Canada ping!
Please FReepmail me to get on or off this ping list.
Posted on 06/10/2006 5:27:33 AM PDT by Clive
self ping for later reading
Canada ping!
Please FReepmail me to get on or off this ping list.
Well said!
Not really. Judaism in that sense is dead. Jesus Christ himself came and personally made Judaism as it was known prior to AD "desolate." See Matt. chapter 23. Many Jews don't recognize that and continue to live, yet not typically with the old Jewish "laws" of sorts.
Regardless, and far more generally, when's the last time that you've heard of Jewish terrorists, hijackers, or leaders of other oppressive totalitarian or fascist regimes? That's the practical side of it. Even back then, they didn't call, God didn't call, for the stoning of people simply because they weren't Jewish as a specific rule of practice as Mohammed and Koran openly and oft state!
I notice that you didn't say a peep about Christianity, Jesus Christ, and the Bible.
PS That Matt. 23 (37 or so I think) is a direct fulfillment of the prophecies in Daniel 9:24-27, yet most modern pastors and christian scholars have missed it. They seem to think/believe that that prophecy applies to Satan in spite of the utter lack of any other reference to it in the entirety of the Scriptures.
That's some press release--was this about Zarqawi, or Rumsfeld? A lot of CYA as usual from those aholes.
All of the Moslems are violent hateful hypocrites
They are?
"Anyone who judges a man by the group is a peawit". The grizzled old Irish sergeant Kilrain says this in Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels. .
Your point seems to be an absolutist view along the lines of "in for a penny, in for a pound", in the sense that if the foundations of the religion appear to be based on teachings that are incompatible with humane values, then there's no way to change it from within, and therefore Mr. Mansur's words are suspect.
I was in no way equating the values of Islam of those of Judaism. Rather, my point was that Jews can be Jews without accepting every literal reading of the Torah as their sole source of law and guidance. For example, the interpretations in the Talmud also form an integral part of Jewish law and culture. From that, I conclude that Muslims can be Muslims without accepting every literal reading of the Koran as their sole source of law and guidance. Clearly you differ with that conclusion.
I do agree that there is a world of difference between "turn the other cheek" and "smite at their necks", but that does not mean that Islam can not be reformed from within. In fact, that may be quite a good way to do it. Since apostasy from Islam is often "rewarded" by death, practically speaking it's undoubtedly better for the future of the world to have live Muslims such as Salim Mansur working from the inside than to have graveyards full of murdered former-Muslims who are ignored completely by their former coreligionists.
"--"Anyone who judges a man by the group is a peawit". The grizzled old Irish sergeant Kilrain says this in Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels.--"
Well okay. Many of the terrorists are bad people. Some are very nice. They love their grandchildren and give money to the mosque and are very nice. Better?
You're assuming that all Muslims are terrorists.
I do agree that there is a world of difference between "turn the other cheek" and "smite at their necks", but that does not mean that Islam can not be reformed from within. In fact, that may be quite a good way to do it. Since apostasy from Islam is often "rewarded" by death, practically speaking it's undoubtedly better for the future of the world to have live Muslims such as Salim Mansur working from the inside than to have graveyards full of murdered former-Muslims who are ignored completely by their former coreligionists.
Yes, I understand that viewpoint fully. You haven't thought things through all the way however.
An apostate Jew isn't likely to kill anyone for any particular reason. There certainly isn't any precedent for the wholesale slaughter/terror of non-Jews in either their foundational sources, whatever they believe, keep, discard, etc.
Same for Christians and Christianity.
Islam on the other hand, it's right in their source book, the Koran, as cited and open for the world to view. The more apostate muslims are, the better since both it's founder and "holy" book advocated hatred, killing, and oppression of those non-muslim.
The problem is that we don't know and can't tell the difference between them. As I've stated many times, it's not as if muslims that have intents on killing have a "K" stamped on their foreheads while those that do not have an "S" (safe) stamped on theirs. Clearly, the 911 hijackers didn't show outward signs that they were violent otherwise they'd have been apprehended prior to their doing things. This is the case with just about all muslim terrorists other than those that we've identified; Al Zarqawi, Bin Laden, etc.
I also challenge Jews that claim to be Jewish yet only pick and choose what they like/accept about their "religion." To me, if one is going to accept a religion, then they should accept it as written/founded. But therein lies the problem.
They all claim to have certain "answers" for life. Yet, most are clearly mutually exclusive. So looking at it logically, they cannot all be correct. In fact, when you break it down, most, or all but one are incorrect.
Looking at it from the viewpoint of Christianity, which says that Christ was "the only way to the Father," i.e., heaven, if it is correct, then the others are all necessarily wrong. Judaism is the precursor of Christianity. The "God" is the same. That same God sent Jesus Christ, whom some, the "leaders" in the Jewish faith at the time, which had largely become all ritual and no root belief in the real God, decided (in sheer and utter self interest) that Jesus was not who he said he was and therefore dismissed him as being God in human form.
That action on their part certainly would not, nor does, invalidate what God, the Living God, actually did, namely send his Son. After all, who is man to invalidate what God, who created man, does or did?
Regardless, the Jewish faith came to a standstill then. Today, there are scads of Jews that believe that Jesus Christ was/is who he said he was. But the point is that whomever "God" really is, it is up to man to seek to find out. They cannot all be equal as many would like to believe, for it makes absolutely no sense in much the same way it would make little sense for someone to say that one can hold to a conservative ideology and to a liberal ideology simultaneously on the same topic. That's impossible.
So too, it's impossible to do the same with God and gods of varying sorts.
Islam is predicated on what a "man" said, not God. This man, Mohammed, tells us that what he says is what god, Allah to him, says. But if he's right, then Christianity, and therefore by implication, the underpinnings of Christianity, or Judaism formerly, are both utterly incorrect, inaccurate, and essentially wrong.
Throw any one of who knows how many other religions into the mix, and well, the issue becomes even more complex in a way. But the bottom line is that only one, or in several cases, a few if in conjunction with a specified "few" others, can be correct.
Bringing this back somewhat to the point, if someone does not believe what the Koran says, again, some of the things as written by myself above, then why is one muslim? By birth? Yes, possibly. But why then would someone cling to such a bizarre and anti-social (to say the least) and violent "religion"/philosophy/ideology? I mean if I didn't believe in all that, then I would utterly dissociate myself from that.
You may say, 'well, that's easy for you to say, but if your family..." blah, blah (no disrespect intended), then ... But I did exactly that. I was raised Catholic in a family of almost all Catholics yet at the age of 19 I realized that I didn't believe in what it was all about and left it for agnosticism.
Either way, I disregarded it altogether because it didn't make sense to me to adhere to only parts that I "liked" or agreed with. To me, what was the point. It would have been tantamount to starting my own religion, some sort of spinoff of Catholicism had I done that. But I also realized that it wasn't about me, that namely, I didn't define "truth" in this way.
If truth in this way exists, it exists b/c it is truth, and God, whomever He is, is in fact God, and something much larger and far more immovable than myself, or the sum total of the people in the world for that matter. Otherwise, how mighty and powerful would God in fact be?
The problem with Islam, as already touched upon, is that its source, the Koran and Mohammed, and other writings/thoughts/actions by him render the entire religion both unstable and very potentially violent and terminal for any nation that yields a significant amount of power to it. Those killing others in the name of Allah weren't born that way. They were raised/trained that way often with completely opposite beliefs at some point prior, which renders anyone stating that they don't agree with it, also possibly issue-laden since we have no idea how their personal beliefs will alter themselves in the future.
But, and I'll leave you with this, how do you know that his statements aren't simply a ruse? How do you know that he's not making these statements in the interests of subversion. Hoping to gain favor of non-muslims to further the cause of Islam as outlined in the Koran, namely as documented above.
Am I saying that he is? No, in fact I detect sincerety. But you don't know and I certainly wouldn't wager my 401K on it, would you? This has been the expressed and stated goal and methodology of Islam in Europe for example to a large extent.
But the bottom line is that Islam is highly volatile and inflammatory and even potentially terminal to non-muslims. Therefore, by implication and association, anyone calling themselves a muslim is also potentially the same. What's to prevent a muslim's ideology from changing at any given time and based on circumstances? Think about it, if one's beliefs are such that they can at any time "pick and choose" what they "believe," then why is it that they can only "move" in a more civil or tolerable direction? Clearly, the potential is there for it to swing both ways. But since the Koran, their source book is clear about exactly what Islam is, we must defer to it, and simply be happy when so-called muslims are not adherent to the Koran, a very anti-human, anti-civil document. But we should not defer to them in simple hopes that they are A., on the level and not being subversive, a very effective stated ploy by muslims, B., will never alter their opinion towards the negative, and C., that even if he is sincere, that at some point in the future should we continue to allow the spread of Islam unabated, which it now is, that other muslims will not dominate the peaceful ones. You know, those that have been doing exactly that throughout our lifetimes. At least that's my take. Now we can do those things, but if they turn out the way that they have throughout the course of human history and in Europe today, and now Canada too, then I dare say that the risks of going out of our way in order to accommodate Islam.
In other words, option A is to trust, but if our trust is breached, our goose is cooked so to speak. Option B is not to trust, not to allow ourselves to be set up, and not to take such a risk. We can, but then we rely on things that are TOTALLY out of our control! Why? Because we cannot control the thought processes of those adhering to a religious dogma, to one extent or another. A very violent religious dogma at that. And by your own admission, one that anyone can feel free to pick and choose portions of at their own will, as you suggested, and fully reasonably at that.
The only thing that we do know as a fact, is what's in the Koran. I'd say what we can glean from that, is somewhat problematic and issue-laden, wouldn't you say!
Ergo, I suggest that it's not wise to accept someone's reinventing of an entire religion when their "holy" book paints an entirely different picture of what they say should be.
Difficult topic that really needs to be considered in a very big picture perspective, which most people simply don't do.
Now we can do those things, but if they turn out the way that they have throughout the course of human history and in Europe today, and now Canada too, then I dare say that the risks of going out of our way in order to accommodate Islam are not worth taking since they can result in the overthrow of the underpinnings of our nation, the Constitution, and freedom, particularly religious freedom upon which free speech is predicated.
Not hijacked. -- Founded.
He says it so well. I just hope some of his people see the common sense and good reason that he has so ably laid out for them.
"You're assuming that all Muslims are terrorists." You are assuming that they are not. This is a lethal mistake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.