Jihad in Britain

danielg says:

Anyway, these people sound like fundamentalist Christians, just a different religion.
Ignorant secularist anti-religionists blather. No thinking person would confuse the two, nor abandon his ability to rationally discriminate between them despite their similarities.

Silver Hallide says:

Ignorant secularist anti-religionists blather. No thinking person would confuse the two, nor abandon his ability to rationally discriminate between them despite their similarities.
Sounds like an instance of just being disregarded out of hand without even being open to the notion that there are similar parallels. Not really conducive to your learning to be a good listener and open to others ideas Seeker, particularly for a seminary student.
Frankly, I would tend to agree with Cin on this one. That there is common ground between the two and the only true difference is doctrine.
Even here, I can point to your specific cries of the Evilness of Islam and the need to eradicate it as words (that if could be backed by action) would be no different that those of a Muslim wishing to spread the word of the Quran and drive the infidels of Chistendom out of the world. Same difference.
– Silver

Silver Hallide says:

Seeker, once again you do a brain dump that is not well reasoned and argued.
I will touch on a few points and let you live in your ignorant bliss…
With regard to this: "Even here, I can point to your specific cries of the Evilness of Islam and the need to eradicate it as words (that if could be backed by action) would be no different that those of a Muslim wishing to spread the word of the Quran and drive the infidels of Chistendom out of the world. Same difference."
I emphatically disagree, and I'll tell you why. Islamists teach killing those who disagree. Christians in no way encourage such threats or oppression.
I can point to instances throughout history where Christians have in the name of their religion and doctrine killed others that were not of the same faith. In particular, I can point to the Catholic Church during the Crusades, and if you like the Spanish Conquistadors in the New World with regard to their oppression, torture, and destruction of native civilization under the auspices of God, the Catholic Church, and the Crown (which derived its power from the Holy Church).
In the present day, the only thing that separates the doctrine you espouse against Muslims within the Evangelical Christian movement and that of Radical Islam is the lack of taking to killing. Rest assured, when and not if we got to war to fight Islam again, Christians will be resorting to killing to enforce their doctrine. There is no difference. Period.
They are on the wrong side of the issue, and should be argued against, if not shamed into ceasing their unconscious alignment with falsehood, and abetting of the real threat to mankind, (that is, besides his own sinfulness), Islam.
I emphatically disagree with that statement. Such a statement originates from a person that is so convinced of their beliefs to be true that they are blinded by their own dogma and are willing to opress others that do not believe exactly as they do. This is a very dangerous, radical tact to be taking and may just undo the very Christian doctrine and behavior you are trying to preserve.
Actually, there is a time to stop arguing with fools who continue to make the same purposeful mistakes repeatedly, hence Jesus' saying "don't throw your pearls before swine."
I would counter that statement to say that he who believes they are absolutely right without any concession that they may be wrong or an open ear to hear those of opposing views are the truly foolish and insane.
I am tired of the same old atheist anti-religionist canard of "the Christian fundamentalists are just as bad as the Islamists." Not only is this patently inaccurate and misleading, it is intellectually lazy and an anti-intellectual cheap shot that fails to inform.
Seeker, with all due respect… I am going to say this because you are way out of line…
Is it really a canard? Well, as you well know I am far from the standard bearer of that very label you throw around. I think it is just as patently lazy of you to rely on the over-hyped threat of Islam and discount the impact of other religious groups (both positive and negative) on the planet. Period.
This sort of stance shows that you are ignoring history. It shows that even though you appear to be playing the role of an intellectual, you are being very selective in looking at things in this world and only applying things that match your predisposed and predetermined dogma. That is very lazy indeed.
Could you be right regarding Radical Islam? I can concede that you might be. At the same time, I believe that you are wrong.
I really don't see any of that openness with you on this topic or any other topic (save the Environment). To me that is a sign that you need to grow a much thicker skin, become more open to others beliefs to broaden you perspective, pull the cotton out of your ears, and become more patient with others.
Now you may take this as a piece of feedback, or do what I would expect (unfortunately) will happen–circular file it as the ravings of an anti-Christian canard wielding lunatic. Which I am not.
Respectfully,
Silver

danielg says:

I can point to instances throughout history where Christians have in the name of their religion and doctrine killed others that were not of the same faith. In particular, I can point to the Catholic Church during the Crusades, and if you like the Spanish Conquistadors in the New World with regard to their oppression, torture, and destruction of native civilization under the auspices of God, the Catholic Church, and the Crown (which derived its power from the Holy Church).
Perhaps you missed my discussion of why we should focus on current events, and how, as I have described in detail previously, why the Crusades and the Inquisition are in many ways not only NOT representative of Jesus’ teaching, but that the Church was in many ways not entirely responsible for these atrocities.
So, your reference to history is not enough. I argued, and stand by the arguments that (a) their foundational teachings are vastly different, (b) their founders were vastly different, and (c) their current conduct is our best measure of their relative value.
In the present day, the only thing that separates the doctrine you espouse against Muslims within the Evangelical Christian movement and that of Radical Islam is the lack of taking to killing. Rest assured, when and not if we got to war to fight Islam again, Christians will be resorting to killing to enforce their doctrine. There is no difference. Period.
We agree on some things. People will resort to killing if threatened, Christian or not. Of course, I think that both defensive killing and offensive liberation are justifiable. And, if given ultimate power, people usually resort to oppression, Christian or not.
Your statement “the only thing that separates them is…KILLING” is ridiculous on it’s face, and in depth. First of all, let me say that the difference between reasoned objection and unreasoned, fanatical faith-based killing is all the difference in the world. It is the difference between civilization and barbarity, between good and evil. On a deeper level, the fact that the foundational practices and teachings of Mohammed (remember, he was a warlord who practiced and taught war to spread the faith) are diametrically opposed to those of Christ, who had no armies, taught us to LOVE our enemies (find that in Islam!), and that the spread of the faith is accomplished through proclamation and service.
These two faiths could not be more different in the ways that count – that is, in their MEANS to their ENDS. I mean, Communism had a well-meaning END in mind, but their MEANS was flawed. While the step from moral disapproval to violence may be a small one, it is a lot larger when your faith teaches you to love your enemies.
I might need to ratchet down my antagonism towards Islam a bit, primarily because unthinking people on both sides of the issue confuse that with antagonism towards people rather than ideology, but I will continue to affirm that equating fundamental Christianity and Islam is a colossal logical and intellectual mistake. The similarities mean little, and the differences mean much. To teach the opposite is just plain erroneous.
I emphatically disagree with that statement. Such a statement originates from a person that is so convinced of their beliefs to be true that they are blinded by their own dogma and are willing to oppress others that do not believe exactly as they do.
Can you not see the logical fallacy in what you just wrote? You emphatically disagree? Why, because you are RIGHT? It is no crime to think you are right. It is a crime to enforce it on others where no such enforcement is compelled by a reasoned ethic. The argument that somehow, through argument and public debate and legislation, Christians are “as bad as Islamists” is like saying the same about liberals who want to “kill babies.” Your argument quite plainly stinks! Your position is erroneous, attacking demons in Christianity which are largely not there, and abetting the demons in Islam which murder people EVERY DAY.
I would counter that statement to say that he who believes they are absolutely right without any concession that they may be wrong or an open ear to hear those of opposing views are the truly foolish and insane.
Sure, there is a balance. That’s why I am engaging you, but not him. He has proven himself to not only be immovable on this subject, but now no longer makes logical arguments, but resorts to ad hominems. And so I move on. How do YOU determine when it is time to move on? Cineaste’s repetition of this fallacy after repeated argument from me means I am moving on. Sometimes you must scorn your anti-intellectual opponents and move on.
This sort of stance shows that you are ignoring history. It shows that even though you appear to be playing the role of an intellectual, you are being very selective in looking at things in this world and only applying things that match your predisposed and predetermined dogma. That is very lazy indeed.
Not only am I currently studying church history at the master’s level, but I am very aware of Islam’s consistently violent history. I am also aware of the anti-religionist view of the Crusades and the Inquisition, and how the anti-catholic views of the enlightenment thinkers dominates our current histories. Let me also reiterate that despite the foibles of the corrupt Catholic church, my real beef is not that they were imperfect, for any human endeavor will be, but that essentially, the primary teachings of these two faiths stand in stark contrast to one another – one murderous while claiming righteousness, the other service and love based. Sure, they both preach righteousness and holiness. But their means, and their spirits are like night and day.
I am not lazy, as you assume, though my education still has holes in it. And I purposely asked you to ignore history because it is arguable. The empirical evidence in front of you, namely the obvious teachings and practices of these religions founders, and the current practices of the two faiths, make it blindingly obvious that we are talking about two very different faiths. What blinds you, I suspect, is that both agree on various sexual sins, and other matters of righteousness. So what? When Jesus was talking about the hypocritical Pharisees, he said “You should obey what they are saying because it is right, even though they don’t do it!” Though some of what the Muslims teach (arguably plagiarized from Christianity and Judaism) is right, their MEANS and METHODS, and their perspective on those who do not believe, are hateful and opposite of Christianity. AND THIS IS WHAT MATTERS.
I really don’t see any of that openness with you on this topic or any other topic (save the Environment).
As CS Lewis once said, “the purpose of having an open mind is similar to having an open mouth. Eventually, you mean to close it on something.” I have studied, and do study Islam. I am not putting forth poorly reasoned and researched conclusions, such as those made by those who think Xianity and Islam similar. I have come to a conclusion, and am standing by it.
The only places I am open on the topic of Islam are these:
– It might be possible to develop and support a moderate Islam. In fact, I recommended supporting such efforts. However, I also noted that (a) if they return to foundational teachings as the Christian reformers did, they will arrive back where they are today, for Mohammed taught and practiced jihad – not just “inner struggle” but killing those in opposition to the Islamic religion and state. And he was an expansionist, not just a defender. I also noted that (b) “moderate” is therefore a misnomer, since the only kind of moderation you can accomplish with Islam is if you become nominal or IGNORE most of Mohammed’s teachings, i.e. you are not really a Muslim
– It is entirely possible to be a good person and a Muslim, There are plenty of peace-loving Muslims. However, the more they get into Islam, they more they fall prey to this evil ideology’s central tenets.
– Christianity has made errors, and there are some ethically questionable passages in scripture. However, the historical record of Christianity is overwhelmingly positive in its effects on mankind. Arguably, but almost singlehandedly, it has given us modern science (the idea that xianity has opposed science is a canard that I have addressed previously), abolition, women’s suffrage, dissolution of the caste system, the rule of law, and the list goes on. Sure, each of those are arguable topics in their own right, but to TOTALLY IGNORE the inestimable contributions of xianity to humanity, while equating it with the scourge of Islam, is just plain ignorant and unbalanced.

Louis says:

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=881…