Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
and then

Those Wacky Peace Lovers

58 posts in this topic

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/10/hundreds-christians-clash-with-pakistani-police-after-homes-burned-by-muslim/

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Sure, it's called the human condition. It can be found in humans all over the World, from all walks of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So someone was accused of making a negative remark about Mohammed and burning Christian homes was their response. Life in prison or the death penalty for offending Mohammed but will anything happen to the people that burnt the houses.

From the article.

According to Human Rights Watch, there are at least 16 people on death row in Pakistan for blasphemy and another 20 are serving life sentences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Sits back to wait for 'moderate' Muslims around the world to condemn the actions of the 'few' extremists* (I think I'd better order sandwiches and coffee!)

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the bit where it started because they were both out on the sauce and got into a barney.

Isn't alcohol something forbidden under Islam? Obviously a devout man who made the accusations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Sits back to wait for 'moderate' Muslims around the world to condemn the actions of the 'few' extremists* (I think I'd better order sandwiches and coffee!)

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

You are welcome to believe anything you like Ex. But if you think what these people did is reasonable or that comparing it to bad behavior by others in the past somehow absolves them then I think less of you as a reasonable, rational person. And I'm not accusing any GROUP... except the actual perpetrators of this crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Actually they do condemn actions against muslims:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2010/09/08/vatican-condemns-koran-burning-in-florida/

http://www.ucanews.com/news/interfaith-council-condemns-koran-burning/49044

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7991362/Koran-burning-Archbishop-of-Canterbury-strongly-condemns-plan.html

And those were just for the burning of a book ..

For attacks on both sides ...

"In a special, English-language prayer at the end of the service, John Paul urged both Christians and Muslims to pray for a world where there is "no room for hatred, discrimination or violence." "

http://www.cephas-library.com/catholic/catholicism_october_2001.html

The internet is also filled with reams of reports of Muslim organisations that roundly condemned the actions of 911 along with subsequent attacks on christians in the middle east and burning of churches et al.

I think the moderate majority can do more and regularly to drown out the voices of the minority of sick and twisted that infest each faith and they should all continue their battles against the radicals in their own faiths - the moderate majorities own freedoms are what are ultimately at stake here.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually they do condemn actions against muslims:

http://www.catholich...ing-in-florida/

http://www.ucanews.c...n-burning/49044

http://www.telegraph...demns-plan.html

And those were just for the burning of a book ..

For attacks on both sides ...

"In a special, English-language prayer at the end of the service, John Paul urged both Christians and Muslims to pray for a world where there is "no room for hatred, discrimination or violence." "

http://www.cephas-li...tober_2001.html

The internet is also filled with reams of reports of Muslim organisations that roundly condemned the actions of 911 along with subsequent attacks on christians in the middle east and burning of churches et al.

I think the moderate majority can do more and regularly to drown out the voices of the minority of sick and twisted that infest each faith and they should all continue their battles against the radicals in their own faiths - the moderate majorities own freedoms are what are ultimately at stake here.

Again, the condemnations are everywhere. Even calling them moderate implies they're on the same spectrum of belief. How about every time an Australian person freaks out, I hear more condemnations from Australians? How about every time a white person goes on a rampage, I hear some apologies from the Whites? We can play that PC game all day and what it does is justify some violence while applying a stricter standard to the violence we don't politically agree with. Bugger that. Let's condemn ALL VIOLENCE without dividing it up into groups first before deciding how to treat it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the condemnations are everywhere. Even calling them moderate implies they're on the same spectrum of belief. How about every time an Australian person freaks out, I hear more condemnations from Australians? How about every time a white person goes on a rampage, I hear some apologies from the Whites? We can play that PC game all day and what it does is justify some violence while applying a stricter standard to the violence we don't politically agree with. Bugger that. Let's condemn ALL VIOLENCE without dividing it up into groups first before deciding how to treat it.

What makes you think the moderate majority doesn't do that? If most people did not condemn all violence we would not have made it to the 21st century with all the laws against assault and violence that we have incepted and agreed to uphold because they protect ALL citizens equally. None of these laws prejudice particular groups - at least not in the western world and where they are upheld aka: not condemned by the U.N. they are deemed to be fairly applied in much of the eastern and middle-eastern world also.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... I'm probably going to be slammed for this, but I consider ANY extremist Muslim that specifically promotes, advocates or otherwise enforces Sharia law on others to be a "terrorist", or at the VERY least barbaric.

<<Pallidin now put's on flak jacket>>

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... I'm probably going to be slammed for this, but I consider ANY extremist Muslim that specifically promotes, advocates or otherwise enforces Sharia law on others to be a "terrorist", or at the VERY least barbaric.

<<Pallidin now put's on flak jacket>>

I agree with barbaric, and terrorist like when they impose them on those of differing beliefs.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Indeed, for example, their attitude and treatment of women is beyond my comprehension or my idea of common sense, IMHO.

That really, really bugs me.

EDIT: Every human has come from a woman. EVERYONE!!! Should that not be highly respected?

End of rant...

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be a small point to some but I keep coming back to the truth that the so called extremists are the only one's in the faith that are actually following the path of Muhammad. His words, and those attributed to him prove this. They are not bounded by time or situation as the O.T. admonitions are... they are as valid to today's Muslim as they were when he recited them.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

If the moderates don't want their religion to be ridiculed, mocked and generally hated/disliked by much of the world they should probably step up and bring some civility and rational thinking to their teachings in these countries where things like this happen.

If the majority of Christians/Catholics were still practicing witch burnings and such I guarantee you whatever countries weren't would be thinking the same of them as we do of Islam controlled countries.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, for example, their attitude and treatment of women is beyond my comprehension or my idea of common sense, IMHO.

That really, really bugs me.

EDIT: Every human has come from a woman. EVERYONE!!! Should that not be highly respected?

End of rant...

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

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

BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — On her way back from her job as a lecturer at a university near Tripoli, Libyan poet Aicha Almagrabi was stopped by a group of bearded militiamen. They kicked her car, beat up her driver and threatened to do the same to her. Her offense: being alone in a car with men without a male relative as a guardian.

...

More generally, the deeply conservative nature of much of Libyan society is being expressed more freely, often impinging on women. Powerful clerics speak out against the mixing of the sexes and Libya's political leaders themselves have set the tone for a more conservative stance on women.

...

In February, the Supreme Constitutional Court consecrated Abdul-Jalil's announcement, formally ending any conditions on polygamy.

In 2012, at a televised ceremony celebrating the transfer of power to a newly elected parliament, Abdul-Jalil ordered a young presenter, Sarah al-Massalati, to leave the hall because she was not wearing a headscarf.

"We believe, respect and emphasize personal freedoms, but we are also a Muslim nation," Abdul-Jalil said at the time, to cheers from the audience. "I hope everyone understands these words."

...

Female lawyers say the country had one of the Arab world's most pro-women personal status laws, covering marriage, divorce and family law. Unlike Egypt and some other Arab nations, there is no "house of obedience" law by which courts can force women who flee their husbands to return. Women have children's custody rights after divorce.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think the moderate majority doesn't do that? If most people did not condemn all violence we would not have made it to the 21st century with all the laws against assault and violence that we have incepted and agreed to uphold because they protect ALL citizens equally. None of these laws prejudice particular groups - at least not in the western world and where they are upheld aka: not condemned by the U.N. they are deemed to be fairly applied in much of the eastern and middle-eastern world also.

The representative democracies around the world as just one of infinite examples. Nobody condemns all violence. The most enlightened among us justify violence when it suits our needs. There are no "moderate majorities" in existence today that condemn all violence. Not even the monks in Tibet or some drum circle hippies in San Francisco do that. We are a violent species and we will always rationalize our own violence when it suits our own needs. Condemning all violence is words, and when actions speak the opposite, hypocrisy is the result. There's plenty of that in the world.

Speaking of laws, here in the US we've managed quite impressively to initiate violence without laws even being necessary, another illegal trick for the "moderates" among us who condemn violence with their mouths but master the art of practicing it with their money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The representative democracies around the world as just one of infinite examples. Nobody condemns all violence. The most enlightened among us justify violence when it suits our needs. There are no "moderate majorities" in existence today that condemn all violence. Not even the monks in Tibet or some drum circle hippies in San Francisco do that. We are a violent species and we will always rationalize our own violence when it suits our own needs. Condemning all violence is words, and when actions speak the opposite, hypocrisy is the result. There's plenty of that in the world.

Then why did you write words of that ilk? Are they only words when someone else believes it but the truth if you believe it?

Speaking of laws, here in the US we've managed quite impressively to initiate violence without laws even being necessary, another illegal trick for the "moderates" among us who condemn violence with their mouths but master the art of practicing it with their money.

I hardly think the fact that there are evil people practicing hypocrasy throughout the world rates as a newsflash. However, it is not cause to tar all with the same brush or lose faith in those who do believe in non-violence and stand firmly on that ground. Today's ideals and dreams can be tomorrow's realities, losing hope or condemning all and sundry as a lost cause gets nothing done and changes nothing, that's just my opinion.

Edited by libstaK
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why did you write words of that ilk? Are they only words when someone else believes it but the truth if you believe it?

I hardly think the fact that there are evil people practicing hypocrasy throughout the world rates as a newsflash. However, it is not cause to tar all with the same brush or lose faith in those who do believe in non-violence and stand firmly on that ground. Today's ideals and dreams can be tomorrow's realities, losing hope or condemning all and sundry as a lost cause gets nothing done and changes nothing, that's just my opinion.

Then why did you write words of that ilk? Are they only words when someone else believes it but the truth if you believe it?

Of course not, I never suggested that. As for "ilk", what do I believe that we don't agree on?

Your opinion is my opinion and of course we shouldn't tar with a broad brush, and that's the implication whenever we appeal to the "moderates" every time a MUSLIM wacko does something. Either play the game fairly and expect every "moderate" group we can think of to condemn the nutty actions of each nutty individual in the group, or join me and don't play it at all.

Muslim violence isn't politically correct, so they've got to keep asking for those condemnations they're missing from their lack of Google, not condemn the rampant violence their own color, gender, nation, religion, ideology etc. engages in constantly. It's a personal and political attack against Muslims. Can't see that? Then give me a characteristic of you and we'll label you a "moderate" of that characteristic, and every time anyone in the world who shares your characteristic does something wackadoodle, I'll be asking where your condemnation is because it's your characteristic. Obviously you should be able to see how toxic and disgusting that is.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Then why did you write words of that ilk? Are they only words when someone else believes it but the truth if you believe it?

Of course not, I never suggested that. As for "ilk", what do I believe that we don't agree on?

Your opinion is my opinion and of course we shouldn't tar with a broad brush, and that's the implication whenever we appeal to the "moderates" every time a MUSLIM wacko does something. Either play the game fairly and expect every "moderate" group we can think of to condemn the nutty actions of each nutty individual in the group, or join me and don't play it at all.

Muslim violence isn't politically correct, so they've got to keep asking for those condemnations they're missing from their lack of Google, not condemn the rampant violence their own color, gender, nation, religion, ideology etc. engages in constantly. It's a personal and political attack against Muslims. Can't see that? Then give me a characteristic of you and we'll label you a "moderate" of that characteristic, and every time anyone in the world who shares your characteristic does something wackadoodle, I'll be asking where your condemnation is because it's your characteristic. Obviously you should be able to see how toxic and disgusting that is.

I'm a little confused - how toxic what is? Are you saying that to not be a hypocrite we should "not play the game" or something else? Is it toxic and disgusting to express our opinion on whether something is acceptable behaviour or is it toxic and disgusting if we relate to a particular group and REFRAIN from expressing when something is clearly unnacceptable behaviour within that group?

For myself as a christian I have a faith that will demand I condemn those that are violent or harmful in the name of God or Jesus, in my mind it just does not compute that someone can claim to believe in a supreme being and then in the next breath take the law into their own hands by acting out violently toward non=believers as though there isn't a God perfectly capable of handling the situation in complete justice and fairness to all parties him/herself without my ignorant minded input muddying the waters and making his job all the harder quite frankly.

Edited by libstaK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... I'm probably going to be slammed for this, but I consider ANY extremist Muslim that specifically promotes, advocates or otherwise enforces Shre aria law on others to be a "terrorist", or at the VERY least barbaric.

<<Pallidin now put's on flak jacket>>

That's why people are leaving Iran, too many evil laws

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little confused - how toxic what is? Are you saying that to not be a hypocrite we should "not play the game" or something else? Is it toxic and disgusting to express our opinion on whether something is acceptable behaviour or is it toxic and disgusting if we relate to a particular group and REFRAIN from expressing when something is clearly unnacceptable behaviour within that group?

For myself as a christian I have a faith that will demand I condemn those that are violent or harmful in the name of God or Jesus, in my mind it just does not compute that someone can claim to believe in a supreme being and then in the next breath take the law into their own hands by acting out violently toward non=believers as though there isn't a God perfectly capable of handling the situation in complete justice and fairness to all parties him/herself without my ignorant minded input muddying the waters and making his job all the harder quite frankly.

To be non-violent, we should not play the game. Focusing on their lack of condemnations for what we think their characteristics are (based on God knows what) provides an all too convenient cover for the lack of our own. And the violence streams in, dressed up in lipstick and perfume, and we miss it entirely. Probably because we separate ourselves from any individual who would prove capable of doing heinous things we'd never even dream of doing in our lives.

How many times have you condemned someone of your skin color because they share that characteristic with you? Is that racist? Some black people think Bill Cosby is racist. Someone should tell Cosby that many of the fantastic points he makes are just as applicable to the white dads in America as they are the black ones.

What other characteristic is easy to pull out? National identity. We're indoctrinated to have feelings about our countries, but they're only positive feelings, not condemnations. We take what our countries do personally in a positive way. Patriotism is politically correct. That violence is normal. But who cries for the violent actions of his or her politicians? Who lambasts and suffers for the sins of his country? Treason is traitorous.

I don't think the Abrahamic religions foster belief that God can take care of the justice and fairness when throughout the Bible, God relied upon violent men to carry out his just plots. The prophets are central representatives of this. And so the battle rages on today over who is the chosen one and who is the terrorist, who is the just and who is the unjust. Violence fills the holy scriptures too; there's no refuge from violence there. Many posters here put the blame squarely on religion; but I'm not one of those posters. I don't see religion taking government kicking and screaming to war. I see governments going to war with religion used as a catalyst to speed up and strengthen that violence.

Jesus is one actual example of someone who condemns all violence and he's been gone for 2000 years. He turns up in almost every prison. God knows which one if any are the real deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

You asked if christians condemn acts that are not in line with true christianity - you claimed they don't. I gave you links showing you that they do. The evidence is also clear that muslims have done the same in condemning acts of violence against non-believers. Neither of these groups have created an "association of guilt" by doing so, in fact, they have negated the validity of the perpetrators chosen position in hiding behind religion to excuse their criminal acts by saying they are just plain wrong.

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

To be non-violent, we should not play the game. Focusing on their lack of condemnations for what we think their characteristics are (based on God knows what) provides an all too convenient cover for the lack of our own. And the violence streams in, dressed up in lipstick and perfume, and we miss it entirely. Probably because we separate ourselves from any individual who would prove capable of doing heinous things we'd never even dream of doing in our lives.

To be non violent is to take a stand that does not condone violence, it does not mean meeting fire with fire but to remain silent is far more incriminating than to take a stand against it. Ghandi took a stand against the British Empire to liberate his people - through consistent and persistent non-violence, he stood for what he believed was right and remained steadfast in his stand.

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.

"All that is necessary for the triumpth of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke.

How many times have you condemned someone of your skin color because they share that characteristic with you? Is that racist? Some black people think Bill Cosby is racist. Someone should tell Cosby that many of the fantastic points he makes are just as applicable to the white dads in America as they are the black ones.

I have no idea what this is about? Please don't elaborate, there is an endless litany of "positions" folks can take on any number of issues, this discussion could turn into a revolving entropic pit of them if we add racism as well.

What other characteristic is easy to pull out? National identity. We're indoctrinated to have feelings about our countries, but they're only positive feelings, not condemnations. We take what our countries do personally in a positive way. Patriotism is politically correct. That violence is normal. But who cries for the violent actions of his or her politicians? Who lambasts and suffers for the sins of his country? Treason is traitorous.

Wait, what? Treason is traitorous? Yeah ok, "the tide comes in the tide goes out, you can't explain that" - Bill O'Reilly :w00t::P (Just responding to a nonsense with a nonsense).

Yet another side winding position, I'm sure there are millions will we really not be done until we have had every issue of opposition between mice and men presented or can we stick to the issue of "peace and non-violence" being upheld by believers in general?

I don't think the Abrahamic religions foster belief that God can take care of the justice and fairness when throughout the Bible, God relied upon violent men to carry out his just plots. The prophets are central representatives of this. And so the battle rages on today over who is the chosen one and who is the terrorist, who is the just and who is the unjust. Violence fills the holy scriptures too; there's no refuge from violence there. Many posters here put the blame squarely on religion; but I'm not one of those posters. I don't see religion taking government kicking and screaming to war. I see governments going to war with religion used as a catalyst to speed up and strengthen that violence.

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

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.

Jesus is one actual example of someone who condemns all violence and he's been gone for 2000 years. He turns up in almost every prison. God knows which one if any are the real deal.

Really? Is that where Jesus shows up - in prisons? Who knew :huh: . 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.

Edited by libstaK
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You asked if christians condemn acts that are not in line with true christianity - you claimed they don't. I gave you links showing you that they do. The evidence is also clear that muslims have done the same in condemning acts of violence against non-believers. Neither of these groups have created an "association of guilt" by doing so, in fact, they have negated the validity of the perpetrators chosen position in hiding behind religion to excuse their criminal acts by saying they are just plain wrong.

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

To be non violent is to take a stand that does not condone violence, it does not mean meeting fire with fire but to remain silent is far more incriminating than to take a stand against it. Ghandi took a stand against the British Empire to liberate his people - through consistent and persistent non-violence, he stood for what he believed was right and remained steadfast in his stand.

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.

"All that is necessary for the triumpth of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke.

I have no idea what this is about? Please don't elaborate, there is an endless litany of "positions" folks can take on any number of issues, this discussion could turn into a revolving entropic pit of them if we add racism as well.

Wait, what? Treason is traitorous? Yeah ok, "the tide comes in the tide goes out, you can't explain that" - Bill O'Reilly :w00t::P (Just responding to a nonsense with a nonsense).

Yet another side winding position, I'm sure there are millions will we really not be done until we have had every issue of opposition between mice and men presented or can we stick to the issue of "peace and non-violence" being upheld by believers in general?

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

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.

Really? Is that where Jesus shows up - in prisons? Who knew :huh: . 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.

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?"

Neither of these groups have created an "association of guilt" by doing so,

That's right, neither group did. The ones who do are the warmongers who use this "moderates" rhetoric. I don't hear about "moderate Christians" every time another Eric Rudolph shows up. I would be insulted if someone called me a "moderate Christian" and asked me to condemn his actions. Don't associate me with him. How dare they? It smacks of apology and there's nothing to apologize for. There is no association between you, a Christian, and Eric Rudolph therefore you shouldn't be expected to condemn him and then blamed if you don't do so visibly enough through the media lens.

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.

To be non violent is to take a stand that does not condone violence, it does not mean meeting fire with fire but to remain silent is far more incriminating than to take a stand against it. Ghandi took a stand against the British Empire to liberate his people - through consistent and persistent non-violence, he stood for what he believed was right and remained steadfast in his stand.

Only a pacifist condemns all violence, and these self-described people are generally not put to the test of their own beliefs therefore there is no "stand" to take. Even Gandhi (sp) recognized that sometimes violence is necessary. Even Gandhi didn't condemn all violence!

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.

"All that is necessary for the triumpth of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke.

Okay. That's a great quote.

Yet another side winding position, I'm sure there are millions will we really not be done until we have had every issue of opposition between mice and men presented or can we stick to the issue of "peace and non-violence" being upheld by believers in general?

As long as it isn't upheld by violence, because every practitioner of violence wraps it up in righteous language, from Australian bureaucrats to Adolf Hitler. 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 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.

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.

Really? Is that where Jesus shows up - in prisons? Who knew :huh: . 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.

I agree we can do it in theory, but we're not going to do it in practice when we're practicing snipping at each other from different group identities. Instead of seeing other people as members of a group, the case in point being the Muslim group, let's see people as individuals. Racists believe that people who share the same skin color are alike. Asking Muslims to condemn Muslims is a gross insinuation that all Muslims are alike. Ignoring their condemnations and continuously repeating the lie that they don't condemn violence is stirring the hate and firing up the cauldron of religious, ethnic, cultural and commercial war in the 21st century. It's a potpourri of groupthink, bigotry, and hate.

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.

Edited by Yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.