>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

(snip of BRP profane rant)
Well - if that plunge into logic doesn't lay out the sides then nothing really will.
Look - this isn't difficult. Judaism banned homosexuality under judeic law. Now - those who are not religious would argue that such a standard was established by evil men.


Not by evil men, but by ignorant, dersertdwelling goatherds who probably thought the wheelbarrow was the peak of scientific achievement, yes.

My point was that you are a fool if you think such rubbish gives you the right to decide what's "disagreeable" about other people's love life. Say you were white and got a black girlfriend, and I went "Well i love both black and white individuals, but I find your behaviour disagreeable" What would I be if not a disgusting, ignorant, racist idiot? if I got my "morals" from an old holy book, would that make me look any better? No. It would just go to show that I wasn't thinking for myself. Such idiocy can only come about if you actually believe that you know that the creator of the universe is a racist/homophobe, and that that makes it OK for you to be one too.

(snip of BRP profane rant)

Well - if that plunge into logic doesn't lay out the sides then nothing really will.

Look - this isn't difficult. Judaism banned homosexuality under judeic law. Now - those who are not religious would argue that such a standard was established by evil men. Those who believe that God exists & has a plan for his children would accept that these rules ("Commandments" if you will) were established to help the mortal family to know the ins and outs of what God expects his children to do or not do for their own happiness.

So homosexuality was wrong both under Judaic law, and Judaic moral belief. This is not in question except by people who are trying to reverse-engineer history in order to justify their own world views. Christ did not come along and say, "That was wrong". Quite to the contrary. Christ doubled down. Judaic law commmanded people to not commit sexual sin. Christ didn't say, "It's OK now as long as you love each other..." Nuh-uh. Christ said, "He who LOOKETH upon another woman and hath committed adultery in his heart." The lesson is clear. Judeaic law was trying to command & control people with "don't do this" rules. Christ was trying to teach people to not even THINK about doing the wrong thing.

What does that say about homosexuality? People who think Christ or God would be "OK" with it are lying to themselves. Sexual sin is sin and needs to be forsaken. Period. That never changed. Christ told the adulteress, "Go thy way and SIN NO MORE". He did not say, "Go thy way and I don't care what you do as long as you love them."

So yes - like ANY moral sin - you can love the sinner and hate the sin and labor to correct it. It doesn't make you a bigot. It doesn't mean you're a hater. It means you see people who need help, and you try to help them.

As far as this chick goes - phht. If she's even LDS (which isn't a given), her argument is full of holes and we've got an actual LDS guy who says she's full of bologna with her claims of "being cast out". Is such a thing possible? You'd have to ask the guys in SLC about that and not this chick. As far as the Mormon church's opposition to Prop 8? I saw that more as a means to prevent a lousy law from happening. The gay community needs to come up with a plan that addresses their wants (equal rights) without stepping on the definition of marriage and protections for those who hold to a traditional view. When that happens they'll find they have a better shot compared to these half-@$$ed bum-rush votes on lousy, flawed legislation.

Thank you for the promote.

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
Brilliant!

*promote

>> ^shinyblurry:


The funny part about saying that "The Devil"™ runs things down here is funny. The reason it's funny is that even when I was a fairly religious person I could never quite figure out why "The Devil"™ was so evil.
He disobeyed "God"™, but that was about it. Apparently, now, he runs a place called Hel or Helle(or if you prefer the misspelled version: hille, hillja, hell, etc...). He's also able to tempt us (or if you wish, we let him tempt us, giving him even less power) to do things; who knows what though. He's also supposed to be a fallen angel that many think to be red and ugly with horns. It should also be noted that Hell (Hel) has lakes of fire (which sounds cool; almost like Hawaii), but seems to lack all the horrific stuff you hear of elsewhere.
I'm just wondering, why Lucifer (The Bringer of Light) is so "Evil"™? Also, last time I checked "Free Will"™ was sitting around; so if "The Devil"™ runs Earth, why do we need that? His role greatly differs throughout the Christian realm of knowledge as well as those that are linked (like Judaism, Islam, etc...). The idea of a bad guy against the ultimate good guy sent here or another place are in many religions world wide. Some of those religions pre-date Christianity by more than a thousand years and Judaism by hundreds (if not more). Sometimes these "figureheads" have been concentrated into one form as they were once in the form of many figureheads, besides "God" and "the Devil".
There is a litany of things attributed to: Satan, ha-sataan(Judaism has no "real" direct version), Baal Davar, the Devil, Lucifer, Lord of Flies, Dragon (or serpent; is "believed" to be the serpent in the Garden of Eden), Beelzubub (if you like the demon storyline; not a Mormon thing), Iblis, Shaitan, Jinn, Ying-Yang (pick one), Vishnu (atleast one aspect), Set, Apep,Sammael, Belial, ad nauseum...
Anyway, he disagreed with God "about something"; the "about something" depends on the flavor you belong to.
To cut it short: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism... They all suffer from the same problem: cognitive dissonance. Not a one holds up to a double-blind scientific experiment, let alone a simple thought experiment. If we have a "God" they most certainly are not prescient or omnipotent. The fact that I can post this kills one half of the logic, the other logic "free will" seems to be negated by every law and fact of science ever put together. You have choice, but it most certainly is not absolute.


If you were formally religious I am surprised you don't understand why the Devil is evil. I'll elaborate on this..
In the beginning, when man still dwelled in the Garden of Eden, he existed in a perfect state of grace with God. There was no such thing as sin, or death. Adam and Eve, the first humans, walked and talked with God face to face. God, to test their hearts, only gave them one command..not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He promised them that if they did so they would surely die.
Now the devil enters the picture. God had made him the most beautiful of all the angels, and gave him great power and dominion. The devil was soon corrupted by his own vanity however, because he started to think "I will be like the Most High" and desired to have his throne beside Gods. His sin was/is pride. Because of this, he was cast down to Earth.
Now God gave Earth to Adam. He was its ruler. Satan knew this, and knew that if he could corrupt him, he would gain power over the whole world because he would gain power over Adam. So the devil came to them and said that God was lying about the apple. That, not only would they not die, but they would become like God by eating it. After eating, Adam and Eve lost their innocence and the state of grace they enjoyed with God by sinning, and brought death into the world. From that moment on they were mortal beings with mortal needs.
Satan has been the ruler of this world since then. His power, however, was broken at Calvary when Christ died on the cross. Christ, the new Adam, lived a sinless life. Being born of a virgin, he did not inherit the sin of Adam. By living a sinless life, he redeemed mankind and gave all people on Earth a way to know God, His Father, through Him. When He died He went down to hell, battered down the gates, and took the power of death from the devil. When He was resurrected, He liberated mankind from the power of death, and was the first fruits of the world to come.
Now, Satan is still the ruler but on the run. He knows his time is short and growing ever shorter. His last shot is when the antichrist comes to power. Now, free will is fairly simple. You have the choice to obey or disobey Gods commands. God doesn't make you love Him. All those who delight in wickedness, however, will be punished on judgment day. Hell was not created for humans, but anyone who throws their lot in with the devil will earn the devils reward. His sin was pride, and so too are the ones who reject God similarly prideful, for they believe his lies and reject the truth.
That about sums it up. I would ascribe some cognitive dissonance to your post also, for your conclusions have seemingly been pulled from a hat. How does posting what you did negate anything about Gods omniscience, and how do the arbitrary rules of science say anything about free will? You may want to read about determinism vs free will for some background before you answer.


Indeed, that does just about sum it up.

Kceaton doesn't need to try to negate your Christian god's omniscience (assuming the proposition that he exists in the first place is true, which you haven't even attempted to demonstrate). You did that just swimmingly all on your own, assuming again, that you're not a liar or playing Devil's Advocate and earnestly believe what you just typed.

Thanks for saving anyone with any inclination to refute your imaginary friend a whole lot of time by doing it for us. Also, cognitive dissonance doesn't mean what you think it means. I would say that you were a fantastic example of it in action but that means you would need to actually recognize (in some form) the incongruity of your own silly, self-contradictory beliefs and/or be bothered by it.

The funny part about saying that "The Devil"™ runs things down here is funny. The reason it's funny is that even when I was a fairly religious person I could never quite figure out why "The Devil"™ was so evil.
He disobeyed "God"™, but that was about it. Apparently, now, he runs a place called Hel or Helle(or if you prefer the misspelled version: hille, hillja, hell, etc...). He's also able to tempt us (or if you wish, we let him tempt us, giving him even less power) to do things; who knows what though. He's also supposed to be a fallen angel that many think to be red and ugly with horns. It should also be noted that Hell (Hel) has lakes of fire (which sounds cool; almost like Hawaii), but seems to lack all the horrific stuff you hear of elsewhere.
I'm just wondering, why Lucifer (The Bringer of Light) is so "Evil"™? Also, last time I checked "Free Will"™ was sitting around; so if "The Devil"™ runs Earth, why do we need that? His role greatly differs throughout the Christian realm of knowledge as well as those that are linked (like Judaism, Islam, etc...). The idea of a bad guy against the ultimate good guy sent here or another place are in many religions world wide. Some of those religions pre-date Christianity by more than a thousand years and Judaism by hundreds (if not more). Sometimes these "figureheads" have been concentrated into one form as they were once in the form of many figureheads, besides "God" and "the Devil".
There is a litany of things attributed to: Satan, ha-sataan(Judaism has no "real" direct version), Baal Davar, the Devil, Lucifer, Lord of Flies, Dragon (or serpent; is "believed" to be the serpent in the Garden of Eden), Beelzubub (if you like the demon storyline; not a Mormon thing), Iblis, Shaitan, Jinn, Ying-Yang (pick one), Vishnu (atleast one aspect), Set, Apep,Sammael, Belial, ad nauseum...
Anyway, he disagreed with God "about something"; the "about something" depends on the flavor you belong to.
To cut it short: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism... They all suffer from the same problem: cognitive dissonance. Not a one holds up to a double-blind scientific experiment, let alone a simple thought experiment. If we have a "God" they most certainly are not prescient or omnipotent. The fact that I can post this kills one half of the logic, the other logic "free will" seems to be negated by every law and fact of science ever put together. You have choice, but it most certainly is not absolute.



If you were formally religious I am surprised you don't understand why the Devil is evil. I'll elaborate on this..

In the beginning, when man still dwelled in the Garden of Eden, he existed in a perfect state of grace with God. There was no such thing as sin, or death. Adam and Eve, the first humans, walked and talked with God face to face. God, to test their hearts, only gave them one command..not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He promised them that if they did so they would surely die.

Now the devil enters the picture. God had made him the most beautiful of all the angels, and gave him great power and dominion. The devil was soon corrupted by his own vanity however, because he started to think "I will be like the Most High" and desired to have his throne beside Gods. His sin was/is pride. Because of this, he was cast down to Earth.

Now God gave Earth to Adam. He was its ruler. Satan knew this, and knew that if he could corrupt him, he would gain power over the whole world because he would gain power over Adam. So the devil came to them and said that God was lying about the apple. That, not only would they not die, but they would become like God by eating it. After eating, Adam and Eve lost their innocence and the state of grace they enjoyed with God by sinning, and brought death into the world. From that moment on they were mortal beings with mortal needs.

Satan has been the ruler of this world since then. His power, however, was broken at Calvary when Christ died on the cross. Christ, the new Adam, lived a sinless life. Being born of a virgin, he did not inherit the sin of Adam. By living a sinless life, he redeemed mankind and gave all people on Earth a way to know God, His Father, through Him. When He died He went down to hell, battered down the gates, and took the power of death from the devil. When He was resurrected, He liberated mankind from the power of death, and was the first fruits of the world to come.

Now, Satan is still the ruler but on the run. He knows his time is short and growing ever shorter. His last shot is when the antichrist comes to power. Now, free will is fairly simple. You have the choice to obey or disobey Gods commands. God doesn't make you love Him. All those who delight in wickedness, however, will be punished on judgment day. Hell was not created for humans, but anyone who throws their lot in with the devil will earn the devils reward. His sin was pride, and so too are the ones who reject God similarly prideful, for they believe his lies and reject the truth.

That about sums it up. I would ascribe some cognitive dissonance to your post also, for your conclusions have seemingly been pulled from a hat. How does posting what you did negate anything about Gods omniscience, and how do the arbitrary rules of science say anything about free will? You may want to read about determinism vs free will for some background before you answer.

>> ^shinyblurry:

From a Christian perspective, the message itself is ridiculous because there is no way for human beings to create an ideal society. It doesn't matter if it is a democracy or a dictatorship. The ruler of this world is the Devil. Until Jesus returns, mankind will be subject to his rule, culminating when the Antichrist comes to power. This man does not understand the message and I doubt he is a real Christian.
As for all the wonderful people calling for Christians to disappear, etc, I'll make you a deal. If you don't use this guy as an example for Christians, I won't use you as an example for Atheists.


The funny part about saying that "The Devil"™ runs things down here is funny. The reason it's funny is that even when I was a fairly religious person I could never quite figure out why "The Devil"™ was so evil.

He disobeyed "God"™, but that was about it. Apparently, now, he runs a place called Hel or Helle(or if you prefer the misspelled version: hille, hillja, hell, etc...). He's also able to *tempt* us (or if you wish, *we* let him tempt us, giving him even less power) to do things; who knows what though. He's also supposed to be a fallen angel that many think to be red and ugly with horns. It should also be noted that Hell (Hel) has lakes of fire (which sounds cool; almost like Hawaii), but seems to lack all the horrific stuff you hear of elsewhere.

I'm just wondering, why Lucifer (The Bringer of Light) is so "Evil"™? Also, last time I checked "Free Will"™ was sitting around; so if "The Devil"™ runs Earth, why do we need that? His role greatly differs throughout the Christian realm of knowledge as well as those that are linked (like Judaism, Islam, etc...). The idea of a bad guy against the ultimate good guy sent here or another place are in many religions world wide. Some of those religions pre-date Christianity by more than a thousand years and Judaism by hundreds (if not more). Sometimes these "figureheads" have been concentrated into one form as they were once in the form of many figureheads, besides "God" and "the Devil".

There is a litany of things attributed to: Satan, ha-sataan(Judaism has no "real" direct version), Baal Davar, the Devil, Lucifer, Lord of Flies, Dragon (or serpent; is "believed" to be the serpent in the Garden of Eden), Beelzubub (if you like the demon storyline; not a Mormon thing), Iblis, Shaitan, Jinn, Ying-Yang (pick one), Vishnu (atleast one aspect), Set, Apep,Sammael, Belial, ad nauseum...

Anyway, he disagreed with God "about something"; the "about something" depends on the flavor you belong to.

To cut it short: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism... They all suffer from the same problem: cognitive dissonance. Not a one holds up to a double-blind scientific experiment, let alone a simple thought experiment. If we have a "God" they most certainly are not prescient or omnipotent. The fact that I can post this kills one half of the logic, the other logic "free will" seems to be negated by every law and fact of science ever put together. You have choice, but it most certainly is not absolute.

Enoch said:there is a huge difference between a person of jewish heritage and a zionist.zionism does NOT equal judaism.

I'm glad we are agreed on this point. It's why I made the very important statement:The Jewish Palestinians were fighting a civil war with the Arab Palestinians.

This is of course important because the video, and several posters including yourself seem to want to label the entirety of Jewish Palestinians as Zionists when talking about the civil war. If you'll accept that there were many Jewish Palestinians fighting the civil war for reason and cause outside of Zionism then we are agreed.

Enoch said:to excuse an entire population by what some OTHER over-zealous political party did

Go read what I said again, because you are inventing an argument I never put forward. I stated the fact that the Jewish minority in Palestine was being mistreated and biased against by the Arab Palestinian majority, a fact even Al Jazeera doesn't dispute. I then stated that created tensions leading to a civil war, were both sides had understandable cause for concern. The Jewish Palestinians had seen how well accepting inequality worked for European Jews, and were willing to fight to be treated as equals. The Arabs were duly concerned about extreme elements of the Jewish population like the Zionist movement.

The point is very simply that a civil war exploded between two ethnic groups of Palestinians, for reasons that were domestic. The Zionists latched on to the cause, as did the surrounding Arab nations, with all sides looking to gain land for themselves out of the deal. Painting it like the entire problem boils down to Zionist aggression making victims of the Arabs is ludicrously at odds with the basic facts. So badly so in fact that even Al Jazeera, a very much pro-Arab network has published several articles on the 1948 war that soundly reject such a notion. The idea is in fact even more racist against Arabs than it is against Jews. It portrays better than 50 million Arabs as being so weak that they were helpless victims in the face of a mere few hundred thousand Jewish Zionists.

Your facts are also blatantly wrong.
3million jews/christians/muslims lived in jeurusalem peacefully until the british empire amended the balfour declaration.
Jerusalem's population was nowhere near 3 million then, the entirety of Palestine was likely under 3 million when the Balfour declaration was signed. Population estimates of the time are sketchy at best.

so while the jewish community owned less than 5% of the land the new amended document gave them 56% and hence we see..to this day..strife in that region.
The Balfour declaration amendment wasn't what gave them 56%, it was the UN's recommendation, put forward by both the US and Russia that proposed the borders with 56% attached. It was also proposed not on the premise of a handout for the Zionists, but as a resolution to the civil war within Palestine, which saw the Jewish Palestinians holding most of that 56% as a result of the fighting.

.the supposed "deal of a lifetime" that was offered to the palestinians was absolute garbage.
That's an opinion, not a fact. And I can't help but point out that your opinion assumes that only Arabs are Palestinians, the Jewish Palestinians presumably being stateless?

@bcglorf
there is a huge difference between a person of jewish heritage and a zionist.
zionism does NOT equal judaism.
and to excuse an entire population by what some OTHER over-zealous political party did to the jewish people (NOT zionists) is disingenuous and totally buys into the narrative.
it boils down to that whole two wrongs dont make a right thing.
just because the jewish people suffered under nazism does not give them the right to oppress another people and you would THINK that maybe they would have more empathy.
which ..if you look at some of the blogs regular isreali citizens write..they do.
do you know who DOESN'T?
zionists.

here are some facts:
1.3million jews/christians/muslims lived in jeurusalem peacefully until the british empire amended the balfour declaration.
2.this was a political gift from all the support the zionists gave during WWII.so while the jewish community owned less than 5% of the land the new amended document gave them 56% and hence we see..to this day..strife in that region.
3.the supposed "deal of a lifetime" that was offered to the palestinians was absolute garbage.the ONLY thing offered was a bare sovereignty.they could have a flag..but no military.they could own a home...but not the accessways.
and it goes on and on and on.

but you go right ahead and keep telling yourself that isreal is the victim.
they did nothing wrong,its those arab people..its all their fault.they are the agressors.

now i am not ignoring the arab side i am just pointing out that your "isreal is the victim" is utter bullshit and only someone entrenched in american media would ever view this conflict so myopically.

saying that a zionist is the same as jewish is like saying a neo-conservative is an actual conservative.
totally different animals.

Very well said. Thanks for taking the time to explain the difficult position of seeing the irrational behavior in others and how that can tend towards a feeling of personal superiority. Modesty, while ideal, can be difficult to maintain.

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
Let's get some terms straight:

Atheist - Anybody who does not believe in a specific religion. This includes those who call themselves agnostic, secular, non-religious, or skeptic. These groups use other words because they fear the negative stereotype associated with the word atheist. It just means that you don't believe. That's all. Maybe you even think that it's possible, but so unlikely that you will live your life without it. That's still atheism.

Strong atheism - Anyone who firmly believes that there is no supreme being. Yes, this is a type of faith, since there is no proof one way or the other. But these people are actually rare. Most atheists are simply saying that the God of Abraham (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), Hinduism, Shintoism, and anything else that requires magical thinking are nothing more that stories made up by human beings.

Anti-theist - Anyone who advocates for the end of religion and magical thinking. Of course there are many atheists who fall into this category, but there are also many who don't. You may know many atheists but are simply unaware of it, because they never talk about religion. It's just not a part of their lives.

I agree that anti-theists can be very annoying because anybody who is outspoken can be very annoying. But their cause is vital as long as there are religious nuts trying to inject religion into so many aspects of our secular government. If the evangelicals would go away, the loud anti-theists would disappear overnight.

And in regards to atheist arrogance... When you are ten years old and you know that Santa Clause doesn't exist, it's very hard not to feel superior to your seven year old sibling who still believes, and writes him a letter, and tells the guy in the mall what he wants, and stays up late on Christmas Eve trying to catch a glimpse. It's obvious to you that the presents come from Mom and Dad, not some fat guy in a red suit that magically visits every home in one night. Magic doesn't exist. The story doesn't fit with what you know of the real world.

It's the same way with atheists. Even though I bite my tongue around friends who are religious, it's hard not to look down on them and think of them as immature. Wishing doesn't make something true, praying doesn't make things happen, and a beautiful sunset or rainbow is not a miracle. And every time I hear somebody praising God for something good in their life, I can't help but think about all the real things they should actually be thanking, like their family and friends, their job, or even their own hard work. Some atheists are better than others in hiding this feeling of superiority, but it will always be there. And with good reason.

Let's get some terms straight:

Atheist - Anybody who does not believe in a specific religion. This includes those who call themselves agnostic, secular, non-religious, or skeptic. These groups use other words because they fear the negative stereotype associated with the word atheist. It just means that you don't believe. That's all. Maybe you even think that it's possible, but so unlikely that you will live your life without it. That's still atheism.

Strong atheism - Anyone who firmly believes that there is no supreme being. Yes, this is a type of faith, since there is no proof one way or the other. But these people are actually rare. Most atheists are simply saying that the God of Abraham (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), Hinduism, Shintoism, and anything else that requires magical thinking are nothing more that stories made up by human beings.

Anti-theist - Anyone who advocates for the end of religion and magical thinking. Of course there are many atheists who fall into this category, but there are also many who don't. You may know many atheists but are simply unaware of it, because they never talk about religion. It's just not a part of their lives.

I agree that anti-theists can be very annoying because anybody who is outspoken can be very annoying. But their cause is vital as long as there are religious nuts trying to inject religion into so many aspects of our secular government. If the evangelicals would go away, the loud anti-theists would disappear overnight.

And in regards to atheist arrogance... When you are ten years old and you know that Santa Clause doesn't exist, it's very hard not to feel superior to your seven year old sibling who still believes, and writes him a letter, and tells the guy in the mall what he wants, and stays up late on Christmas Eve trying to catch a glimpse. It's obvious to you that the presents come from Mom and Dad, not some fat guy in a red suit that magically visits every home in one night. Magic doesn't exist. The story doesn't fit with what you know of the real world.

It's the same way with atheists. Even though I bite my tongue around friends who are religious, it's hard not to look down on them and think of them as immature. Wishing doesn't make something true, praying doesn't make things happen, and a beautiful sunset or rainbow is not a miracle. And every time I hear somebody praising God for something good in their life, I can't help but think about all the real things they should actually be thanking, like their family and friends, their job, or even their own hard work. Some atheists are better than others in hiding this feeling of superiority, but it will always be there. And with good reason.

As a transcendental concept god can neither be proven or not. Read my favorite evangelical writer, Ravi Zacharias.

That said, I believe that christianity has much more in common with say... festival of Dionysus than Judaism. Jews don't worship jesus, they ask God for another Moses.

So alien intelligence, if we ever meet it, I like to think they'd be familiar with Christianity even before we tell them of Jesus. Just like I expect we could exchange math theorems and maybe music, I think we could exchange moral thought and religion.

In fact, Star Trek had the same idea if you watch "Bread and circuses"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_Circuses_(Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series)
(you have to watch the last two minutes to see it, and the story is left open as nothing is resolved)


Oh, almost forgot about my favorite book on cannibalism: stranger in a strange land by Heinlein.

Very well said. I like that he implies (though he never explicitly states) that not everyone who is religious necessarily subscribes to this style of thinking, and that the problems associated with this this style of thinking are by no means unique only to religion.

I would disagree with him on some minor points. I would also point out to him (were I ever to meet him) that his interpretation is very Western in its analysis. Here in Japan, the parent-child relationship has a whole other range of dynamics from the ones he described in this video. And while most of what he says applies strongly to Christianity and somewhat to Judaism or Islam, I find the argument less compelling for other religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism.

And you honestly believe that?

>> ^Morganth:

>> ^Trancecoach:
I know many Muslims, and the truly thing dangerous about ANY religion, whether it is Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or any of the others is the Fundamentalist Interpretation.
He is speaking about gaining a thorough understanding and knowledge about ones combatants which is always a good idea -- regardless of the orientation. Frankly, I'm surprised by the blanket statements said here about Islam based on a selection of fundamentalist sects.
The same can be said of any fundamentalist group.

No, it depends on what the fundamental is. If the Amish aren't fundamental, then no one is and no one seems to have problems with them.


>> ^Morganth:

>> ^Trancecoach:
I know many Muslims, and the truly thing dangerous about ANY religion, whether it is Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or any of the others is the Fundamentalist Interpretation.
He is speaking about gaining a thorough understanding and knowledge about ones combatants which is always a good idea -- regardless of the orientation. Frankly, I'm surprised by the blanket statements said here about Islam based on a selection of fundamentalist sects.
The same can be said of any fundamentalist group.

No, it depends on what the fundamental is. If the Amish aren't fundamental, then no one is and no one seems to have problems with them.

>> ^Trancecoach:

I know many Muslims, and the truly thing dangerous about ANY religion, whether it is Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or any of the others is the Fundamentalist Interpretation.
He is speaking about gaining a thorough understanding and knowledge about ones combatants which is always a good idea -- regardless of the orientation. Frankly, I'm surprised by the blanket statements said here about Islam based on a selection of fundamentalist sects.
The same can be said of any fundamentalist group.


No, it depends on what the fundamental is. If the Amish aren't fundamental, then no one is and no one seems to have problems with them.

Some comments:

1) "Idolators" really doesn't refer to followers of Judaism or Christians. Idolatry was outlawed in the Ten Commandments. That being said, there's a whole lotta bowin' and genuflectin' in the Roman Catholic Church. Still, that's NOT what was meant by 'idolators'. It referred to the pagan/animistic precursors of Islam, and it called for a zero tolerance policy toward those who were not 'people of the book'. So effective was this that there really are none around today.

2) If I read him right, he's calling for Crusade. I mean, all those guys were fighting defensive wars, and they managed to drive the Muslim invasion away from their doorsteps. However, the reason WHY they were fighting in Vienna and Constantinople and Lepanto was that Charles Martel stopped them at Tours, then let them walk away--keep all of Spain, in fact. Now all this seems to ignore that there was a whole lot of tit-for-tat fighting going on. They'd attack Christian Europe, and Christian Europe would attack them right back. In almost all cases, the conflict was couched in a religious context, but was really more of a geopolitical struggle. The only thing that could stop this struggle is the aforementioned Crusade, except this one would end with two significant cities in the Arabian Peninsula wiped off the map. The thing is--he tells us what might help, but he doesn't for a moment suggest what we could do in the modern context. This is the worst kind of 'expert'--someone who will freely share all the problems, and say that the solutions are quite apparent, and then fail to share what those solutions might be.

3) I've had several students over the years (I taught high school) actively try to convert me to Islam. I'd listen to them, because it was something about which they were passionate, and you never want to dampen their spirits. I would then pull out a map, and show them the growth of Islam. I'd ask them how it got from Mecca to Tours in 100 years. Inevitably they'd come up with some wonderful fairy tale about how people would hear the words of the Prophet, and convert on the spot. I then pointed out that they pretty much cut their way across North Africa, and swept into Spain, and if not for Charles Martel, Christianity might have been wiped off the earth. Did they think that Martel was the first person to say, "No, thanks?" This usually made them quite uncomfortable, because what followed that period was a time of (relative) peace in an area not known for its stability. "How many people honestly and openly chose Islam, do you think?" Again, they'd get uncomfortable. Is Islam all about peace? Sure it is--as long as Islam is on top. But that's pretty much the story with Christianity, right? That's the source of all this talk about America being a "Christian" nation. It seems to have little to do with actual tenets of faith, and everything to do with BRAND IDENTITY.

The real question, then, is this: How many modern Muslims are willing to go back to the old way of doing things? Damn few, it turns out. That's what this whole "perversion" thing is about. Those who would ignore EVERYTHING the modern world offers and KILL PEOPLE to get it are, in fact, very few in numbers, but the fruits of this modern world allow small groups of determined people to unleash mayhem. People like that can be found in every faith, political party, and ideology. The idea that their way might not be the right way scares the hell out of them, and they'd do anything to feel absolutely sure. How do we fight this? How have we ever fought ignorance? Knowledge and time. Crusade never works.