Fuck Islam

Well, the NT is not the only part of the bible But to make sure: I am not bothered by the fact the Bible has more of them than the Quran. It was said to put things in perspective only. To me it is clear they are not the primarily cause for terrorist attacks or war.

How is to defend not more noble than to attack?

 

What is your source for this? And by lines about inflicting violence, are you counting things like "...and so and so smote so and so, for he paid a debt of only seven sheep and nine calves instead of 300 sea lions and an oragutan promised to Jehosephat"?

 

To Asmo: This is something that I've been hearing a lot. The old testament is important in understanding the new, but the new testament takes precedent over the old. It's not like you can blend the two. When the old testament talks about the right to stone people that doesn't mean it's a Christian thing to do.

An argument can even be made the Christianity is even less violent than modern society as it doesn't even advocate self defense. "turn the other cheek"

 

Well, someone else did the work for me to be honest (I read a background article in the weekend newspaper at my parents, I can look up the name of the person who is regarded an authority/specialist on this if you want) so that's my source in this instance, but the primary source is of course the bible and quran itself No, those things were not included it seems.

I am aware. Like I tried to explain: it wasn't about making the christian religion look more violent or anything. It is just interesting to take notice of when islambashers are posting all the violent stuff in the Quran. So, to put things in perspective only. Terrorist attacks are rarely in the first place about Allah or what the Quran says about infidels or jihad. I made the comparison with the bible to try to point that out.

 

Well the word jihad means striving in the way of god. Obviously imperialist interpretations represent a conflict of interest. I do not have a personal relationship with Mohammed and don't know much about his political motives or why he felt them important but it is obvious over time that warfare is not conclusive no matter what a holy man may say. There is no war that ends war save the commitment to laying down arms and one man can halt a column of tanks in tienamin square and on this basis I agree with the concept of jihad or striving in the way of god. There is nothing that will accomplish the goal of overcoming non belief better than the presence of genuine beauty and every reason to observe that what you resist in others persists in or for yourself.

 

Always depends at what page you open the various holy books.

And then you can still twist the content until the square peg fits into a round hole.

 

It is a matter of condition. Nature is tastefully arranged. To compose yourself around the truth is noble and justly supported by the nature of your own being. Conflict exists where the conflicted in heart and mind attend to their struggle and peace exists where we find the peaceful being. Defense becomes ultimately, kill more of them or inflict more damage on them then we incur ourselves. Don't make the mistake of thinking that defense is a gentle option.

 

Couldn't Jihad be translated as "holy war"?

 

Not always. In the case of some collections from different times created for political purposes, of which the christian bible is one, some books make demarcation from the esoteric theme and don't fit into the consistent narrative for the very reason that they were created for different purposes, for instance kosher observances and genelogical expositions. Some books are culturally historical in intent and some are mystical expositions from the human psyche in reference to our ineffable questions about being human and our relationship to nature. Of this latter the same themes exist across apparent religious boundaries. Sectarian views are always culturally implanted diversions from consistent principles.

 

Certainly, it can be, but just as one of many interpretations. People called Jihad are also rarely named as such with the killing of infidels in mind. There the meaning thedope shared fits much better.

 

Could be and is by some. It's most specific meaning is as I stated which could include that construct of holy war. If however a religion purports to be one of peace then we must discount that interpretation as inconsistent in premise on the face of it.

 

To thedope: There are different definitions for Jihad, but if you read some of the verses it's pretty clear that some advocate physical violence. I'm just looking at the scriptures themselves not judging the people who subscribe to Islam.

 

Check out the history.

Islam was only established in Arabia through war in the first place. They then went on to rapidly conquer a vast empire, spreading Islam as they expanded.

Not that peaceful at all.

 

Anger begets anger. Period. If we're (America) going to fuck other countries in the ass, then we should expect some sort of violent backlash from the people we have raped. And America has raped too many people for comfort. Why are so many Americans so shocked? I mean, George Dubya Bush was the last straw. Other countries are fed up big time. And I don't blame them. No, I don't think it is cool to torture or behead (is that a word?) somebody: American or anybody else out there in the world. But I certainly can understand how a nation of people can say enough is enough - and act accordingly.

 

Check out the history of roman expansion, of hun expansion, of european expansion or current western expansionism. Yeah check out the history, don't single out a history. Human beings do not demonstrate themselves as peaceful from time to time and place to place. We seriously confuse the issue when we think we ourselves superior to common human being

 

Right on, dope. People get so subjective when judging one particular kind of ideology/religion/group of people it is good to put things in perspective. No, that romans or european americans expanded their land and influence the same does not mean it is ok or something. It means we consider ourselves pretty peaceful while we judge another kind of people (of which most of us who are doing this do not know them personal or extensive in any way other than the news or other's opinions) and their religion (partially) on their history. While if we do the same with our own ancestors it seems we built our countries, wealth and cultures on the same things. It is so awfully easy to be a judgemental asshole when we can connect the label islam (or muslim, or christian, or simply the word religion) to things that we see things distorted.

 

I accounted for that in saying it is inconsistent on the face of it. It reminds me of some of the things that Paul wrote about women etc. Stuff that was maybe personally relevant but not helpful necessarily in the larger context. I mean that is the way i would account for these things. I would regard honesty as consistency in this case. You can't honestly say that contention is victory. If Mohammed was supposed to have decided everything then he he left a lot undecided which is obvious owing to the level of sectarian tension in the middle east. You could say the same of all our systems to date, that they do not honestly perform as advertised and we just sit back and roll with the punches like a tether ball. You could say the same of christian church dogma, and of any government in the world.

 

Because other cultures have violent histories doesn't mean that that's ok, or that we should continue in our time with the values that led to such violence, or at least, didn't prevent it.

Islam is fucked, so is modern western liberalism, christianity, hinduism etc. The nature of the problems varies in each case.

However, if you say 'Islam has always been a peaceful religion' you'd be incorrect given the facts of history as they have come down to us.

 

Why/how is modern western liberalism fucked?

I don't agree islam is fucked inevitably either but I guess I see why you would say that. Islam may seem fucked, by both naive unbelievers and islamic extremists. In fact we ('western liberals') are helping both moderate muslims getting fucked as our selves by rigidly taking a stance against islam in general. If you look objective it is hard to deny that these terrorists want this conflict and polarisation. It is pretty much their main reason to commit such crimes as those in Paris. It seems extremely stupid to give them what they want.

 

I agree for the large part (although the west didn't fuck those people over out of anger me thinks ). Which nation did you have in mind when you say that last sentence?