HitsRus;470993 wrote:Relating to this specific case is not appeasement. It's not about irrationality or being upset as much as it is about trauma. We are talking about events differing in magnitude exponentially.

(reference to Glory days last post also)...you get upset when your neighbor's cat pees in your flower bed. You get traumatized when airplanes are crashing into buildings and skyscrapers are imploding and tumbling down. Dust, debris and death everywhere...right in your own backyard. Some understanding of that trauma, some allowance has to be made for that. You can't just sit up in the Ivory tower and say it's not rational, so F' you.
Like it or not, whether it is fair or not, 'peaceful' Islam is going to take some blowback from what it's radical members did in their name. It might be easier if the perpetrators were an isolated band in some remote area, but they are not. They are a well funded, organized, significant percentage of Islam...and they still threaten us. In general, since the attack on the Twin Towers, the country has been pretty much tolerant and understanding of the Islamic faith...people have controlled their base instincts to lash out. But there is an undercurrent of distrust for the reasons listed above. It is best that the worst instincts of mankind not be provoked.
It might not be fair, it might not be right,...but treading carefully is the prudent thing to do.

Heretic;471302 wrote:As a non-religious person who thinks a lot of things would be better if people of all beliefs just focused on positive parables and common sense teachings and not their particular religion itself,

CenterBHSFan;471314 wrote:Better be careful, Heretic, it will start leaking over in Serious Business that you are actually pretty smart!

Footwedge;471317 wrote:Why is it that a non religious person like Heretic can hit the nail on the head here....and so many religious people have such a hard time extrapolating what the true meaning behind religion?

jmog;471378 wrote:Amazing is that you keep ignoring the fact that jhay and I completely showed you were either lying or ignorant with regards to your first posts about the NT and promoting violence.

jmog;471378 wrote:Amazing is that you keep ignoring the fact that jhay and I completely showed you were either lying or ignorant with regards to your first posts about the NT and promoting violence.

Footwedge;471387 wrote:Since you continue to distort what was said in that exchange, I would suggest that you turn the page.

Why don't you respond to the post at hand....which you never like to do, versus bringing up something said 400 posts ago? Again, turn the page, dude.

CenterBHSFan;471314 wrote:Better be careful, Heretic, it will start leaking over in Serious Business that you are actually pretty smart!

jhay78;471467 wrote:He's right jmog- stop embarassing the guy and turn the page.

Footwedge, at least acknowledge you got owned in posts #448 and #454. As for the topic at hand, I don't believe anyone in this thread brought up the Bible & violence until you did 400 posts ago.

Footwedge;471726 wrote:Jhay said...

"There are certainly examples of religious wars recorded in the Old Testament carried out by the Israelites under Joshua (and later Samuel/Saul), but you can read the New Testament 1000 times forwards, backwards, in Greek, English, or whatever, and you won't find a single example of Jesus or one of his apostles instructing their followers to kill religious enemies or conduct religious wars on unbelievers. You will find mutiple verses stating just the opposite."

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me." Luke 19, 27.

End of discussion jhay...and jmog.

jhay78;472049 wrote:That verse was explained about 10 times by 10 different people: a parable (you know, a story, a narrative) told by Jesus about a nobleman who becomes king, and orders the execution of those who resisted his rule. Missing from that verse is any statement by Jesus saying, "Attention disciples- go and do likewise!" Again (for the 999th time), it was a story which indeed referred to violence, but was not an endorsement or an imperative.

jhay78;472049 wrote:That verse was explained about 10 times by 10 different people: a parable (you know, a story, a narrative) told by Jesus about a nobleman who becomes king, and orders the execution of those who resisted his rule. Missing from that verse is any statement by Jesus saying, "Attention disciples- go and do likewise!" Again (for the 999th time), it was a story which indeed referred to violence, but was not an endorsement or an imperative. If you read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), you find:

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" (Matt. 5:9)

"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also" (Matt. 5:39)

"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44)

That doesn't sound like someone who endorses violence. But you're right- end of discussion. There doesn't seem to be much progress being made on this topic.

Footwedge;472954 wrote:Islam countries have their religious extremists...unfortunately America has their own religious extremists....and each group is guilty in parlaying their respective religions into becoming military statists, and by doing so, perversely circumvent some of God's commandments and other rules.

believer;472983 wrote:True but you have to admit that hijacking airliners full of innocent people and flying those aircraft at several hundred miles per hour into skyscrapers full of innocent people is a uniquely radical Islam domain. After all, wouldn't you die willingly too if you believe Allah has promised you virgins in paradise for killing the infidel?

The God of Abraham must reserve that special little privilege for radical male Muslims alone. I've always wondered what female Islamic suicide bombers get in the after-life for strapping on IED's and boarding Israeli buses full of innocent people? I'm thinking they get 72 well-hung dudes but they must remain veiled at all times.

Religion of peace or religion of piece?

Allah akbar

ptown_trojans_1;473143 wrote:We agree to disagree as to the notion that you link radicals to Islam and other, me included, say that is not Islam but a radical interpretation of the religion.

Footwedge;471387 wrote:Since you continue to distort what was said in that exchange, I would suggest that you turn the page.

Why don't you respond to the post at hand....which you never like to do, versus bringing up something said 400 posts ago? Again, turn the page, dude.

Footwedge;471726 wrote:Jhay said...

"There are certainly examples of religious wars recorded in the Old Testament carried out by the Israelites under Joshua (and later Samuel/Saul), but you can read the New Testament 1000 times forwards, backwards, in Greek, English, or whatever, and you won't find a single example of Jesus or one of his apostles instructing their followers to kill religious enemies or conduct religious wars on unbelievers. You will find mutiple verses stating just the opposite."

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me." Luke 19, 27.

End of discussion jhay...and jmog.

Footwedge;472954 wrote:And for 999th time....this is a perfect example how a Bible quote can be misinterpreted....just as you and millions others have done towards similar verses in the Qur'an.



.

Footwedge;472954 wrote:
But as long as some of my my Christian brethren continue to bastardize these teachings...such as what fundamentalist preachers like Pat Dobson and John Hagee do on their TV shows...the nonsensical "my God is greater than your God, and the my religion is greater than your religion", these important teachings will continue to be shelved.