Posted on 11/10/2001 1:02:41 PM PST by ouroboros
I know. :)
But I figure that the history lesson might benefit or sway some lurker who might not know the situation or history in the middle east between Christian and Jew or about Islam, so I figure its worth my time. Plus, I enjoyed exposing TDL for what she is.
That may seem clear cut to you, but it is most decidedly out of context. I do not want to get into a theological discussion, for I am not a theologian. I certainly acknowledge that there are major doctrinal differences not only between Jews, Christians and Moslems, but between the different sects of each. I find myself in serious disagreement not only with Moslem teachings, but also with the teachings of many Christian and Jewish sects. But none of that has anything to do with the War on Terrorism.
Having said that, I will in fairness make the following additional comments:
A. While you offer three consecutive sentences out of a book of hundreds of pages, they are most certainly out of the context of the whole book.
B. While I cannot pretend to have ever read the Koran, I have skimmed what I believe to be the classic English translation from the Eighteenth Century, and must remark on what you and others who seemingly are trying to make religious war appear acceptable, today, have refused to acknowledge. It so obviously seeks to create a relgion based upon the same Abrahmic covenant, sacred to Jews and Christians, that at least half of the total text appears to be concerned with the major figures in our Bible; those who are also the sacred figures of Islam. The differences are the same sort of doctrinal considerations that have split the older religions. And the rhetoric that you quote is mild compared to some of the things that different branches of Christianity or Judaism have said about each other at one time or another.
C. While your translation uses clear English for most of your quotation, it appears to have deliberately kept the word for God in the Arabic. This is disengenuous. If the words you use for friends are English, so should be the word for God. ("Allah" appears as "God" in the 18th Century translation to which I have referred, and only an idiot who skims even the first few Chapters could fail to see that it is the God of Abraham, Moses, Noah, David, Solomon, Jesus. There is even space devoted to the Virgin birth and to the family of Mary, etc.)
You are picking words out of context to mask what is really involved here, and that is unfair. By all means assail the Moslems for where you feel their doctrine is erroneous. The Koran assails your beliefs where it feels they are erroneous. But that is a vituperative relgious debate. Go for it if you like.
But the War we are in today, is something quite different. Don't try to divert those of us who want to fight that war into your private agenda.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Not true. The "World Church of the Creator" and other Identity-based groups are hell-bent on bringing about the "Rahowa" or "racial holy war." Here's one example"
"We are going to build the Kingdom of our God on this continent if we have to turn it into a Bosnia first! Death may find you in front of your one-eyed church of Satan or in the filthy bingo parlors where you worship your devil god, but be sure that you will not escape the consuming fire that is the real baptism of the Holy Ghost, The God of Racial Israel."
"If they do not distance themselves from the terrorists, then we the non-Muslims, would be very foolish to trust any of that religion."
Should I feel the same way about Christians who refuse to distance themselves from Identity?
I have the Qu'ran sitting in front of me. Penguin classic english version. Page 81. It isn't out of context. Its clear as crystal. Why don't you try picking up a copy before posting your self-righteous rants to me about how I take things out of context. If you don't want to discuss theology then stay off the thread and out of the conversation--because that is exactly what this thread has been about.
You are picking words out of context to mask what is really involved here, and that is unfair. By all means assail the Moslems for where you feel their doctrine is erroneous. The Koran assails your beliefs where it feels they are erroneous. But that is a vituperative relgious debate. Go for it if you like.
I'm picking words out? No...I quoted a direct VERSE word for word in complete context out of the Qu'ran. Try reading it for yourself, or is that too much for you? Or is it that you feel superior in your ignorance? Here is another direct quote all-knowing [without-reading] one.
Page 206--Sura IX vesre 123 --entitled "Repentance:" "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them."
But the War we are in today, is something quite different. Don't try to divert those of us who want to fight that war into your private agenda.
My private agenda? Har...get back to me if you ever decide to read the Qu'ran for yourself, brainiac.
“If they leave you alone and offer to make peace with you, God does not allow you to harm them.”
So why do you NEVER quote (4:90)?
“If they leave you alone and offer to make peace with you, God does not allow you to harm them.”
We can quote that. Now let's reconcile that with these other direct quotes, and question why the Qu'ran conflicts itself.
Lets compare 4:90 [which chapter is that and what is the title?] with Chapter II entitled "The Cow."
216: Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. Allah knows, but you know not. Idolatry is worse than carnage. 217: They will not cease to fight against you until they force you to renounce your faith--if they are able. But whoever of you recants and dies as an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and in the world to come. Such men shall be the tenants of hell, wherein they shall abide forever.
Or lets take a look at and reconcile your quote to Chapter V verse 51 entitled "The table" [page 116]
"Believers, take neither the Jew or Christian as your friend. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah will seek out the evil-doers."
So which is it? The Judeo-Christian tradtion teaches us to love thy neighbor as thyself, but the Qu'ran teaches a moslem not to take a Jew or Christian as a friend. That is OUTRAGEOUS and patently un-american. Not being able to be friends is hateful. Love is mentioned 27 times in the Qu'ran [Allah loves this, Allah loves that] but never in the context of loving other human beings. It is not a religion of love.
If you have a moment, I would ask you to read through my responses on this thread, as I put a lot of effort into laying out my position. Thanks.
Context is rampant here, or rather lack of it. Heh.
While you attempt unsuccessfully to refute JMJ333's
direct quotations of the Koran by saying she lacks
context (only the entire Koran equates to context?
Hoo hah!), you then expect to gain credence by saying
you yourself have never read the work, but have only
skimmed. You base your opinion on the entire work
by what you have skimmed? Does the context of the
entire work not render your skimming inadequate for
the task of characterizing anything you may have read?
If you seriously want to know what you are talking about,
that is, learn something that may not confirm your biases,
the way is clear. RTFM.
Don't try to divert those of us who want to fight that war into your
private agenda.
Rational people are after truth. What is your agenda?
Oh, and what possible relevance to this is Return of the Gods?
When anyone experienced in research skims a document, that implies a lot more than your wisecracks suggest. I was trying to be completely fair to all parties in a discussion that I really do not want to be involved in, except for the fact that there is a need to counter the idea that the present war should be converted into the sort of wars we had in the 8th, 9th and 12th Centuries, and again in the 15th through 17th Centuries.
But my skimming was detailed enough that I read long passages where the subject being discussed was the life and involvements of Abraham; other long passages, where the subject was Jesus, or Moses, or Mary. I also read some of the critiques of the Christians and Jews, and the arguments were theological; directed against the deemed errors, not the people as such.
Because someone has not read a document word for word, and is not a theologian, does not mean that one cannot get a good sense of that document. If I wanted to expound the ideas of that document, a more detailed reading would certainly be in order. But my point was only that you have misrepresented the main thrust of the document by focusing on a sentence or two, here or there.
Again, I have no problem, whatsoever, with those who feel so inclined engaging in vituperative relgious debate. My problem is with those who want to turn a War that all patriotic Americans support into something else. My only agenda in this thread is that.
The reference to the Web Site is not special to this thread, but the Web Site seeks to aid College aged Conservatives in developing debate techniques, and is certainly relevant to the situation where Conservatives go off on personal tacks that leave them vulnerable. I believe that you have done so--not in strenuously maintaining what you believe to be religious truth, but in fudging the issues in the War on Terrorism, in a way which undermines its credibility with those who do not see the theological issues as you do. Charley Reese would be in that number.
William Flax
Baloney, and you know it. Your credibility is in shreds.
It was a good thread, though, thanks to JMJ's expositions.
And, FYI, I come at it from totally opposite JMJ. There
is a terrific danger in characterizing the war on our part
in religious terms. Denying the viciousness of Islam as
revealed in the Koran is not the way to go, however.
Name a few Christian individuals who would not distance themselves from such zealous fools if there were any.
Trying to equate the endless atrosities of Islamic renegades to the damage done by a few misguided and demented pretenders to Christian leadership, is a stretch that no elasticity could expand to.
Well, there's the OKC bombing. The fingerprints of the Identity sheetheads at Elohim City are all over that one. Try reading Evidence: White racists aided Timothy McVeigh. Currently, they are lagging in the body count department; however, that is a reflection of their generally low IQs and poor organizational skills rather than inclination. Once they spark their "RaHoWa" you'll get your body counts.
Name a few Christian individuals who would not distance themselves from such zealous fools if there were any.
Try reading Christian Identity Politics. Here are a few excerpts:
"Some members of the clergy have initiated more direct actions, but found little interest among their colleagues. Last year William Wassmuth, a former Catholic priest who heads the Northwest Coalition Against Malicious Harassment and whose rectory was blown up by the Order gang in 1986, sought to pull together church leaders across the Northwest for a two-day meeting. "We advertised it and worked it every way we knew how and finally canceled it because we just couldn't get anybody to go," he recalled recently. "They [church leaders] say they're interested but they just never end up committing to it. Our feeling is that there is some kind of agenda that is not being spoken. Our best guess is they are nervous about criticizing anything that calls itself Christian. And secondly they are nervous about raising this whole spectrum because everybody is anxious to do everything they possibly can to keep from providing anyone an excuse not to come to their church. So they play patty-cake with it."....
"The mainstream churches also shy away from taking on the far-right Christian Identity groups because their racist brand of Christianity has become entangled with other political agendas — such as the resistance against taxes, overreaching federal government control, liberal environmentalists, abortion rights, and gay rights — which are popular among their parishioners......
"But Fooshee reports that the going can be slow. In Abilene the mainstream churches resist taking on Christian Identity because families of Identity members balk. And followers of the more conservative churches are leery of going after Identity. "It's a slippery slope theologically," Fooshee says, "because you've got people who are really conservative who have got views on the Bible. They aren't necessarily violent. They're just conservative." Still, this can be fertile ground for Christian Identity ideas. "Some of the conservative folks," says Fooshee, "are still battling it out over what the Jews did to Jesus." Identity followers believe the crucifixion of Jesus was part of Satan's elaborate scheme to get back at God through the demonic Jews....
He also wrote a book Bacteriological Warfare - Major Threat to North America which amounts to a manual for biological terrorism.
Now take a gander at the following quote:
"My view of the future is that we are facing now a biological apocalypse. It is coming. The Bible says that it is coming."
"The Bible says that it is coming."
"THE BIBLE SAYS THAT IT IS COMING"
If I understand their ideology, the "biological apocalypse" is a a necessary precursor for the "RaHoWa."
Nice, neighborly, "Christian" folks, eh?
Reese exposes his ignorance here. What he is calling "Christianity" is not "Christianity", it's "Romanism". Working from that false premise, he comes up with his "uniquely American" conclusion.
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.