Here We Go Again, Again

...Robert Redeker affirmed notably that "hatred and violence live in the book by which any Moslem is educated, the Koran."

I can affirm, notably, that hatred and violence live in the book by which any Christian is educated, the Bible.


"Judaism and Christianity are religions whose rites delegitimize violence," writes Robert Redeker, professor with the college of Pierre-Paul-Riquet at Saint-Orens de Gammeville, "Islam is a religion which, even in its holiest text, and some of its customary rites, exalts violence and hatred."

I'm not familiar enough with Judaism to comment, but Christianity, most assuredly does not delegitmize violence. In fact, Christianity is a religion which, even in it's holiest text, and some of its customary rites, exalts violence and hatred.

I mean, come on...it's a religion, for the most part, that exalts the torturous, violent murder of it's founder and proclaims that this murder was done for everyone on the planet that believes it was for their own good. Violence doesn't get much more exalted than that. Every Catholic church has an effigy of a dead man nailed to a wooden cross...which, to any feeling person, depicts a somewhat violent and torturous death...and is an exalation of that violence. The "Passion of the Christ" most assuredly is not the exaltation of peace and love...unless, of course, one chooses to see it that way. It is, on its surface, an exaltation of violence and hatefulness.




Concerning Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, the author affirms: "Exaltation of violence: chief of pitiless war, plunderer, mass-murderer of Jews and polygamous, that's the Mohammed revealed through the Koran."

Exaltation of violence, chief of pitiless war, plunderer, mass-murderer of Jews and polygamous, that's the Jesus revealed through those who claim to follow him throughout history and today.>

Belittling Islam in anyway really just shows that you don't know what you're talking about and does nothing to resolve the conflict between Islam and Christianity...it only inflames it.

I certainly don't see anything of Christian value in Robert Redeker's rhetoric regarding Islam. Do you?


My point about the crucifiction is that any Muslim could easily perceive it as I have described. Equally, if all you perceive of Islam is that they believe "Allah is great" and love has nothing to do with it then you too aren't really grasping the greater truth of their religion.

The constant and continual arrogance demonstrated by "Christians" in this country, especially in regards to their contempt for and intolerance of other religions, is not in the least reflective of Jesus and his teachings, much less is it reflective of the "God of Love" they so eagerly like to profess that they believe in.>

Gee, Ostrea, how prophetic.>

correction...

that would be SPEECH

Gosh!>

and FRIENDS...now I am a moron.>

Gee, Courage Man, how courageous of you.

Care to join the discussion now? or are you going to continue to whine and pout about your widdle huwt feewings.>

Modern reason argues that questions of ethics, of religion, and of God are outside its compass. Because there is no scientific method by which such questions can be answered, modern reason cannot concern itself with them, nor should it try to. From the point of view of modern reason, all religious faiths are equally irrational, all systems of ethics equally unverifiable, all concepts of God equally beyond rational criticism. But if this is the case, then what can modern reason say when it is confronted by a God who commands that his followers should use violence and even the threat of death in order to convert unbelievers?

If modern reason cannot concern itself with the question of God, then it cannot argue that a God who commands jihad is better or worse than a God who commands us not to use violence to impose our religious views on others. To the modern atheist, both Gods are equally figments of the imagination, in which case it would be ludicrous to discuss their relative merits. The proponent of modern reason, therefore, could not possibly think of participating in a dialogue on whether Christianity or Islam is the more reasonable religion, since, for him, the very notion of a "reasonable religion" is a contradiction in terms.

Wish I'd written those words for folks who think like MNW, but I didn't. Lee Harris did, in the best analysis of Pope Benedict's Regensburg address I've seen so far. It's called "Socrates or Muhammed? Joseph Ratzinger on the Destiny of Reason" and it's in the latest issue of the Weekly Standard. Read the whole piece here:

">http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/736fyrpi.asp>

MNW -

How about:

If you love me, you will obey my commandments. (John 14:15)

The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him. (John 14:21)

In any event, you should carefully read the Gospels, and also Acts, before making any more pronouncements regarding the thoughts and wishes of Jesus.>

I think it's a kind of Rene Girard idea. First time some one was threatened with death for Girardesque
ramblings - I think I might be with the Muslims on this one :)>

If you love me, you will obey my commandments. (John 14:15)

Nope. Nothing about religion there.


The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him. (John 14:21)

Nope, nothing about religion there either.


In any event, you should carefully read the Gospels, and also Acts, before making any more pronouncements regarding the thoughts and wishes of Jesus.

Why? Do you believe that the thoughts and wishes of Jesus are contained within the words of a book?>

For you younger folks who may have just walked down the aisle with the usher, here are the Sneak Previews of Coming Attractions presaging decades ago that newest blockbuster from Central (stone)Casting, LAURENTS D'EURABIE:

1. The 1979-1981 American-hostage siege, in which the Americans found themselves unable to see their way clear toward Tehran their
tormentors new ones...

2. *L'Affaire Rushdie* over THE SATANIC VERSES (1989-?; rescinding of said *fatwa*, anyone?), which Rod's header re the French philosopher "living under police protection" recalled as its locus classicus...

Sad to say and not at all original, the throat-slitters have one thing on their side that post-Christian, post-Enlightenment western Scientistic man, devoted to comfort and physical survival above all has not had, and without which all the wealth and technology in the world spends itself in long-term impotence as squandered capital inherited under cognitive amnesia: a communally animating structure of belief capable of sustaining and replicating itself - and, not least, defending itself without caveat, qualification or apology, world without end.

Even the Second World War, sixty years on, is telling, in that the cancerous rot of sybaritic nihilism had spread far enough to allow half of Europe to fall like the proverbial termite-ridden house with a light push - and its defeat by the Allies, often a hair's-breadth away from failure (see, e.g., the works of John Lukacs), came in formidable part thanks to a European empire itself captured under the continental spread of faux-scientific materialist nihilism - as presaged by, e.g., the great Russian novelists and liberals of the C19 - Dostoevsky, Herzen, Tolstoy, Turgenev...

To paraphrase Albert Jay Nock, you can't just expect someone to come along on horseback tomorrow in cutting in on deep accumulations of cause and effect which have layered like sediment over centuries...>

My understanding was the old testament was the "LAW" and the new testament was the "SALVATION" since it was recognized that we all fell short of the LAW. The death on the cross was "one death" that replaced the need for any other deaths. I haven't heard MNW mention "turn the other cheek" principle, or "the good Samaritan" parable that seemed to indicate helping regardless of pre-requisites. Is there an equivalent in the Koran of a "new testament?". Promoting ones beliefs should be part of free speach in a free society, but speaking without a head is difficult; but I'm sure MSN will manage.>

I would guess that this explains the emergence of American evangelical Protestants as the most vocal supporters, in the past decade or so, of human rights for religious minorities around the world.*

*as long as they're not gay.




Who pushed for the creation of the US committee to push for religious liberty around the world?

The same folks who brought you the constitutional amendments that codifies religious intolerance in the United States.>

MNW writes,

"I can affirm, notably, that hatred and violence live in the book by which any Christian is educated, the Bible."

But that's only because you're a moron.

Edjukashun: it's the key.>

Back to the subject at hand, which is the violent over-reaction of Muslims to any critique of their religion.

It's about time the West (and I include Russia and Eastern Europe) start domestice surveillance of mosques and interning -- yes, interning -- any imam who encourages violence against non-Muslims for any reason.>

So if a person does not like what is said about their religion, calling them an "ignorant troll" is the answer?

Guess I could have been calling almost everyone around me an ignorant troll for the last 40+ years, but so far, I haven't resorted to that.

Seems like the thread has gone away from the original post and sadly become stuck on name calling of one poster.>

One more thing, Caedmon...

I am not a fisher of fish...at least, not here.>

Guess I could have been calling almost everyone around me an ignorant troll for the last 40+ years, but so far, I haven't resorted to that.

***

No, you've probably called them anti-Semites...>

MNW,

Muslim violence is a real, tangible problem in the world (but not in the US yet). Christian violence is not. Do you agree?>

No, you've probably called them anti-Semites...

Anon,

That might be true.

But it's much less insulting than the obvious judgment explicit in calling someone an "ignorant troll".

If someone calls me a "Jewish sh*t" or a "cheap jew" or my brother a "Jew b*stard", what else would one call them beside "anti-semite"? Good friend, perhaps?>

Anon,
Again, you may be right.>

One more thing...

Please feel free to call me a troll or whatever all you want...

It reminds me to look within myself and remember the love that I have found for you...it provides me the opportunity to practice what I've been taught and what I've learned...it's yet another opportunity to turn the other cheek and to recognize that what you do for me is build me up...not tear me down.>

And, oh yes, upon re-reading that I've one more thought and gesture...

it's yet another opportunity to turn the other cheek and to recognize that what you do for me is build me up...not tear me down.

And for that, I am most grateful. Thank you.>

Why do you always put the term Christians in sneer quotes.

Sneer? I wasn't aware that there was such a thing as a "sneer" quote. It's a quote mark where I come from. It designates that I don't recognize what is claimed as being what it is.

I guess you could say it's sort of like if I said root "beer". Root beer isn't really "beer"...at least not from all outward appearances.

Many people in this country claim to follow Jesus Christ...but I certainly don't recognize that in their actions and their words...especially in those who don't really follow Christ, but follow the words of a book or the words of a minister or the words of someone that supposedly followed Christ or a pope, or whatever. They certainly don't follow the teachings of Christ.



Do you have the unique ability to look into our hearts to determine whether or not someone is a Christian?

I don't need to look into your heart to determine your deeds, words, and actions. Is it not your deeds, words, and actions that demonstrate whether you follow Christ or not?

I'm often told by such "Christians" that it's perfectly fine to judge another's actions and their words...you know...Love the "sinner", hate the "sin" and all of that crap. So if you'd like, you can consider when I type "Christians" as a means of me conveying my judgment of the actions and words of said self-proclaimed followers of Christ. I judge their actions and their words as not to be following the teachings of Christ..but of something else...thus "Christians".

It pertains a bit to knowing them by their fruits...and the fruits of these so called "Christians" are hardly anything reflective of Christ.>