Those Wacky Peace Lovers

[Ealdwita]

Why do you think they should have to? Why has this qualifier been given to Muslims? Were 'moderate' Catholics required to condemn the actions of the IRA? Of course they weren't, it's ridiculous to even ask such a thing. It'd be akin to asking all men to apologise or openly condemn a rapist or rape. It needs no open condemnation, for it is so obviously wrong, and no one, except those responsible for any crime, should have to apologise for the actions of others.

'Few' and 'moderate' were put in quotations. Why? Are you implying that there are no moderate Muslims, or that most Muslims are extremists?

On your first point then, why has HM Government been grovelling and apologising to all and sundry about Britain's involvement in the slave trade when no one alive in Britain today had anything to do with it?

On your second point, I will admit I cannot prove that most Muslims are extremists, but I'm pretty damned sure that most (violent) extremists today are Muslims!

[+and-then]

On your first point then, why has HM Government been grovelling and apologising to all and sundry about Britain's involvement in the slave trade when no one alive in Britain today had anything to do with it?

On your second point, I will admit I cannot prove that most Muslims are extremists, but I'm pretty damned sure that most (violent) extremists today are Muslims!

And this is the point that is so often ignored, or worse, intentionally obfuscated. I wonder what proof beyond the evidence already presented will be required to convince some of the clearly stated intentions of the Jihadists against our way of life. It is a level of PC bullshirt that is utterly amazing to me.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Yeah, women is Libya have gotten screwed after their revolution.

Here's a few highlights from an article I read the other day.

link

The new constitution hasn't been made yet so it's still up in the air, but women who participated in the revolt and helped overthrow Gadhafi are probably about to be thrown under the bus.

Whats the bet that the "moderate majority" of muslims in Lybia wants this to happen/will allow this to happen. Moderate my ass. Turning Lybia into a deprived backwater instead of the university educated, equality driven society it was.The Muslim brotherhood need to be stopped, but at this rate they will run half the world. At least its not the good half

[Black Red Devil]

http://www.foxnews.c...rned-by-muslim/

ONE man made an ACCUSATION. And all this followed. Can someone explain such a mindset to me?

I love how the Christian world looks down upon Muslims and scoffs at their "uncivilised behavior" at every opportunity from the top of their high mountain. It's a pity that the biggest representation of them, Roman Catholics priests, Methodists, Pentecostals, Baptist Ministers, Episcopal priests, etc.covered up and failed to condemn thousands of child sexual abuse cases by their priests for decades, and still do.

So, to answer your question, a similar mindset can be found in all societies around the world where religious fanaticism, from all derivation, impacts on our daily lives and beliefs.

[libstaK]

Do the moderate Christians condemn violent acts every time some wacko claims that Jesus made them do it? No of course not, because that would imply an association of guilt. So you never hear of such a thing. But when Muslims are concerned, the media has actually fooled some of us to believe that for them, doing this is a requirement. It's a common complaint among non-Muslims and yet condemnations are everywhere, they're just ignored by the media so people stay ignorant and keep asking for what they keep ignoring.

Please note above in bold where you asked the question you claim you did not ask below ...

You asked if christians condemn acts that are not in line with true christianity - you claimed they don't.

No I did not. I claimed that the condemnations are everywhere.

The evidence is also clear that muslims have done the same in condemning acts of violence against non-believers.

Yes. The condemnations are everywhere. All one has to do is Google. The media isn't going to inform us correctly on this. The media is who's asking the question: "Where are all these "moderate Muslims" and why aren't they condemning these horrible acts?"

Many of those Google links are to articles posted by the media.

The media is not the instigator of the phenomenon, they just report it.

The media is the instigator of a lot of phenomena, they also report it.

Both of these can be true at times.

Your position on the matter is more that we should ignore evil as it has nothing to do with our own position the matter. Yet ignoring a fire will not prevent the fire from burning the skin from your bones, it simply does not work to sit on the fence, we need to choose where we stand, it makes all the difference.

I never said that either. I said not to ask for horribly inadequate condemnations that only focus on one group's violence. Either ask for condemnations from every group we can divvy humanity up into, or don't do it at all. It might be black and white but it has nothing to do with ignoring evil. It has more to do with not ignoring it. And when it comes to our own violence that we justify for our own benefit, it's an impossible theoretical ideal for a violent species that we are. You're giving me good sermon about what I should do to make humanity a better animal. While I agree with the theory, you're not reading the pragmatism correctly and you're getting my position wrong. If you think that condemning is valuable then condemn women because you're a woman. Condemn whites because you're white. And then the Muslims can condemn Muslims, if you actually think they should. If you're not insulted by that, then you can't understand my position. If I said to you "Eric Rudolph is white. You're a moderate white, why aren't you condemning him?" your response would be quite like all the Muslims I hear, taking the bait and responding to the false accusations that they don't disavow violence in their religion. My position is very simple. All you have to think in order to agree with me completely, is to agree that it's wrong for me to expect you to condemn others based on you sharing personal characteristics in common with them.

I believe we do ask it of all parties, the Pope and Bishops the world over have condemned publically acts done by christians that were violent and caused harm. I think if we remained silent it would be a very "Loud" silence, we only ask what we already do of other groups. But, my experience is that these groups do respond in kind - it just may not always make a great headline for some media.

People can claim they believe many things, you can play the Holier than Thou card with me and that's fine, but when the clothes go through the wash, people are exposed for what they really are. It's a rare bird indeed to not only claim pacifist belief but to also practice pacifism under extreme duress. Loving your enemy after they kill your family in the gas chambers. That would be turning the other cheek, citing Jesus Christ. You are a Christian right? So you have to quietly reconcile the pacifist Christ with the activist Burke.

I am no holier than the least of men, guaranteed - the human condition is a shared experience, we are all learning.

I reconcile Burke and Christ very comfortably - Christ sacrificed his very life in a most violent fashion to ensure that his teachings would echo through the ages, he did not sit by and do nothing, he forgave the violence perpetrated upon himself and showed the depth of his love by his parting words "Father, forgive them they know not what they do". Had he done nothing - he would not have entered Jerusalem but bypassed it and his fate to live a long peaceful life teaching in the country side instead. Actions of good men take many forms.

I don't blame religion for any war or criminal act against anyone - I blame men filled with violence and bereft of true faith.

I blame groups of men with violence and bereft of true non-violence. Faith doesn't keep people non-violent, faith can and has encouraged violence throughout history, in Judaism, Christianity and Islam all.

I agree we see more of your version of faith in history. However, I made the proviso "true faith", the true nature of faith is rarely found or upheld - refer to Jesus' faith and his final words again.

The holy scriptures speak directly to the history of men, lessons born of violence have been mans choice for time immemorial, it is the language of men and God speaks to men in the language they speak at any given time - how else can the scriptures look than as a direct reflection of the maturity of the human race at any given time in history? Who would comprehend them if they were not directly related to the people of the times they were intended to speak to? No one would record them, or keep them if they were not a reflection of themselves in that time. It is hardly the ideal means of discovering the truth, yet if violence is there inside men, it will be expended somehow, what is amazing is that we have not been forsaken inspite of this history. What is great is that many have come who have evolved beyond this history.

The scriptures can look like the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. Gone is the Belligerent Tribal War God and instead we have the Loving Father God.

Yes exactly, the evolution of the spiritual man took a quantum leap in the new testament - we were ready to listen when someone spoke of love and not vengeance or the "eye for an eye" that dominated old testament thought.

Really? Is that where Jesus shows up - in prisons? Who knew . Personally I believe the real deal is within a man, everyman. "Love one another as I have loved you". If he could do it, then we can do it - it was his key to impacting all the generations that came after him, not a bad key to be holding imo and a good place to stand.

Lots of people have claimed to be the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ. How will we know if any of them are right? Are they asking for condemnations from other groups of people they don't personally identify with, or do they teach - Let he who hath no sin cast the first stone.

Read Matthew 7:16

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

The bottom line: As individuals, we should condemn violence, period. If you can agree with that, then we agree in spades. Besides that, it's just snipping at other people we perceive to be in the same group with wackadoos when they're really individuals who have absolutely nothing to do with them.

I can understand that demanding someone to condemn another's act or judging another's failure to do so can be a dangerous game, yet the disappointment of the "deafening silence" will ring in people's ears nonetheless, we sometimes need the assurance of existence of moderate voices to allay our fears and stop us from making rash judgements on entire groups - fear will do that to people. My position is that we do hear this and in spades, there is no issue and no need to ask it of every single person of a particular group, public statements by leaders who represent thousands or millions is all that is needed and, as part of these leaders duties, it is usually done anyway.

[Yamato]

Please note above in bold where you asked the question you claim you did not ask below ...

Many of those Google links are to articles posted by the media.

Both of these can be true at times.

I believe we do ask it of all parties, the Pope and Bishops the world over have condemned publically acts done by christians that were violent and caused harm. I think if we remained silent it would be a very "Loud" silence, we only ask what we already do of other groups. But, my experience is that these groups do respond in kind - it just may not always make a great headline for some media.

I am no holier than the least of men, guaranteed - the human condition is a shared experience, we are all learning.

I reconcile Burke and Christ very comfortably - Christ sacrificed his very life in a most violent fashion to ensure that his teachings would echo through the ages, he did not sit by and do nothing, he forgave the violence perpetrated upon himself and showed the depth of his love by his parting words "Father, forgive them they know not what they do". Had he done nothing - he would not have entered Jerusalem but bypassed it and his fate to live a long peaceful life teaching in the country side instead. Actions of good men take many forms.

I agree we see more of your version of faith in history. However, I made the proviso "true faith", the true nature of faith is rarely found or upheld - refer to Jesus' faith and his final words again.

Yes exactly, the evolution of the spiritual man took a quantum leap in the new testament - we were ready to listen when someone spoke of love and not vengeance or the "eye for an eye" that dominated old testament thought.

Read Matthew 7:16

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

I can understand that demanding someone to condemn another's act or judging another's failure to do so can be a dangerous game, yet the disappointment of the "deafening silence" will ring in people's ears nonetheless, we sometimes need the assurance of existence of moderate voices to allay our fears and stop us from making rash judgements on entire groups - fear will do that to people. My position is that we do hear this and in spades, there is no issue and no need to ask it of every single person of a particular group, public statements by leaders who represent thousands or millions is all that is needed and, as part of these leaders duties, it is usually done anyway.

Please note above in bold where you asked the question you claim you did not ask below ...

That isn't the question you said I asked. Read carefully. The answer to my question is a resounding NO. The answer to your question is a resounding YES because they're two different questions.

Many of those Google links are to articles posted by the media.

So?

Both of these can be true at times.

So at times they do instigate, we agree once again.

I believe we do ask it of all parties, the Pope and Bishops the world over have condemned publically acts done by christians that were violent and caused harm.

All violence causes harm Libstak, that's what violence is. There's plenty of violence that the Bishops don't condemn and shy of all the child molesting going on, nobody asks why they don't, when they don't.

I am no holier than the least of men, guaranteed - the human condition is a shared experience, we are all learning.

Then we should condemn violence that is a shared part of that shared experience. Not ignore it when it's politically popular in our own state, or related to characteristics foreign to our own.

I reconcile Burke and Christ very comfortably - Christ sacrificed his very life in a most violent fashion to ensure that his teachings would echo through the ages, he did not sit by and do nothing, he forgave the violence perpetrated upon himself and showed the depth of his love by his parting words "Father, forgive them they know not what they do". Had he done nothing - he would not have entered Jerusalem but bypassed it and his fate to live a long peaceful life teaching in the country side instead. Actions of good men take many forms.

Forgiving the violent and turning the other cheek does not help prevent or end violence, and the reason why is because we don't have the carrot dangling on the string that Jesus did, that is, the promise of salvation. Not doing nothing is pretty vague. You can reconcile it with rhetoric in the general case. You still haven't reconciled your position based on specifics of this topic. Condemning people goes against Christ's instructions: Judge not lest ye be judged yourself. Let he who hath no sin cast the first stone.

I agree we see more of your version of faith in history. However, I made the proviso "true faith", the true nature of faith is rarely found or upheld - refer to Jesus' faith and his final words again.

"True faith" is just words. Everyone of faith thinks they have true faith. That is, everyone thinks what they believe is true; that's what belief is. The problem with the rhetoric "true faith" is that it's subjective impossible to prove. What we do know for sure is that not everyone of different religions can have "true faith" because their beliefs are largely contradictory and incompatible. Ergo, the conflict throughout history that differences between religious groups has fueled. It isn't just history, it's ongoing to this day.

Yes exactly, the evolution of the spiritual man took a quantum leap in the new testament - we were ready to listen when someone spoke of love and not vengeance or the "eye for an eye" that dominated old testament thought.

We're not so enlightened today to the message of the New Testament that you think we are. Old Testament justice has been far exceeded in violence by today's standards. Modern day Israelis believe in 10 eyes for an eye or 100 eyes for an eye. We're a terribly violent species Libstak, more so in the past 100 years than the prior 1900.

Read Matthew 7:16

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

So if any of these Jesus-wannabes gathered grapes or figs, that would make the difference in your belief? Of course we're to beware of false prophets. Jesus was another false prophet to many. He was ridiculed and executed as a criminal. The Jesuses in prison today aren't much different in that regard.

I can understand that demanding someone to condemn another's act or judging another's failure to do so can be a dangerous game, yet the disappointment of the "deafening silence" will ring in people's ears nonetheless, we sometimes need the assurance of existence of moderate voices to allay our fears and stop us from making rash judgements on entire groups - fear will do that to people. My position is that we do hear this and in spades, there is no issue and no need to ask it of every single person of a particular group, public statements by leaders who represent thousands or millions is all that is needed and, as part of these leaders duties, it is usually done anyway.

Deafening silence isn't my position, that's your straw man. My position is individuals should condemn all violence. Not just the violence from those groups that are politically correct to condemn. There's no need to ask it of every single person of a particular group, because the groupthink is the problem that causes the violence. People need to spend more time and energy focusing on what brings us together, not politically correct differences that tear us apart. Public statements by politicians are worthless. It's just rhetoric. Politicians universally say one thing and do the other; they're the most notorious of liars and not worth our faith.

[+and-then]

Please note above in bold where you asked the question you claim you did not ask below ...

That isn't the question you said I asked. Read carefully. The answer to my question is a resounding NO. The answer to your question is a resounding YES because they're two different questions.

Many of those Google links are to articles posted by the media.

So?

Both of these can be true at times.

So at times they do instigate, we agree once again.

I believe we do ask it of all parties, the Pope and Bishops the world over have condemned publically acts done by christians that were violent and caused harm.

All violence causes harm Libstak, that's what violence is. There's plenty of violence that the Bishops don't condemn and shy of all the child molesting going on, nobody asks why they don't, when they don't.

I am no holier than the least of men, guaranteed - the human condition is a shared experience, we are all learning.

Then we should condemn violence that is a shared part of that shared experience. Not ignore it when it's politically popular in our own state, or related to characteristics foreign to our own.

I reconcile Burke and Christ very comfortably - Christ sacrificed his very life in a most violent fashion to ensure that his teachings would echo through the ages, he did not sit by and do nothing, he forgave the violence perpetrated upon himself and showed the depth of his love by his parting words "Father, forgive them they know not what they do". Had he done nothing - he would not have entered Jerusalem but bypassed it and his fate to live a long peaceful life teaching in the country side instead. Actions of good men take many forms.

Forgiving the violent and turning the other cheek does not help prevent or end violence, and the reason why is because we don't have the carrot dangling on the string that Jesus did, that is, the promise of salvation. Not doing nothing is pretty vague. You can reconcile it with rhetoric in the general case. You still haven't reconciled your position based on specifics of this topic. Condemning people goes against Christ's instructions: Judge not lest ye be judged yourself. Let he who hath no sin cast the first stone.

I agree we see more of your version of faith in history. However, I made the proviso "true faith", the true nature of faith is rarely found or upheld - refer to Jesus' faith and his final words again.

"True faith" is just words. Everyone of faith thinks they have true faith. That is, everyone thinks what they believe is true; that's what belief is. The problem with the rhetoric "true faith" is that it's subjective impossible to prove. What we do know for sure is that not everyone of different religions can have "true faith" because their beliefs are largely contradictory and incompatible. Ergo, the conflict throughout history that differences between religious groups has fueled. It isn't just history, it's ongoing to this day.

Yes exactly, the evolution of the spiritual man took a quantum leap in the new testament - we were ready to listen when someone spoke of love and not vengeance or the "eye for an eye" that dominated old testament thought.

We're not so enlightened today to the message of the New Testament that you think we are. Old Testament justice has been far exceeded in violence by today's standards. Modern day Israelis believe in 10 eyes for an eye or 100 eyes for an eye. We're a terribly violent species Libstak, more so in the past 100 years than the prior 1900.

Read Matthew 7:16

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

So if any of these Jesus-wannabes gathered grapes or figs, that would make the difference in your belief? Of course we're to beware of false prophets. Jesus was another false prophet to many. He was ridiculed and executed as a criminal. The Jesuses in prison today aren't much different in that regard.

I can understand that demanding someone to condemn another's act or judging another's failure to do so can be a dangerous game, yet the disappointment of the "deafening silence" will ring in people's ears nonetheless, we sometimes need the assurance of existence of moderate voices to allay our fears and stop us from making rash judgements on entire groups - fear will do that to people. My position is that we do hear this and in spades, there is no issue and no need to ask it of every single person of a particular group, public statements by leaders who represent thousands or millions is all that is needed and, as part of these leaders duties, it is usually done anyway.

Deafening silence isn't my position, that's your straw man. My position is individuals should condemn all violence. Not just the violence from those groups that are politically correct to condemn. There's no need to ask it of every single person of a particular group, because the groupthink is the problem that causes the violence. People need to spend more time and energy focusing on what brings us together, not politically correct differences that tear us apart. Public statements by politicians are worthless. It's just rhetoric. Politicians universally say one thing and do the other; they're the most notorious of liars and not worth our faith.

Sounds like you are telling an entire species to "grow up and act right". Good luck with that little task.

[Yamato]

Sounds like you are telling an entire species to "grow up and act right". Good luck with that little task.

If we can't let go of collectivist mentalities like group-think, such as state-sponsored favoritism based on religion or ethnicity, we will remain the unwitting puppets of bigotry and hatred, of violence, war, and terrorism. I don't think we're anywhere near as enlightened towards universal peace as Libstak so while you're liking her posts, you're telling me good luck? I think you're confused. If you really supported individual rights, individual liberty, and individual responsibility, you'd agree with me strongly. But I know you don't, because if you did (and no matter what you say on the US Politics board) you wouldn't support foreign welfare, you'd agree with the fundamental principle that the individual knows better how to spend her own money than the nearest gangbanger in Washington DC.

[+and-then]

If we can't let go of collectivist mentalities like group-think, such as state-sponsored favoritism based on religion or ethnicity, we will remain the unwitting puppets of bigotry and hatred, of violence, war, and terrorism. I don't think we're anywhere near as enlightened towards universal peace as Libstak so while you're liking her posts, you're telling me good luck? I think you're confused. If you really supported individual rights, individual liberty, and individual responsibility, you'd agree with me strongly. But I know you don't, because if you did (and no matter what you say on the US Politics board) you wouldn't support foreign welfare, you'd agree with the fundamental principle that the individual knows better how to spend her own money than the nearest gangbanger in Washington DC.

I "liked" her posts because I agree with her sentiments. And it still sounds like you're saying the world needs to grow up. It just seems a little arrogant and naive at the same time.

[Yamato]

I "liked" her posts because I agree with her sentiments. And it still sounds like you're saying the world needs to grow up. It just seems a little arrogant and naive at the same time.

That's not my sentiment. I don't think the world lacks maturity, I think it contains too much bigotry and self-interest that makes peace impossible. Mature adults are more self interested than kids are. Kids can make their own fun with no material wealth at all; adults need material crap to feel their needs are being met. Take a look at world history; events confer with my sentiments. It's the furthest thing from naive. You don't want to agree with me because you have the ethnic-group and religious-group interests that I'm talking about, so of course you're not going to like me exposing it.

[Wickian]

I love how the Christian world looks down upon Muslims and scoffs at their "uncivilised behavior" at every opportunity from the top of their high mountain. It's a pity that the biggest representation of them, Roman Catholics priests, Methodists, Pentecostals, Baptist Ministers, Episcopal priests, etc.covered up and failed to condemn thousands of child sexual abuse cases by their priests for decades, and still do.

So, to answer your question, a similar mindset can be found in all societies around the world where religious fanaticism, from all derivation, impacts on our daily lives and beliefs.

Coming from an Atheist, which country would you prefer to live in more? One with a few pedophile priests whom you can insult and demand legal action from what they've done, or one where pedophiles can buy several child brides or you can be executed or incite riots over a single comment or lie due to level of religion zealotry that surrounds you? Assuming your a man who's actually allowed outside to have some fun that is.

Your answer to this question is all the proof you need to how much worse one of these countries/religions is from the other. It might just be their culture and not Islam though.

[Yamato]

Coming from an Atheist, which country would you prefer to live in more? One with a few pedophile priests whom you can insult and demand legal action from what they've done, or one where pedophiles can buy several child brides or you can be executed or incite riots over a single comment or lie due to level of religion zealotry that surrounds you? Assuming your a man who's actually allowed outside to have some fun that is.

Your answer to this question is all the proof you need to how much worse one of these countries/religions is from the other. It might just be their culture and not Islam though.

Was slaughtering every man, woman and child in Jerusalem in the Crusades the true practice of Christianity? There are passages in the Old Testament that suggest it was. Someone else might provide the very best practice of Christianity, or at least the least violent, with the opinion that it is the true practice. The paradox of joining the Old Testament with the New Testament is that there are two very profound and yet very opposing interpretations available from which to choose from. Virtually any behavior can be justified through the Bible, Talmud or Qu'ran, subject to interpretation that they are. I seriously doubt this was an historical oversight, but quite by design.

[+and-then]

That's not my sentiment. I don't think the world lacks maturity, I think it contains too much bigotry and self-interest that makes peace impossible. Mature adults are more self interested than kids are. Kids can make their own fun with no material wealth at all; adults need material crap to feel their needs are being met. Take a look at world history; events confer with my sentiments. It's the furthest thing from naive. You don't want to agree with me because you have the ethnic-group and religious-group interests that I'm talking about, so of course you're not going to like me exposing it.

Nope... I don't mind you stating any position or opinon you have - I just think they are naive.

[Wickian]

Was slaughtering every man, woman and child in Jerusalem in the Crusades the true practice of Christianity? There are passages in the Old Testament that suggest it was. Someone else might provide the very best practice of Christianity, or at least the least violent, with the opinion that it is the true practice. The paradox of joining the Old Testament with the New Testament is that there are two very profound and yet very opposing interpretations available from which to choose from. Virtually any behavior can be justified through the Bible, Talmud or Qu'ran, subject to interpretation that they are. I seriously doubt this was an historical oversight, but quite by design.

I'm not talking about hundreds of years ago. I agree with you that Christianity was pretty brutal in the past. The difference being it has changed and is just a nuisance(in some respects) now. The Church doesn't have the power to burn women at the stake or torture them until they convert anymore, it's grown up and become a part of a mostly peaceful society now. You'd have a hard time trying to find a large sect that promotes the brutal teachings of the past.

Islam in these countries is pretty much mild by comparison as well, it's the theocratic countries with a large population of conservatives that is smearing the entire religion.

[SHaYap]

tribal/racial practices and power political interests hiding behind infallible laws of religion is bad news, regardless of whatever religion

~edit : i had no idea

Edited March 13, 2013 by third_eye

[Yamato]

Nope... I don't mind you stating any position or opinon you have - I just think they are naive.

I don't mind you stating your opinion either, and I think that your opinion of supporting Zionist immigration policy while also believing that Armageddon is going to wipe out 2/3s of the world's Jews after they're shepherded into Israel means that you support policy that will lead to the mass extermination of Jews. If we're taking a census survey Armageddon would make The Holocaust a small potato. This isn't naive, this is so fundamentally flawed it's either the mother of all contradictions or a deliberate but well covered-up hatred. Every time I think of a right-wing Zionist (i.e. a "Christian conservative"), I think of this song that was written for Ann Coulter who's just such an individual.

[Yamato]

I'm not talking about hundreds of years ago. I agree with you that Christianity was pretty brutal in the past. The difference being it has changed and is just a nuisance(in some respects) now. The Church doesn't have the power to burn women at the stake or torture them until they convert anymore, it's grown up and become a part of a mostly peaceful society now. You'd have a hard time trying to find a large sect that promotes the brutal teachings of the past.

Islam in these countries is pretty much mild by comparison as well, it's the theocratic countries with a large population of conservatives that is smearing the entire religion.

Don't I have to hear it from the g/f's family every time I sit down with the "in-laws"! Every dinner time is another liberal secular rant about Erdogan's Islamic reforms, lament for the military party rule, and avoidance of anything taboo that might set off an argument (criticism of their glorious leader Ataturk, the Armenian genocide, calling anything "Greek" like Greek yogurt, or in any way mentioning the Battle of Vienna).

These regimes smear the entire religion because that's how we paint them up, as representing the entire religion. How many times did I hear the language: "Islam, a religion of peace? Ha!" We're totally insulated from theocracy and yet can't be compelled to reassess our foreign policies that put our people in danger and killed 3,000 of our countrymen. For others who don't have a separation of church and state, we must continue our failure of bribes and bombs, because the money changers must have their war. If the 20th and 21st century were any guide, it doesn't take religion to instigate violence, it's just one of the old fashioned shticks with which to do it.

I mention the effects religion has on peoples' minds going back hundreds of years with the understanding that I'm talking with other poster(s) who take nearly 2,000 year-old scripture as God's infallible truth, and as the reason for having their positions and even for supporting foreign policies in the Middle East today.

[Black Red Devil]

Coming from an Atheist, which country would you prefer to live in more? One with a few pedophile priests whom you can insult and demand legal action from what they've done, or one where pedophiles can buy several child brides or you can be executed or incite riots over a single comment or lie due to level of religion zealotry that surrounds you? Assuming your a man who's actually allowed outside to have some fun that is.

Your answer to this question is all the proof you need to how much worse one of these countries/religions is from the other. It might just be their culture and not Islam though.

You're asking me to chose between the two of the lesser evils? Now why would I do that when I'm trying to avoid the stigmatisation of one society over the other. Neither are perfect and at the center of these imperfections there is a common denominator called religion, or rather, the patsies having their strings pulled by higher powers under the name of religion.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Black Red Devil

[+and-then]

I don't mind you stating your opinion either, and I think that your opinion of supporting Zionist immigration policy while also believing that Armageddon is going to wipe out 2/3s of the world's Jews after they're shepherded into Israel means that you support policy that will lead to the mass extermination of Jews. If we're taking a census survey Armageddon would make The Holocaust a small potato. This isn't naive, this is so fundamentally flawed it's either the mother of all contradictions or a deliberate but well covered-up hatred. Every time I think of a right-wing Zionist (i.e. a "Christian conservative"), I think of this song that was written for Ann Coulter who's just such an individual.

[media=]

[/media]

Yes, the wars and wrath of the end times will make EVERY WAR that ever came before seem mild by comparison. I support what I believe. You support the safe, majority view point that allows you to judge others from a safe distance. I think you enjoy calling the fire down on those God Himself has chosen. You and those like you will pay a heavy price for it some day Yam. If it makes me a "hater" to declare that message then so be it.

[Yamato]

Yes, the wars and wrath of the end times will make EVERY WAR that ever came before seem mild by comparison. I support what I believe. You support the safe, majority view point that allows you to judge others from a safe distance. I think you enjoy calling the fire down on those God Himself has chosen. You and those like you will pay a heavy price for it some day Yam. If it makes me a "hater" to declare that message then so be it.

Safe majority view? Netanyahu got 30 standing ovations from the entire Congress in one speech. Wake up.

Please inform me of where I have ever "called the fire down on those God himself has chosen". And you slip a personal threat in to boot! Me and those like me? Who is "like me", and what are you threatening is going to happen to me?

The truth hurts and then, it's a painful fact that your policy views will maximize Israeli deaths. Join me in opposing Zionism and saving lives when you start to think logically about this issue instead of stubbornly remaining blinded by "faith". Consider it a permanent invitation for when you are finally able to admit it. Until then, I don't care what you say about me. I am certain you recognize the deadly consequences your opinions will cause; sometimes unfortunately having a heart and ending suffering and stopping violence can't compete with the false God of nationalism, war, and foreign welfare.

[libstaK]

Please note above in bold where you asked the question you claim you did not ask below ...

That isn't the question you said I asked. Read carefully. The answer to my question is a resounding NO. The answer to your question is a resounding YES because they're two different questions.

That is the exact question I said you asked, it was the one I directly responded to initially.

I believe we do ask it of all parties, the Pope and Bishops the world over have condemned publically acts done by christians that were violent and caused harm.

All violence causes harm Libstak, that's what violence is. There's plenty of violence that the Bishops don't condemn and shy of all the child molesting going on, nobody asks why they don't, when they don't.

If you believe we should not condone any violence at all, then why are you questioning people's wishes that particular believers publically condemn terrorist acts if the acts are committed by someone of the same belief as them? Which is it? Should people be vocal in their abhorrence of violence or not, make up your mind.

As to the molesting, one issue at a time fgs, there is no answer for you there is always one more way that "failure" is inherent regardless of any step forward mankind makes.

I am no holier than the least of men, guaranteed - the human condition is a shared experience, we are all learning.

Then we should condemn violence that is a shared part of that shared experience. Not ignore it when it's politically popular in our own state, or related to characteristics foreign to our own.

So now we should be expecting condemnation of violence from others? I thought we shouldn't expect people to speak up just because they belonged to a particular group. If we are to condemn all violence we should always expect people to speak up and definitely to attend to the falsehoods that are within their group - how else can it work?

I reconcile Burke and Christ very comfortably - Christ sacrificed his very life in a most violent fashion to ensure that his teachings would echo through the ages, he did not sit by and do nothing, he forgave the violence perpetrated upon himself and showed the depth of his love by his parting words "Father, forgive them they know not what they do". Had he done nothing - he would not have entered Jerusalem but bypassed it and his fate to live a long peaceful life teaching in the country side instead. Actions of good men take many forms.

Forgiving the violent and turning the other cheek does not help prevent or end violence, and the reason why is because we don't have the carrot dangling on the string that Jesus did, that is, the promise of salvation. Not doing nothing is pretty vague. You can reconcile it with rhetoric in the general case. You still haven't reconciled your position based on specifics of this topic. Condemning people goes against Christ's instructions: Judge not lest ye be judged yourself. Let he who hath no sin cast the first stone.

Wait, what? That is the exact carrot that is being dangled, salvation through denial of violence in one's own actions.

As to the "Judge not ...." again, which is it - should people be vocal against acts of violence by others of their own group or not, now you are saying no - up above you were saying they should always condemn violence, by extension they should condemn it where they see it, where they see it would be as commonly within their various groups as elsewhere.

I agree we see more of your version of faith in history. However, I made the proviso "true faith", the true nature of faith is rarely found or upheld - refer to Jesus' faith and his final words again.

"True faith" is just words. Everyone of faith thinks they have true faith. That is, everyone thinks what they believe is true; that's what belief is. The problem with the rhetoric "true faith" is that it's subjective impossible to prove. What we do know for sure is that not everyone of different religions can have "true faith" because their beliefs are largely contradictory and incompatible. Ergo, the conflict throughout history that differences between religious groups has fueled. It isn't just history, it's ongoing to this day.

The subjective experience of faith imo is "if I believe things will go my way", the objective experience of faith is "what has come before me is God's will and I accept that." It's true we will never all agree on the true nature of faith but the obvious false nature of faith is the self serving variety.

Yes exactly, the evolution of the spiritual man took a quantum leap in the new testament - we were ready to listen when someone spoke of love and not vengeance or the "eye for an eye" that dominated old testament thought.

We're not so enlightened today to the message of the New Testament that you think we are. Old Testament justice has been far exceeded in violence by today's standards. Modern day Israelis believe in 10 eyes for an eye or 100 eyes for an eye. We're a terribly violent species Libstak, more so in the past 100 years than the prior 1900.

I disagree, what is best in mankind has become more apparent - at the opposite end, what is worst amongst mankind has also become more apparent. Our faults and graces are in the glare of the spotlight and all who choose to look can see them clearly - the nature of "enlightenment" is to bring forth the murky things we hid in the dark into the light so we can comprehend and overcome them. This is happening. For centuries we were blissfully unaware of our faults as a race and believed only that we were great and better than others, many more than ever today are being confronted directly through the consequences of their actions that this simply is not true and we need to change - you speak like you are one of these I think. In fact the majority of folk I have conversed with seem to take the view that we as a race need to change. Being unenlightened is to believe we are just fine as we are - change requires tension, today there is a lot of tension and a huge impetus for change.

Read Matthew 7:16

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

So if any of these Jesus-wannabes gathered grapes or figs, that would make the difference in your belief? Of course we're to beware of false prophets. Jesus was another false prophet to many. He was ridiculed and executed as a criminal. The Jesuses in prison today aren't much different in that regard.

Taking a parable "literally" is a sign you are dismissing it's true meaning in favour of belittling it, naturally that is going to lead to confusion for you.

I can understand that demanding someone to condemn another's act or judging another's failure to do so can be a dangerous game, yet the disappointment of the "deafening silence" will ring in people's ears nonetheless, we sometimes need the assurance of existence of moderate voices to allay our fears and stop us from making rash judgements on entire groups - fear will do that to people. My position is that we do hear this and in spades, there is no issue and no need to ask it of every single person of a particular group, public statements by leaders who represent thousands or millions is all that is needed and, as part of these leaders duties, it is usually done anyway.

Deafening silence isn't my position, that's your straw man. My position is individuals should condemn all violence. Not just the violence from those groups that are politically correct to condemn. There's no need to ask it of every single person of a particular group, because the groupthink is the problem that causes the violence. People need to spend more time and energy focusing on what brings us together, not politically correct differences that tear us apart. Public statements by politicians are worthless. It's just rhetoric. Politicians universally say one thing and do the other; they're the most notorious of liars and not worth our faith.

Do you know what a "flip flopper" is? Condemning ALL violence by extension means condemning violence where it arises and gains attention in the public arena. If you have the public's attention then it makes sense to use that attention to take a stand. Condemning others because they seek particular groups to make their position clear on current prevalent types of violence is just a bunch of hair splitting. Condemning public figures for taking a stand because "they can't be trusted" makes the whole exercise of taking a stand against violence a complete non-starter.

If you are not going to be satisfied unless every form of violence is addressed at once and authentically, you are not gonna be satisfied until the longest speech in history is enacted by the speaker and when all violence has been roundly condemned and attended equally to in the speech, most folk will have lost focus and have no idea where to begin dealing with the monumental range of problems presented. You can only eat an elephant one bite at a time, yes we should condemn all violence but if we are willing to condemn one particular violence today then that is one bite of the elephant attended to and when digested and sorted we can then take another bite.

You are playing "damned if you do and damned if you don't" with the world and all it's peoples. I think you just want to count every grain of sand on the beach, good luck with that.

[+and-then]

Safe majority view? Netanyahu got 30 standing ovations from the entire Congress in one speech. Wake up.

Please inform me of where I have ever "called the fire down on those God himself has chosen". And you slip a personal threat in to boot! Me and those like me? Who is "like me", and what are you threatening is going to happen to me?

The truth hurts and then, it's a painful fact that your policy views will maximize Israeli deaths. Join me in opposing Zionism and saving lives when you start to think logically about this issue instead of stubbornly remaining blinded by "faith". Consider it a permanent invitation for when you are finally able to admit it. Until then, I don't care what you say about me. I am certain you recognize the deadly consequences your opinions will cause; sometimes unfortunately having a heart and ending suffering and stopping violence can't compete with the false God of nationalism, war, and foreign welfare.

Every time you condemn the very regathering of the Jews to Zion you are spitting in God's face. You and everyone else here who feels the same about them - "them" being the Jews (no matter where they came from) that are living in Israel. That's your choice - and you know full well that I am not threatening you or anyone else. Unless stating a belief threatens you somehow. Those here at UM who hate "Zionists" and "Zionism" feel justified to advocate for a situation that would cause the nation of Israel to no longer exist. I would have a great deal more respect for them and you if you'd simply say it plainly. But that would break some rule of political correctness I guess. As to the "deadly consequences my opinions will cause" perhaps you can explain to me how an opinion causes anything - except potentially a change of another's opinions? If I had never been born it would not change a single thing about the destiny of Israel. Perhaps if I were a billionaire I could impact policies of my country toward Israel but an average citizen can do nothing except stand in solidarity - OR - oppose the nation of Israel. That my choice to support them bothers so many is very telling. There are only a small handful of people I know who support Israel. Here at this site the consensus is that the state is illegitimate and needs to "vanish from the pages of time". It is never going to happen. They will suffer and die regardless my opinions or your's but their nation will always remain - also, regardless my opinion or your's. If you believe in the God of the Bible you could clearly see this statement there. That you won't admit to it tells me you either don't agree OR you don't believe. If you think that God exists but He isn't caring enough for the Palestinians then you should take that up with Him in prayer Yam. But speaking steadfastly against what He has proclaimed as His will is a dangerous thing. And before this drones on for another 5 useless pages of us talking past one another I will bid you a good day. I hope someone else here got something from this thread - you certainly didn't seem to.

[SHaYap]

zionapartheid is what it is ..... I wouldn't have thought any religion would've approved, not even Judaism, heck, specially Judaism

[+and-then]

zionapartheid is what it is ..... I wouldn't have thought any religion would've approved, not even Judaism, heck, specially Judaism

Yep...the Israelis view themselves as a special lot, no doubt about it. And in many ways they are. Can you think of another group of human beings whose essential culture and traditions and even language have lasted about 5000 years intact? In spite of having most of the world hate them for much of that time? So yeah, I guess I can see why they'd have become a bit "clannish" in their behavior and outlook. All the more reason to understand how dangerous it is to push such a nuclear armed group to the wall to a point of desperation some day - which is coming I think. But having said that, I agree that the way they, especially the settlers, treat Palestinians can be deplorable and they should be held accountable for it. And a fair minded person looks at the WHOLE conflict. For every Palestinian who lost a home or land there are several Jews who were kicked out of their places in Europe and the M.E., sometimes with only a suitcase. No one ever talks about them. Germany did more to recompense the survivors(as should be) but many others did nothing to pay for the thefts. This conflict between Palestinian, Arab,Muslim and Jew is supernatural IMO and will continue until all the world has learned the lesson God is trying to teach.

[Yamato]

That is the exact question I said you asked, it was the one I directly responded to initially.

If you believe we should not condone any violence at all, then why are you questioning people's wishes that particular believers publically condemn terrorist acts if the acts are committed by someone of the same belief as them? Which is it? Should people be vocal in their abhorrence of violence or not, make up your mind.

As to the molesting, one issue at a time fgs, there is no answer for you there is always one more way that "failure" is inherent regardless of any step forward mankind makes.

So now we should be expecting condemnation of violence from others? I thought we shouldn't expect people to speak up just because they belonged to a particular group. If we are to condemn all violence we should always expect people to speak up and definitely to attend to the falsehoods that are within their group - how else can it work?

Wait, what? That is the exact carrot that is being dangled, salvation through denial of violence in one's own actions.

As to the "Judge not ...." again, which is it - should people be vocal against acts of violence by others of their own group or not, now you are saying no - up above you were saying they should always condemn violence, by extension they should condemn it where they see it, where they see it would be as commonly within their various groups as elsewhere.

The subjective experience of faith imo is "if I believe things will go my way", the objective experience of faith is "what has come before me is God's will and I accept that." It's true we will never all agree on the true nature of faith but the obvious false nature of faith is the self serving variety.

I disagree, what is best in mankind has become more apparent - at the opposite end, what is worst amongst mankind has also become more apparent. Our faults and graces are in the glare of the spotlight and all who choose to look can see them clearly - the nature of "enlightenment" is to bring forth the murky things we hid in the dark into the light so we can comprehend and overcome them. This is happening. For centuries we were blissfully unaware of our faults as a race and believed only that we were great and better than others, many more than ever today are being confronted directly through the consequences of their actions that this simply is not true and we need to change - you speak like you are one of these I think. In fact the majority of folk I have conversed with seem to take the view that we as a race need to change. Being unenlightened is to believe we are just fine as we are - change requires tension, today there is a lot of tension and a huge impetus for change.

Taking a parable "literally" is a sign you are dismissing it's true meaning in favour of belittling it, naturally that is going to lead to confusion for you.

Do you know what a "flip flopper" is? Condemning ALL violence by extension means condemning violence where it arises and gains attention in the public arena. If you have the public's attention then it makes sense to use that attention to take a stand. Condemning others because they seek particular groups to make their position clear on current prevalent types of violence is just a bunch of hair splitting. Condemning public figures for taking a stand because "they can't be trusted" makes the whole exercise of taking a stand against violence a complete non-starter.

If you are not going to be satisfied unless every form of violence is addressed at once and authentically, you are not gonna be satisfied until the longest speech in history is enacted by the speaker and when all violence has been roundly condemned and attended equally to in the speech, most folk will have lost focus and have no idea where to begin dealing with the monumental range of problems presented. You can only eat an elephant one bite at a time, yes we should condemn all violence but if we are willing to condemn one particular violence today then that is one bite of the elephant attended to and when digested and sorted we can then take another bite.

You are playing "damned if you do and damned if you don't" with the world and all it's peoples. I think you just want to count every grain of sand on the beach, good luck with that.

That is the exact question I said you asked, it was the one I directly responded to initially.

You misquoted me. When you changed the words, you changed the meaning. If you're unclear about what I mean, just ask! Don't presume or impose.

If you believe we should not condone any violence at all, then why are you questioning people's wishes that particular believers publically condemn terrorist acts if the acts are committed by someone of the same belief as them? Which is it? Should people be vocal in their abhorrence of violence or not, make up your mind.

Again, people should refrain from collectivist mindsets whether they condemn violence or not, otherwise they only condemn the violence that some other group commits. And that doesn't satisfy the ideal that we both agree on, or at least should.

As to the molesting, one issue at a time fgs, there is no answer for you there is always one more way that "failure" is inherent regardless of any step forward mankind makes.

It's another example of violence, it isn't another issue.

So now we should be expecting condemnation of violence from others? I thought we shouldn't expect people to speak up just because they belonged to a particular group. If we are to condemn all violence we should always expect people to speak up and definitely to attend to the falsehoods that are within their group - how else can it work?

Why? If we universally condemn all violence, what need is there of having to belong in the group committing the violence? By "attending to the falsehoods" in the world regardless of groups. An adult doesn't need to be a kid to champion defense of children. I don't have to be a Catholic to condemn child molestation. I don't have to be an eco-terrorist to condemn whale poachers. I don't have to be a Muslim to defend human rights of Palestinians. I don't have to be a Zionist to condemn Zionist policies. If I'm to "always expect you to speak up and attend to the falsehoods within your group", where's a link to you always doing that? Surely you condemn plenty more than that, and why wouldn't you?

Wait, what? That is the exact carrot that is being dangled, salvation through denial of violence in one's own actions.

Sorry I know of no such carrot in your group. You have to accept the Lord Jesus Christ as the son of God who died for your sins and by believing you will be saved. There is no requirement of pacifism in Christianity as all history and the scriptures prove.

As to the "Judge not ...." again, which is it - should people be vocal against acts of violence by others of their own group or not, now you are saying no - up above you were saying they should always condemn violence, by extension they should condemn it where they see it, where they see it would be as commonly within their various groups as elsewhere.

I'm not the one claiming adherence to Jesus Christ's teaching. I don't need to reconcile judging-not with judging, much less pacifism with violence. By reminding you of Jesus's teachings, I'm not hamstringing myself. To condemn or not to condemn misses my point. Groupthink and collectivist mindset is what justifies the violence of that group and by extension, fails to condemn it. Catholic Bishops fail to do it. Muslim Imams fail to do it. Governments the world over fail to do it. Individuals fail to do it I think often because they don't apply their own personal values to the larger groups they identify with. I am a very sweet and tender guy. I don't believe in violence. I only practice violence in self defense, therefore I condemn all acts that initiate violence. The human race is a group I also belong to. Starting to understand now?

I disagree, what is best in mankind has become more apparent - at the opposite end, what is worst amongst mankind has also become more apparent. Our faults and graces are in the glare of the spotlight and all who choose to look can see them clearly - the nature of "enlightenment" is to bring forth the murky things we hid in the dark into the light so we can comprehend and overcome them. This is happening. For centuries we were blissfully unaware of our faults as a race and believed only that we were great and better than others, many more than ever today are being confronted directly through the consequences of their actions that this simply is not true and we need to change - you speak like you are one of these I think. In fact the majority of folk I have conversed with seem to take the view that we as a race need to change. Being unenlightened is to believe we are just fine as we are - change requires tension, today there is a lot of tension and a huge impetus for change.

What made you think I'm blissfully unaware? As a race, the human race, we never stop changing. Humans have always changed. Change is the one reliable constant. Many changes are good, many aren't. We're reproducing like cockroaches. We're destroying the planet's ecosystems, natural habitats, and large animals. We're consuming mass quantities of finite natural resources at an ever-increasing rate . Christianity is dying. We're always looking for a better kind of gun to hold advantage over other groups that we identify as different than ourselves, usually on the other side of an arbitrary line drawn by governments called borders. When we get rid of groupthink we get rid of the lines that divide us. "If it is to be, it's up to me."

Taking a parable "literally" is a sign you are dismissing it's true meaning in favour of belittling it, naturally that is going to lead to confusion for you.

That's your subjective interpretation. Some subjectively interpret it literally. Who are you to decide what's literal and what isn't? Who is anyone to do that? That's the problem with scripture when we can cherry pick it to mean whatever suits our needs. If something confuses you if you take it literally, don't take it literally, it's just a parable. The agreeable things you can understand? Taking those literally is fine. I think the violent people who justify their violence in the world are the ones suffering from the real confusion, which religious group's scriptures they might believe, notwithstanding.

Do you know what a "flip flopper" is? Condemning ALL violence by extension means condemning violence where it arises and gains attention in the public arena. If you have the public's attention then it makes sense to use that attention to take a stand. Condemning others because they seek particular groups to make their position clear on current prevalent types of violence is just a bunch of hair splitting. Condemning public figures for taking a stand because "they can't be trusted" makes the whole exercise of taking a stand against violence a complete non-starter.

What does "flip flopper" have to do with this? It doesn't need to be a public affair. If it's a personal affair for every individual, it will work. If we can't stop focusing on foreign groups we don't identify with to start trouble with, and simultaneously ignore that group's condemnations which are everywhere (what brought you here in the first place) we will never end this violence that both of our country's governments are participating in.

If you are not going to be satisfied unless every form of violence is addressed at once and authentically, you are not gonna be satisfied until the longest speech in history is enacted by the speaker and when all violence has been roundly condemned and attended equally to in the speech, most folk will have lost focus and have no idea where to begin dealing with the monumental range of problems presented. You can only eat an elephant one bite at a time, yes we should condemn all violence but if we are willing to condemn one particular violence today then that is one bite of the elephant attended to and when digested and sorted we can then take another bite.

It's not reliant on some public speech. It's what's inside of us that counts. The principle to condemn the initiation of violence is a very simple concept LIbstak and you're making it unnecessarily difficult. The only true freedom is individual freedom. It's an intimately personal and individual exercise. Groups like religions, governments and mass medias bind us, they tell us what to believe, they tell us what to think, what to value, how we're valued. Each and every one of us is valuable because we're all individuals with our own diverse thoughts, beliefs, potentials, and paths. Groups indoctrinate; individuals educate.

You are playing "damned if you do and damned if you don't" with the world and all it's peoples. I think you just want to count every grain of sand on the beach, good luck with that.

I don't have to count every grain of sand, that would be up to the group thinkers who have to divide the beach up into many beaches and then rank order them in endless hierarchies based on how many grains of sand each contains. Principles like non-violence encourage unity and that is conducive to simplicity, not difficulty or impossibility (i.e. damned either way). Dividing people into groups is what creates all the complications.