst men and women are still self-enforced as a result of the Qur’an’s injunction against immodest dress.
The individual use of ijtihad (interpretation) and fitrah (natural sense of right and wrong) is advocated.

Now, if you have people keep telling them that they have to be violent, it really does not help their progression, does it? Just like christians updated the genocidal barbarism of the old testament with the new testament

Frankly, I see very little difference between the talmudic zionists in Israel and the more vile aspects of Islam. The both preach superiority over non-believers and violence in a very undemocratic fashion.

Interestingly, modern genetics testing has demonstrated that modern-day Palestinians have a direct genetic trail back to the biblical Israelites.

If you want to make a case that it is more prevalent. Sure, go for it.

Again, we are into interpretation of YOURS and others. Yes, Allan it is prevalent but not universal and sadly progressive movements have been stunted over the years for various reasons.

The muslim community goes backwards when bombed. Something about being under constant attacks that sets them back to the more vile aspects of the interpretations. As well as being constantly told they are violent.

Many muslims have no problem separating church and state and oppose Islam as a political movement unlike taxpayer funded zionism as a political movement. It is compatible with western ideals if you allow them to interpret that way, which they are doing more and more.

The theological continuity among the three is Abrahamic religions is profound. Which all basically have the same God. Allah, yahweh and God are all the same. And jesus is the most quoted profit in the Koran, btw.

Now we could go back and fourth writing vile aspects of all three, but does that really help? Why are some trying so hard to form a consensus of universal violent islam. That is the question, Allan? People try and do that to zionism and they get called racists and anti-semite.

From a pragmatic standpoint. There is 1.5 billion of them and growing. What are you gonna do? Declare them all evil.

What will really trip you out is behind the scenes, Islam and the Vatican have made an alliance. Ahmadinejad is quite the politician.

[Arraya]

Allan-Sure I’ll concede that many muslims interpret the more violent aspects of Islam. However, there is also a progressive movements that ascribe to the Hadith over the Koran.

Several generally accepted tenets have emerged:
The autonomy of the individual in interpreting the Qur’an and Hadith.
A more critical and diverse examination of religious texts, as well as traditional Islamic precedents.
Complete gender equality in all aspects, including ritual prayer and observance.
A more open view on modern culture in relation to customs, dress, and common practices. Though certain rules on modesty amongst men and women are still self-enforced as a result of the Qur’an’s injunction against immodest dress.
The individual use of ijtihad (interpretation) and fitrah (natural sense of right and wrong) is advocated.

Now, if you have people keep telling them that they have to be violent, it really does not help their progression, does it? Just like christians updated the genocidal barbarism of the old testament with the new testament

Frankly, I see very little difference between the talmudic zionists in Israel and the more vile aspects of Islam. The both preach superiority over non-believers and violence in a very undemocratic fashion.

Interestingly, modern genetics testing has demonstrated that modern-day Palestinians have a direct genetic trail back to the biblical Israelites.

If you want to make a case that it is more prevalent. Sure, go for it.

Again, we are into interpretation of YOURS and others. Yes, Allan it is prevalent but not universal and sadly progressive movements have been stunted over the years for various reasons.

The muslim community goes backwards when bombed. Something about being under constant attacks that sets them back to the more vile aspects of the interpretations. As well as being constantly told they are violent.

Many muslims have no problem separating church and state and oppose Islam as a political movement unlike taxpayer funded zionism as a political movement. It is compatible with western ideals if you allow them to interpret that way, which they are doing more and more.

The theological continuity among the three is Abrahamic religions is profound. Which all basically have the same God. Allah, yahweh and God are all the same. And jesus is the most quoted profit in the Koran, btw.

Now we could go back and fourth writing vile aspects of all three, but does that really help? Why are some trying so hard to form a consensus of universal violent islam. That is the question, Allan? People try and do that to zionism and they get called racists and anti-semite.

From a pragmatic standpoint. There is 1.5 billion of them and growing. What are you gonna do? Declare them all evil.

What will really trip you out is behind the scenes, Islam and the Vatican have made an alliance. Ahmadinejad is quite the politician.

[Arraya]

Allan-Sure I’ll concede that many muslims interpret the more violent aspects of Islam. However, there is also a progressive movements that ascribe to the Hadith over the Koran.

Several generally accepted tenets have emerged:
The autonomy of the individual in interpreting the Qur’an and Hadith.
A more critical and diverse examination of religious texts, as well as traditional Islamic precedents.
Complete gender equality in all aspects, including ritual prayer and observance.
A more open view on modern culture in relation to customs, dress, and common practices. Though certain rules on modesty amongst men and women are still self-enforced as a result of the Qur’an’s injunction against immodest dress.
The individual use of ijtihad (interpretation) and fitrah (natural sense of right and wrong) is advocated.

Now, if you have people keep telling them that they have to be violent, it really does not help their progression, does it? Just like christians updated the genocidal barbarism of the old testament with the new testament

Frankly, I see very little difference between the talmudic zionists in Israel and the more vile aspects of Islam. The both preach superiority over non-believers and violence in a very undemocratic fashion.

Interestingly, modern genetics testing has demonstrated that modern-day Palestinians have a direct genetic trail back to the biblical Israelites.

If you want to make a case that it is more prevalent. Sure, go for it.

Again, we are into interpretation of YOURS and others. Yes, Allan it is prevalent but not universal and sadly progressive movements have been stunted over the years for various reasons.

The muslim community goes backwards when bombed. Something about being under constant attacks that sets them back to the more vile aspects of the interpretations. As well as being constantly told they are violent.

Many muslims have no problem separating church and state and oppose Islam as a political movement unlike taxpayer funded zionism as a political movement. It is compatible with western ideals if you allow them to interpret that way, which they are doing more and more.

The theological continuity among the three is Abrahamic religions is profound. Which all basically have the same God. Allah, yahweh and God are all the same. And jesus is the most quoted profit in the Koran, btw.

Now we could go back and fourth writing vile aspects of all three, but does that really help? Why are some trying so hard to form a consensus of universal violent islam. That is the question, Allan? People try and do that to zionism and they get called racists and anti-semite.

From a pragmatic standpoint. There is 1.5 billion of them and growing. What are you gonna do? Declare them all evil.

What will really trip you out is behind the scenes, Islam and the Vatican have made an alliance. Ahmadinejad is quite the politician.

[Arraya]

Allan-Sure I’ll concede that many muslims interpret the more violent aspects of Islam. However, there is also a progressive movements that ascribe to the Hadith over the Koran.

Several generally accepted tenets have emerged:
The autonomy of the individual in interpreting the Qur’an and Hadith.
A more critical and diverse examination of religious texts, as well as traditional Islamic precedents.
Complete gender equality in all aspects, including ritual prayer and observance.
A more open view on modern culture in relation to customs, dress, and common practices. Though certain rules on modesty amongst men and women are still self-enforced as a result of the Qur’an’s injunction against immodest dress.
The individual use of ijtihad (interpretation) and fitrah (natural sense of right and wrong) is advocated.

Now, if you have people keep telling them that they have to be violent, it really does not help their progression, does it? Just like christians updated the genocidal barbarism of the old testament with the new testament

Frankly, I see very little difference between the talmudic zionists in Israel and the more vile aspects of Islam. The both preach superiority over non-believers and violence in a very undemocratic fashion.

Interestingly, modern genetics testing has demonstrated that modern-day Palestinians have a direct genetic trail back to the biblical Israelites.

If you want to make a case that it is more prevalent. Sure, go for it.

Again, we are into interpretation of YOURS and others. Yes, Allan it is prevalent but not universal and sadly progressive movements have been stunted over the years for various reasons.

The muslim community goes backwards when bombed. Something about being under constant attacks that sets them back to the more vile aspects of the interpretations. As well as being constantly told they are violent.

Many muslims have no problem separating church and state and oppose Islam as a political movement unlike taxpayer funded zionism as a political movement. It is compatible with western ideals if you allow them to interpret that way, which they are doing more and more.

The theological continuity among the three is Abrahamic religions is profound. Which all basically have the same God. Allah, yahweh and God are all the same. And jesus is the most quoted profit in the Koran, btw.

Now we could go back and fourth writing vile aspects of all three, but does that really help? Why are some trying so hard to form a consensus of universal violent islam. That is the question, Allan? People try and do that to zionism and they get called racists and anti-semite.

From a pragmatic standpoint. There is 1.5 billion of them and growing. What are you gonna do? Declare them all evil.

What will really trip you out is behind the scenes, Islam and the Vatican have made an alliance. Ahmadinejad is quite the politician.

[Arraya]

Allan-Sure I’ll concede that many muslims interpret the more violent aspects of Islam. However, there is also a progressive movements that ascribe to the Hadith over the Koran.

Several generally accepted tenets have emerged:
The autonomy of the individual in interpreting the Qur’an and Hadith.
A more critical and diverse examination of religious texts, as well as traditional Islamic precedents.
Complete gender equality in all aspects, including ritual prayer and observance.
A more open view on modern culture in relation to customs, dress, and common practices. Though certain rules on modesty amongst men and women are still self-enforced as a result of the Qur’an’s injunction against immodest dress.
The individual use of ijtihad (interpretation) and fitrah (natural sense of right and wrong) is advocated.

Now, if you have people keep telling them that they have to be violent, it really does not help their progression, does it? Just like christians updated the genocidal barbarism of the old testament with the new testament

Frankly, I see very little difference between the talmudic zionists in Israel and the more vile aspects of Islam. The both preach superiority over non-believers and violence in a very undemocratic fashion.

Interestingly, modern genetics testing has demonstrated that modern-day Palestinians have a direct genetic trail back to the biblical Israelites.

If you want to make a case that it is more prevalent. Sure, go for it.

Again, we are into interpretation of YOURS and others. Yes, Allan it is prevalent but not universal and sadly progressive movements have been stunted over the years for various reasons.

The muslim community goes backwards when bombed. Something about being under constant attacks that sets them back to the more vile aspects of the interpretations. As well as being constantly told they are violent.

Many muslims have no problem separating church and state and oppose Islam as a political movement unlike taxpayer funded zionism as a political movement. It is compatible with western ideals if you allow them to interpret that way, which they are doing more and more.

The theological continuity among the three is Abrahamic religions is profound. Which all basically have the same God. Allah, yahweh and God are all the same. And jesus is the most quoted profit in the Koran, btw.

Now we could go back and fourth writing vile aspects of all three, but does that really help? Why are some trying so hard to form a consensus of universal violent islam. That is the question, Allan? People try and do that to zionism and they get called racists and anti-semite.

From a pragmatic standpoint. There is 1.5 billion of them and growing. What are you gonna do? Declare them all evil.

What will really trip you out is behind the scenes, Islam and the Vatican have made an alliance. Ahmadinejad is quite the politician.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: Hell, its the Catholic Church. Does it really surprise you that they might have found common cause with the Iranians? No, I’m not being snarky.

I would like to pose a question to you and Dan, and follow up on an observation of Dan’s. Here’s my question: Both Christianity and Islam started off “under the gun”, so to speak. The early Christian (what I would call Catholic) church was heavily persecuted and prosecuted under Roman rule (it was a proscribed faith and practiced under pain of death) and yet Christianity not only emerged from this as a peaceful faith, it went on to convert the very empire that subjugated it (becoming the Holy Roman Empire in the bargain).

Islam had similar beginnings, although starting out later than the early Christian/Catholic church (7th century, if I’m not mistaken). Once it gained a foothold, it spread quite rapidly (almost virally) and was “evangelized” at sword point. Its gains were predominantly martial and it rapidly overtook Christianity in terms of “preparing the way of the Lord” (in this case, Allah).

Don’t you find the dichotomy interesting? I do, and the respective histories of both faiths HAVE to inform not only the early teachings and writings, but carry forward to the present day.

Hence the use of the “Crusader” meme in not only Jihadist invocations, but mainstream Islam as well. There is a persistent strain of victimhood present and it rings clearly in interviews, articles and references to the collisions of Christian and Muslim faiths and cultures.

I would argue that Islam’s virulent reaction to modernity (as seen in dress, mores, strictures, etc) is a direct result not only of the teachings, but a culture tied to the Qu’ran in terms of government, law and society.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: Hell, its the Catholic Church. Does it really surprise you that they might have found common cause with the Iranians? No, I’m not being snarky.

I would like to pose a question to you and Dan, and follow up on an observation of Dan’s. Here’s my question: Both Christianity and Islam started off “under the gun”, so to speak. The early Christian (what I would call Catholic) church was heavily persecuted and prosecuted under Roman rule (it was a proscribed faith and practiced under pain of death) and yet Christianity not only emerged from this as a peaceful faith, it went on to convert the very empire that subjugated it (becoming the Holy Roman Empire in the bargain).

Islam had similar beginnings, although starting out later than the early Christian/Catholic church (7th century, if I’m not mistaken). Once it gained a foothold, it spread quite rapidly (almost virally) and was “evangelized” at sword point. Its gains were predominantly martial and it rapidly overtook Christianity in terms of “preparing the way of the Lord” (in this case, Allah).

Don’t you find the dichotomy interesting? I do, and the respective histories of both faiths HAVE to inform not only the early teachings and writings, but carry forward to the present day.

Hence the use of the “Crusader” meme in not only Jihadist invocations, but mainstream Islam as well. There is a persistent strain of victimhood present and it rings clearly in interviews, articles and references to the collisions of Christian and Muslim faiths and cultures.

I would argue that Islam’s virulent reaction to modernity (as seen in dress, mores, strictures, etc) is a direct result not only of the teachings, but a culture tied to the Qu’ran in terms of government, law and society.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: Hell, its the Catholic Church. Does it really surprise you that they might have found common cause with the Iranians? No, I’m not being snarky.

I would like to pose a question to you and Dan, and follow up on an observation of Dan’s. Here’s my question: Both Christianity and Islam started off “under the gun”, so to speak. The early Christian (what I would call Catholic) church was heavily persecuted and prosecuted under Roman rule (it was a proscribed faith and practiced under pain of death) and yet Christianity not only emerged from this as a peaceful faith, it went on to convert the very empire that subjugated it (becoming the Holy Roman Empire in the bargain).

Islam had similar beginnings, although starting out later than the early Christian/Catholic church (7th century, if I’m not mistaken). Once it gained a foothold, it spread quite rapidly (almost virally) and was “evangelized” at sword point. Its gains were predominantly martial and it rapidly overtook Christianity in terms of “preparing the way of the Lord” (in this case, Allah).

Don’t you find the dichotomy interesting? I do, and the respective histories of both faiths HAVE to inform not only the early teachings and writings, but carry forward to the present day.

Hence the use of the “Crusader” meme in not only Jihadist invocations, but mainstream Islam as well. There is a persistent strain of victimhood present and it rings clearly in interviews, articles and references to the collisions of Christian and Muslim faiths and cultures.

I would argue that Islam’s virulent reaction to modernity (as seen in dress, mores, strictures, etc) is a direct result not only of the teachings, but a culture tied to the Qu’ran in terms of government, law and society.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: Hell, its the Catholic Church. Does it really surprise you that they might have found common cause with the Iranians? No, I’m not being snarky.

I would like to pose a question to you and Dan, and follow up on an observation of Dan’s. Here’s my question: Both Christianity and Islam started off “under the gun”, so to speak. The early Christian (what I would call Catholic) church was heavily persecuted and prosecuted under Roman rule (it was a proscribed faith and practiced under pain of death) and yet Christianity not only emerged from this as a peaceful faith, it went on to convert the very empire that subjugated it (becoming the Holy Roman Empire in the bargain).

Islam had similar beginnings, although starting out later than the early Christian/Catholic church (7th century, if I’m not mistaken). Once it gained a foothold, it spread quite rapidly (almost virally) and was “evangelized” at sword point. Its gains were predominantly martial and it rapidly overtook Christianity in terms of “preparing the way of the Lord” (in this case, Allah).

Don’t you find the dichotomy interesting? I do, and the respective histories of both faiths HAVE to inform not only the early teachings and writings, but carry forward to the present day.

Hence the use of the “Crusader” meme in not only Jihadist invocations, but mainstream Islam as well. There is a persistent strain of victimhood present and it rings clearly in interviews, articles and references to the collisions of Christian and Muslim faiths and cultures.

I would argue that Islam’s virulent reaction to modernity (as seen in dress, mores, strictures, etc) is a direct result not only of the teachings, but a culture tied to the Qu’ran in terms of government, law and society.

[Author]

Posts