A Good Idea Or A Bad One?

[Sukerkin]

Do stop that, gentlemen. Unless you're both doing it in fun, it cannot end well for either of you.

Even worse, you're making yourselves look bad by such mutually antagonistic behaviour.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Just for the record, I'm a moral absolutist. I believe in Jesus and what he preached as the truth, period.

You won't be able to convince me. Then again, I am not going to convince you either, so it's a draw

Out of curiosity (and without disrespect): I can see the point of accepting the word of Jesus as the absolute truth, if you're a Christian.
Do you see the bible as the whole truth?
Seeing as it was edited and compiled by humans, that a good deal of material was discarded on the decision of mere humans, and a whole lot of other issues, that is where I have a problem.

And if we cannot accept the bible as the whole truth, then how do we have any idea about what he actually preached?

As I said: I mean no disrespect. I'd like to understand your point of view.

 

[blindsage]

Then you need to start a new thread. This is not the 'rehash why you believe in Jesus when it's obviously a made up religion' thread.

Yes, Muhammed was a warlord (depending on your definition).

Yes, Muhammed committed and condoned certain kinds of violence.

Yes, Muhammed preached violence in certain specific instances.

No, Muhammed was not a child molester. His marriage to Aisha was not out of place in the culture at the time, and none of the sources can confirm with accuracy when the marriage was consummated. We don't approve of the context now. You can brush it off as 'moral relativism', I call it common sense.

Yes, Muhammad preached conversion by force of people not 'of the Book', who were a threat to Him and His people.

He is the Prophet, everything He did was right to Muslims.

Honor killings have nothing to do with Islam, period. Aside from the weak argument about the Prophet being a child molester, I'm not seeing anything too ridiculous from the above that would make Islam a massive problem.

 

[Twin Fist]

he was a pedophile
the religion praises him
the religion praises pedophilia

 

[Sukerkin]

I'm not sure that really pans out, John. Let me try a similar logic 'tree':

Churchill was an alcoholic
The British make an icon of Churchill
The British idolise alcoholics

 

[Archangel M]

The crusades were more of a group holiday with good perks.

The Crusades were much more complex than those movies you saw where the BAD BAD Christians came in an slaughtered all those innocent nice Muslims.

Battle Over the Crusades

I know that nobody will probably read it but the summary at the end describes the complicated issues of Religion, Power struggles and trade issues on both sides and other issues far more complicated than the "Christianity BAD" argument that gets used as the "Godwins Law" of religious debate.

 

[Sukerkin]

I'll read it, Angel. I've saved off the text and it's in the 'queue'so to speak (researching a Churchill factlet for Mr. Moynihan presently tho').

 

[jks9199]

Attention all users:

Please keep the discussion polite and respectful.

Jks9199
Moderator

 

[celtic_crippler]

The Bible endorses slavery...so what?

To say Islamic extremists are the norm is like saying Jim Jones or David Koresh is representative of all Christians.

You can't lump a group of people all in the same bucket because one faction is prominent in the media.

I used to feel similar until I did an experiment for a Sociology class several years ago. I had a Muslim friend who loaned me the garb commonly worn by Black Muslims in the US. I wore it all day and went all over town recording the reactions a WASP wearing such garb recieved.

I fully expected violent reactions and recieved none. As a matter of fact, I recieved very positive results regardless of my skin color which is more than I could say about a lot of Christians I know. Please don't take that as a jab against Christians, I'm just trying to make a point. It's a mistake to judge all people because of their religion, skin color, or otherwise.

If one must judge another, do so based on their actions and do so individually. Granted, many stereotypes are based on what is percieved as the dominant behavior or actions of a group but it is erroneous to judge the whole based on the actions of a few.

 

[morph4me]

I think that, provided the questions are answered by moderate experts, it's a great idea. Learning about religions and cultures, your own or someone elses, is the best way to understand, respect and accept the differences and the similarities, and that seems to be the intent of the hotline. Hopefully it remains on track. There will always be ignorant people, who choose to twist or belittle someone else's beliefs for their own reasons, and those people won't listen to reason, so they won't be affected one way or the other, but for those who are willing to learn this kind of site can open their eyes to new experiences.

 

[K-man]

The Crusades were much more complex than those movies you saw where the BAD BAD Christians came in an slaughtered all those innocent nice Muslims.

Battle Over the Crusades

I know that nobody will probably read it but the summary at the end describes the complicated issues of Religion, Power struggles and trade issues on both sides and other issues far more complicated than the "Christianity BAD" argument that gets used as the "Godwins Law" of religious debate.

I read it too. Don't know that it proves much more than the futility of war and the greed of man.

An additional part of this reformation of Christian life was to somehow end, or deter, the incessant warfare that plagued the European community. The incessant Christian slaughter of Christians had led to the "truce of God" movement in the 11th Century as part of the general attempt at creating this new Christendom. Warfare was banned on the Sabbath. Under the influence of the great abbey of Cluny, a driving force in the reformation of the church, the truce was extended to holy days. In various territories it expanded to Advent, Lent, Easter and Pentecost. By the middle of the 11th Century it was closely knit to the Peace of God movement, which protected Church property and the poor from war. Violation of the Peace or the Truce was considered grounds for excommunication. While it seems contradictory to encourage a Crusade in the interest of peace, there was certainly the papal hope that by turning the incessant warring fervor outward in the purpose of defending Christendom there was greater purpose than the continuing scandal of Christians slaughtering Christians.

Seems like the Christians weren't above fighting amongst themselves either.

 

[tellner]

Let's be serious for a moment here.

If you want to tally up the body count, Christianity is still far in the lead. The followers of Jesus have murdered more for their religion than the followers of Mohammed. I'm not saying it's a worse religion. But its hands are so consistenlty bloodied that claims to moral superiority over any other faith cannot be taken seriously by any honest person.

 

[Twin Fist]

I'm not sure that really pans out, John. Let me try a similar logic 'tree':

Churchill was an alcoholic
The British make an icon of Churchill
The British idolise alcoholics

well, that might be comparable IF Churchill founded a religion, and if Brittish people rioted when someone printed cartoons of Churchill........

 

[blindsage]

he was a pedophile
the religion praises him
the religion praises pedophilia

You are wrong.

 

[Archangel M]

What Jesus taught and how medieval humans acted are two different issues....

 

[Live True]

What Jesus taught and how medieval humans acted are two different issues....

Then by the same arguement...comparing modern Islam practice to ancient Islamic practice are two different issues.

Let's get real here.
First, the basic tenets of a religion and how they are practiced today are highly dependent on what faction, sect, denomination you are talking about.

Second, times change, people change. Truth may be eternal, but it is interpreted - - and misinterpreted - - by the humble human brain, ciphered through thier own experiences and culture.

Three, this thread is about an interesting experiment in spreading information about Islam and it's different schools of thought. It is NOT about "why (insert favorite religious target here) is bad". If you are interested in that discussion, please start a new thread.

 

[Archangel M]

Then by the same arguement...comparing modern Islam practice to ancient Islamic practice are two different issues.

Absolutely..have I said otherwise?

 

[Live True]

Absolutely..have I said otherwise?

Actually, I was just emphasizing the same point...sometimes a 2x4 is called for....no slam at you AM.

I was just trying to help bring this thread back to the OP.

 

[geezer]

yeah it is. It is sad that people refuse to admit that islam is a violent religion, started by a WARLORD, that preaches conversion by force, kills rape victims, endorses molesting children, endorses honor killings, and teaches it's followers that it is thier duty to kill infidels.

I don't know Twin. I've got Muslim friends and this doesn't describe their faith. Actually, your phrasing here is a lot more hateful than anything I've ever heard coming out of mainstream Islam. Personally, I react pretty negatively to hate speech. What about the rest of you guys?

 

[Sukerkin]

Arrgghh! Bloomin' five button mice!

Sorry for the non sequiteur gentlemen but I just lost a post I'd crafted in response to Geezer's last comment by accidently pressing the left shoulder-button on my mouse .

Essentially what I wrote was that I have ever been an advocate of a moderate tone when posting as that has a much better chance of actually been heard (by those that don't already agree with us) compared to a virulent one.

I don't always abide by my own principles of course as we all sometimes allow our emotions to power our words - it's one reason why I find the delay with having to type out our thoughts a positive thing; it gives us time to reconsider what we might otherwise blurt out.