Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I want to spotlight the following comment from the Iranian leader of the Revolutionary Guard:
In a speech published in Farsi at an Iranian website linked to the Revolutionary Guard, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naghdi was quoted as saying that “the filthy Americans and the Zionists should not think that with killing our scientists, they can divert our nation from its path of Jihad and scare us.”
Iran is a NATION on a path of Jihad. Oh, but it's only an extremist few, huh? And soon these few extremists will have nuclear weapons. Are you still feeling safe or are you ready to do something about it?
Naivete will leave you or your future family Muslim, servents, or dead.
"The last thing I heard was a powerful explosion and then my ears went deaf," Marco Boutros, a 17-year-old survivor, said from his hospital bed. "All I could see were body parts scattered all over — legs and bits of flesh."
Yes, I agree with you that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, probably because a large percentage of Muslims live in Indonesia and do not share the culture of the Middle East, just the religion.
However, the Koran dictates that the goal of every Muslim is to convert (actually revert) the infidels, kill the infidels, or make us servants. That's it. There is no tolerance built in. You are either with them, against them as a servant, or dead. Read up.
What is orthodoxy, but to follow the religion in it's entirety and not to pick and choose specific beliefs based on what you like or dislike. The terrorists are indeed following the Koran. Moderates ignore parts for the sake of peace. So again, I say to you, the orthodox Muslims are the ones trying to kill folks in the west.
Peace.
You mentioned India. I remembered a letter I was reading last night.
Further, the Quran specifically states that warfare should be defensive, and even then, it's only a last resort after attempts to settle the disagreement through non-violent means have failed.
As you can see, an 'orthodox' Muslim (who follows the Quran as traditional practices dictate) is not permitted to wage war, and practices what is perhaps best considered a form of religious pacifism.
In point of fact, the Quran specifically tells Muslims that suicide is not permitted, nor is the killing of innocents, and there is no Islamic teaching that supports any form of terrorism. The Quran also contains verses that refer to Jews and Christians as 'people of the Book' who should be protected and respected, and firmly enshrines religious freedom in Islamic teachings.
When telling someone to 'read up', it helps to do the reading for yourself first.
Here is the problem that I have with this.
"Yet among the three named are two very distinct attitudes. To the Mohammedan the language as well as the matter of the Koran is sacred. He will not permit its translation. Its original Arabic is the only authoritative tongue in which it can speak. It has been translated into other tongues, but always by adherents of other faiths, never by its own believers." Preparing the Way: The English Bible before King James (my emphasis bold)
Unless a person knows and understands Arabic the person hasn't a clue to that which it really says. They can tell us that it says all kinds of things, but unless we speak Arabic, we don't know who to or who not to believe.
So for me, I just go back to the old adage that 'actions speak louder than words'.
Wait a minute. The bible has it's share of "god" telling it's followers to kill unbelievers. The difference is that most christians don't follow that part oddly enough.
Here is another debate and excellent one on the same issue that you have brought up:
"Those tales of violence in the Old Testament are not teachings. They are stories of what allegedly happened. (I have evidence that they are not true and the Pentateuch was written 800 to 900 years after the mythical Moses lived). There are no teachings of violence in the Old and New Testament. Whereas violence in Islam is enjoined upon all Muslims till eternity and jihad is regarded as the most meritorious act." (to continue reading) Alwi Alatas debates Ali Sina | Faithfreedom.org
The First Crusade was not, in fact, a 'defensive war'; the Byzantine Emperor actively sent ambassadors in early 1095 to the Pope Urban II to ask for assistance in repelling a Seljuk Turkish advance into Byzantine territory, and in November of 1095, the Pope used that embassy as a catalyst to declare the First Crusade:
Standard military practices during the Crusade had the Crusaders massacre the Muslim inhabitants of Antioch, put the city to the torch and destroyed the mosques within; they then managed to stagger south and finally reached Jerusalem with their forces greatly reduced. In Jerusalem, the Crusaders again massacred the Jewish and Muslim civilians and pillaged the city.
We could do this all day long I wonder how far it will get any of us?
Notice the word, 'reconquer".
"The idea of a crusade is already much in the air because of developments in Spain. The Spanish Christians have recently made rapid progress in their long attempt to reconquer their peninsula from the Muslims, and have then suffered equally rapid reverses - in a series of conflicts which have made El Cid something of a paragon as a Christian warrior."
Read more: THE CRUSADES 1095-1291
You'll find similar verses in the Bible. In fact, Duteronomy 6:10 is particularly clear:
Quote:
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. -- Deuteronomy 13:6-10"
(emphasis added)
So, if the verse from the Quran is 'irrelevant', then the verse from the Bible must also be 'irrelevant', since they say the same thing. Frankly, Juj, your argument lost its footing a long while ago. Defend your shaky position if you must, but don't expect to earn any stunning victories.
The verse before the one you picked:
Deuteronomy:
13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
My Bold for emphasis. Now let's put it all together and see what we come up with:
13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
13:11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.
I threw in verse 11, because that just seem to sum it all up. Now, if some one is going to take something from you, will you let him, or will you defend yourself. And by defending I mean kill 'em if that is what it takes to get them away from you.
I have an idea. If it will stop all the killing, why not just give them the land? Then could we not just live all together in peace and harmony? just asking...
'Based on their interpretation' of the Bible, there are 648 million Christians (approximately 10% of the full 2.7 billion) who see the rest of the Earth's population as hellbound idolaters. What's your point?
My point is that it's possible to 'interpret' any religious text to support your views, no matter how twisted they may be, but that doesn't mean those views are sanctioned by whatever religion you may follow -- it only means you've chosen to see it as such.
Thus, it's possible to interpret Christianity as a religion that allows us to clearcut the entire planet, overfish and overhunt, use all of the natural resources indiscriminately, amd basically run rampant over the planet with no regard for the consequinces, all based on one passage in Genesis:
Quote:
'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the Earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.
By that interpretation, the Bible also advocates slavery, as humans are 'living thing(s) that move on the earth' that Genesis clearly gives us 'dominion' over.
Would the vast majority of Christians agree with that point of view? Probably not. The Bible doesn't even agree with it, as sometime later it puts specific prohibitions on slavery under civil law. But...some may choose to interpret the verse as giving such support.
I say again, before I leave this increasingly disturbing argument behind:
'Orthodox' Muslims, following the Quran as written, are told very clearly that violent is a last resort. It's the minority that choose to interpret a greater level of violence than was written.
Good night, sir.
May I give yet another interpretation of the quote. Daily Bible Study - The Bow In The Cloud
"Humans began as vegetarians (Genesis 1:29) and continued as such right up to the time of Noah."
We are to take care of that which we have 'dominion' over, not destroy it. He left it for us to care for; imho, was a mistake.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
