Truck attack in NYC

[BedellBrave]

But you realize that's a symptom of general religious/spiritual intolerance, and not a sickness endemic to Islam, right?

"That's" - let's be clear, you are claiming that the viable threats (local police force rushed my friends out of the city) to storm our hospital and murder my friends is a symptom solely of a general intolerance of other religions and has nothing to do with Islam? That's there is nothing within the biography of its founder nor it's teachings that may fuel such hatred?

[Jaw]

ftr

i will and would hate muslims trying to force their religious laws on everyone just the same as i do the Mike Pences, Huckabees and the rest of the religious christian right that is trying to do the same thing with the republican party

until those people stop pushing their religious laws on us, complaining about radical muslims etc falls on deaf ears imo

cause it's 6 in one hand and a half dozen in the other

Christ charged us with spreading his message so that non-believers would live. Muhammad charged his followers to spread his message by making non-believers die.

So not really 6 and half a dozen at all.

[goldfly]

Christ charged us with spreading his message so that non-believers would live. Muhammad charged his followers to spread his message by making non-believers die.

So not really 6 and half a dozen at all.

you honestly can't tell me what's 6 in one hand and half dozen in the other when i am speaking about how i view things and i am telling you i view both similarly

[goldfly]

i also love that thethe had the first post and then the first 8 replies to this story

lol

[nsacpi]

As I'm prone and others are no doubt prone to do, he paints with too broad of a brush with that quote. And doesn't take enough account of the life of the prophet himself. He also is weak, if I remember my reading of him correctly, in the sort of idea that fueled the neocon movement - that the Western idea of freedom and democracy was desired throughout the Muslim world.

I think every sentence in the quote is factually correct. Of course, it is not the whole story. And Lewis was a little more realistic than many of the neocons. Consider this quote from him:

There are things you can't impose. Freedom, for example. Or democracy. Democracy is a very strong medicine which has to be administered to the patient in small, gradually increasing doses. Otherwise, you risk killing the patient. In the main, the Muslims have to do it themselves.

Wise words imo. Reinforced by the book I'm currently reading. The English and their History by Robert Tombs. I'm only about a tenth through it and it provides some great perspective on the experiences that helped form the views which we take for granted about the relationship between government (then the King, nobles, etc) and the governed. Those experiences are not easily replicated and certainly can't be accumulated quickly.

[mqt]

Oh good, Trump going hard against Due Process.

[BedellBrave]

I think every sentence in the quote is factually correct. Of course, it is not the whole story. And Lewis was a little more realistic than many of the neocons. Consider this quote from him:

There are things you can't impose. Freedom, for example. Or democracy. Democracy is a very strong medicine which has to be administered to the patient in small, gradually increasing doses. Otherwise, you risk killing the patient. In the main, the Muslims have to do it themselves.

Wise words imo.

Yes, from a Western perspective on the relation of Mosque and State. There's a reason why Neocons appealed to him.

[Jaw]

you honestly can't tell me what's 6 in one hand and half dozen in the other when i am speaking about how i view things and i am telling you i view both similarly

I don't have the words that you need to hear, but I hope that you meet someone who does.

[jpx7]

1. Is anything in my statement incorrect? We all want what we want don't we? Even jp? I absolute would rather people look to Christ as Savior and Lord. And so I recognize that my Muslim neighbor should want me to see his light and my secular neighbor would want me to see her's. That's the way the world works isn't it?

2. Why would a Christian want to criticize Jesus? But criticizing Jesus doesn't generally result in threat of life. Also, again comparatively speaking do you really want to say that Jesus' actions warrant the critique that Muhammad's are? Do you think this is an apple to apple comparison? If so then are you really taking their biographies seriously? And your appeal to theocracies, Jp, what did Jesus say about his kingdom? A Muslim has a legitimate right to appeal to an earthly-political theocracy. A Christian, imho, does not. Again, this seems to be another evidence of not taking both faiths seriously enough.

3. By no means. Speak on but I ask that you do recognize that some of us have been in the trenches and have a perspective that might just have some value here.

4. And I'd encourage you to take a look in your own eye and the eyes of your fellow secularists...

1. I'm not sure the world works that way, but it certainly seems how human minds work. I just wanted you to be explicit about that tension.

2. An earnest one might not. But plenty let their actions, if not their words, question Christ—just as many have loved or would love the imposition of Christian theocracy, despite Christ's words (and Augustine's elaborations).

As for whether I think Christ's biography and Muhammad's are "apples to apples", I don't think you really even need to ask that, given past discussions—you know Christ is pretty near a literary saint in my personal secular humanism. But I'm not talking individual biographies, I'm talking historical and political institutions that have a lot of distance between those biographical seeds and reality.

3. I never dismissed the value of your perspective—but I'd ask that you recognize that there are both welcoming and off-putting ways of speaking your time "in the trenches" into the conversation. The off-putting is the sort of equally-patronizing tone to which I alluded.

4. Always do—but that's a Platonic lesson, for me, not a beam/mote. Because we could go round and round pointing out each other's motes and ignoring our beams, or we can just accept (as I do) that we're all ignorant of the universe's workings, at the end of the day. So I'll keep questioning my own judgment on a continuous basis, and everyone else's, too.

[Julio3000]

I guess it's spitting in the wind to say that I see this and think "politics" and not "religion"?

Sure, maybe "religious extremism weaponized in a political context," but politics nonetheless.

[nsacpi]

As for whether I think Christ's biography and Muhammad's are "apples to apples", I don't think you really even need to ask that, given past discussions—you know Christ is pretty near a literary saint in my personal secular humanism. But I'm not talking individual biographies, I'm talking historical and political institutions that have a lot of distance between those biographical seeds and reality.

well there is the issue that the biographies of Christ and Muhammad were not written by their contemporaries...so we have to be careful in assuming we know more about their respective careers than is actually the case (there are grounds for example for dispute about the place where Muhammad came from and began his career)...there is certainly some problematic material in the non-canonical gospels which is I suppose why they are not part of the canon

[jpx7]

"That's" - let's be clear, you are claiming that the viable threats (local police force rushed my friends out of the city) to storm our hospital and murder my friends is a symptom solely of a general intolerance of other religions and has nothing to do with Islam? That's there is nothing within the biography of its founder nor it's teachings that may fuel such hatred?

I think it's a sickness endemic to man, not to Islam.

[BedellBrave]

well there is the issue that the biographies of Christ and Muhammad were not written by their contemporaries...so we have to be careful in assuming we know more about their respective careers than is actually the case (there are grounds for example for dispute about the place where Muhammad came from and began his career)...there is certainly some problematic material in the non-canonical gospels which is I suppose why they are not part of the canon

I don't hold to the notion of late authorship of the Gospels.

There's little dispute that Muhammad was a man who employed the sword in conquest.

[BedellBrave]

I think it's a sickness endemic to man, not to Islam.

That's something of a dodge. And you know that I am saying that as one who believes in original sin and the total depravity of humanity.

[nsacpi]

I don't hold to the notion of late authorship of the Gospels.

There's little dispute that Muhammad was a man who employed the sword in conquest.

I see your Muhammad was a man of the sword and raise you one Spanish Inquisition...Christianity (though not Christ himself) is as blood drenched as any religion...and I'm sure you are better versed than me in how it was spread around the world over the centuries

Today, thankfully, most Christians have put aside those practices. And Islam needs to go through a similar process where it reforms itself (easy for me to say as a non-Muslim). But I think many thoughtful Muslims see this.

[BedellBrave]

1. I'm not sure the world works that way, but it certainly seems how human minds work. I just wanted you to be explicit about that tension.

2. An earnest one might not. But plenty let their actions, if not their words, question Christ—just as many have loved or would love the imposition of Christian theocracy, despite Christ's words (and Augustine's elaborations).

As for whether I think Christ's biography and Muhammad's are "apples to apples", I don't think you really even need to ask that, given past discussions—you know Christ is pretty near a literary saint in my personal secular humanism. But I'm not talking individual biographies, I'm talking historical and political institutions that have a lot of distance between those biographical seeds and reality.

3. I never dismissed the value of your perspective—but I'd ask that you recognize that there are both welcoming and off-putting ways of speaking your time "in the trenches" into the conversation. The off-putting is the sort of equally-patronizing tone to which I alluded.

4. Always do—but that's a Platonic lesson, for me, not a beam/mote. Because we could go round and round pointing out each other's motes and ignoring our beams, or we can just accept (as I do) that we're all ignorant of the universe's workings, at the end of the day. So I'll keep questioning my own judgment on a continuous basis, and everyone else's, too.

1. I'm fine with being explicit. Hopefully y'all are too.

2. Honestly, I've never met such an "earnest" one. I mean I don't get the point? Sure our actions don't match our profession. Not sure where you are going with that. Such actions aren't in keeping with their Lord's life or teaching, versus being in accord. Kind of the point.

3. I apologize. The way you seemed to dismiss what my friends face (and face) and what I've experienced as being, "well that's human nature" ticked me off honestly.

[Jaw]

I think it's a sickness endemic to man, not to Islam.

It's interesting you say this, as its similar to the difference I see between Christ and Muhammad.

I could see myself acting like Muhammad. Certain I'm right, deternined to spread my wisdom, losing patience and doing it by force.

But Christ? How could I ever be so patient, pure, loving? How could anyone?

[BedellBrave]

I see your Muhammad was a man of the sword and raise you one Spanish Inquisition...Christianity (though not Christ himself) is as blood drenched as any religion...and I'm sure you are better versed than me in how it was spread around the world over the centuries

Today, thankfully, most Christians have put aside those practices. And Islam needs to go through a similar process where it reforms itself (easy for me to say as a non-Muslim). But I think many thoughtful Muslims see this.

Your play is a typical one that doesn't wrestle sufficiently with the idea of a religion's purported adherents faithfully following their founder or unfaithfully following him.

Humbly, I think you are asking for Islam to cease being orthodox-historic-faithful Islam that weds Mosque and State and where both the sword of state and mosque are wielded together. You are asking for it to become heterodox.

And Christianity, as a matter of heart transfer, doesn't spread well by the sword. Never has never will. It's greater expansion has come when believers have their blood shed by others...

[nsacpi]

Your play is a typical one that doesn't wrestle sufficiently with the idea of a religion's purported adherents faithfully following their founder or unfaithfully following him.

Humbly, I think you are asking for Islam to cease being orthodox-historic-faithful Islam that weds Mosque and State and where both the sword of state and mosque are wielded together. You are asking for it to become heterodox.

And Christianity, as a matter of heart transfer, doesn't spread well by the sword. Never has never will. It's greater expansion has come when believers have their blood shed by others...

Actually, I have no trouble saying Christ is a more attractive figure than Muhammad. But I do have a lot of trouble saying that from this it follows that Christ's followers will be better behaved. For long stretches of history that has not been the case. Read any history of Spain for example and compare the behavior of the Christians and Muslims.

And I disagree that Christianity has not spread by the sword. There are awful episodes of Christianity being forcibly imposed on non-Christian peoples. See the choices given to Spanish and Portuguese Jews for examples.

One more point. Islam is already heterodox. The Sufis are a pretty big departure from orthodoxy.

[57Brave]

And Christianity, as a matter of heart transfer, doesn't spread well by the sword.

what does ?