Religion of Peace...

[reddog6376]

...my hairy white arse.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/10/sharia-and-violence-in-american-mosques/

"First, of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence"

[Chushin]

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[SexMachine]

reddog6376 wrote:
...my hairy white arse.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/10/sharia-and-violence-in-american-mosques/

"First, of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence"

Resistance is futile. Obama 2012. Allahu Akbar.

[Lakkhamu]

Native Americans were actually Islamic. That's why they were the monstrous violent beasts they were.

A little sarcasm can't hurt.

[smh23]

I would consider the Old Testament to be a "violence-positive" text, which would put the percentage of Christian Churches in the US which teach and support violent texts at 100.

[reddog6376]

smh23 wrote:
I would consider the Old Testament to be a "violence-positive" text, which would put the percentage of Christian Churches in the US which teach and support violent texts at 100.

Really? I've sat in a Christian Church ~40 times/year for the last 40 years, and I've never heard anyone recomend, encourage or even condone violence. I think you are ignorant as to what the Old Testament says and take individual versus out of context.

[smh23]

reddog6376 wrote:

smh23 wrote:
I would consider the Old Testament to be a "violence-positive" text, which would put the percentage of Christian Churches in the US which teach and support violent texts at 100.

Really? I've sat in a Christian Church ~40 times/year for the last 40 years, and I've never heard anyone recomend, encourage or even condone violence. I think you are ignorant as to what the Old Testament says and take individual versus out of context.

I am in no way ignorant as to what the Old Testament says. It is literally full of bloodshed. It describes the comings and goings of a violent God and His violent creation.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the average Christian Church is actually violent. I am simply pointing out the fact that a house of worship may harbor violent texts without necessarily being a establishment which explicitly or actively condones violence itself.

[reddog6376]

smh23 wrote:

reddog6376 wrote:

smh23 wrote:
I would consider the Old Testament to be a "violence-positive" text, which would put the percentage of Christian Churches in the US which teach and support violent texts at 100.

Really? I've sat in a Christian Church ~40 times/year for the last 40 years, and I've never heard anyone recomend, encourage or even condone violence. I think you are ignorant as to what the Old Testament says and take individual versus out of context.

I am in no way ignorant as to what the Old Testament says. It is literally full of bloodshed. It describes the comings and goings of a violent God and His violent creation.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the average Christian Church is actually violent. I am simply pointing out the fact that a house of worship may harbor violent texts without necessarily being a establishment which explicitly or actively condones violence itself.

I think your analogy is all wet. Yes, the Bible, Torah and the Koran contain stories of violence (without getting into the the meaning or context of them), but this study is talking about liturature other than their respective holy books, which advicate violence. Not to mention that 58% of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad. How many Christian preachers advocate violence? To compare this to Christianity because Leviticus says adulterers should be put to death is absurd and moral relativism at it's worst.

[orion]

reddog6376 wrote:

smh23 wrote:
I would consider the Old Testament to be a "violence-positive" text, which would put the percentage of Christian Churches in the US which teach and support violent texts at 100.

Really? I've sat in a Christian Church ~40 times/year for the last 40 years, and I've never heard anyone recomend, encourage or even condone violence. I think you are ignorant as to what the Old Testament says and take individual versus out of context.

Really?

There is not one clergyman in all of the US that would support a war or those that fight in it?

[smh23]

reddog6376 wrote:

smh23 wrote:

reddog6376 wrote:

smh23 wrote:
I would consider the Old Testament to be a "violence-positive" text, which would put the percentage of Christian Churches in the US which teach and support violent texts at 100.

Really? I've sat in a Christian Church ~40 times/year for the last 40 years, and I've never heard anyone recomend, encourage or even condone violence. I think you are ignorant as to what the Old Testament says and take individual versus out of context.

I am in no way ignorant as to what the Old Testament says. It is literally full of bloodshed. It describes the comings and goings of a violent God and His violent creation.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the average Christian Church is actually violent. I am simply pointing out the fact that a house of worship may harbor violent texts without necessarily being a establishment which explicitly or actively condones violence itself.

I think your analogy is all wet. Yes, the Bible, Torah and the Koran contain stories of violence (without getting into the the meaning or context of them), but this study is talking about liturature other than their respective holy books, which advicate violence. Not to mention that 58% of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad. How many Christian preachers advocate violence? To compare this to Christianity because Leviticus says adulterers should be put to death is absurd and moral relativism at it's worst.

Moral relativism is when you say that your violent holy book is OK and someone else's isn't. I'm an absolutist in this respect: violent primitive drivel is violent primitive drivel, whether you're in Arkansas or Islamabad.

That said, I do believe that Islam is an especially dangerous and violent religion, and that Christianity promotes, on paper certainly and in practice often, a much more peaceable world view.

[reddog6376]

orion wrote:

reddog6376 wrote:

smh23 wrote:
I would consider the Old Testament to be a "violence-positive" text, which would put the percentage of Christian Churches in the US which teach and support violent texts at 100.

Really? I've sat in a Christian Church ~40 times/year for the last 40 years, and I've never heard anyone recomend, encourage or even condone violence. I think you are ignorant as to what the Old Testament says and take individual versus out of context.

Really?

There is not one clergyman in all of the US that would support a war or those that fight in it?

A. I hope you'd agree there is a difference between war and terrorism. Primarily the tagets.
B. I've never heard it in my church, but maybe that's unique to Catholics.

[reddog6376]

smh23 wrote:

reddog6376 wrote:

smh23 wrote:

reddog6376 wrote:

smh23 wrote:
I would consider the Old Testament to be a "violence-positive" text, which would put the percentage of Christian Churches in the US which teach and support violent texts at 100.

Really? I've sat in a Christian Church ~40 times/year for the last 40 years, and I've never heard anyone recomend, encourage or even condone violence. I think you are ignorant as to what the Old Testament says and take individual versus out of context.

I am in no way ignorant as to what the Old Testament says. It is literally full of bloodshed. It describes the comings and goings of a violent God and His violent creation.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the average Christian Church is actually violent. I am simply pointing out the fact that a house of worship may harbor violent texts without necessarily being a establishment which explicitly or actively condones violence itself.

I think your analogy is all wet. Yes, the Bible, Torah and the Koran contain stories of violence (without getting into the the meaning or context of them), but this study is talking about liturature other than their respective holy books, which advicate violence. Not to mention that 58% of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad. How many Christian preachers advocate violence? To compare this to Christianity because Leviticus says adulterers should be put to death is absurd and moral relativism at it's worst.

Moral relativism is when you say that your violent holy book is OK and someone else's isn't. I'm an absolutist in this respect: violent primitive drivel is violent primitive drivel, whether you're in Arkansas or Islamabad.

That said, I do believe that Islam is an especially dangerous and violent religion, and that Christianity promotes, on paper certainly and in practice often, a much more peaceable world view.

The diffeernce being VERY few Christians are taught that they are to adhere to any violent instructions in the Bible. They view those (and rightly so) as instructions towards people who have long since past and applicable only to their own people and not 'outsiders'(which is why I said I suspected you are ignorant as to what the Old Testament says and take individual versus out of context). With Islam, they are encourages and told it is their duty to carry out the vioence their religion condones, espicially towards infidels. Is the difference too subtle for you?

[smh23]

reddog6376 wrote:

The diffeernce being VERY few Christians are taught that they are to adhere to any violent instructions in the Bible. They view those (and rightly so) as instructions towards people who have long since past and applicable only to their own people and not 'outsiders'(which is why I said I suspected you are ignorant as to what the Old Testament says and take individual versus out of context). With Islam, they are encourages and told it is their duty to carry out the vioence their religion condones, espicially towards infidels. Is the difference too subtle for you?

Hence my previous statement that "I do believe that Islam is an especially dangerous and violent religion, and that Christianity promotes, on paper certainly and in practice often, a much more peaceable world view."

The point stands that the mere presence of a violent text within a house of worship is not in its self sufficient proof that said house of worship does indeed explicitly condone violence.

The Quran is violent. There are peaceable Mosques.

[reddog6376]

smh23 wrote:
Hence my previous statement that "I do believe that Islam is an especially dangerous and violent religion, and that Christianity promotes, on paper certainly and in practice often, a much more peaceable world view."

The point stands that the mere presence of a violent text within a house of worship is not in its self sufficient proof that said house of worship does indeed explicitly condone violence.

The Quran is violent. There are peaceable Mosques.

And again, this study did not consider the Koran as "violent literature".

http://www.meforum.org/2931/american-mosques

"The mosques surveyed contained a variety of texts, ranging from contemporary printed pamphlets and handouts to classic texts of the Islamic canon. From the perspective of promoting violent jihad, the literature types were ranked in the survey from severe to moderate to nonexistent. The texts selected were all written to serve as normative and instructive tracts and are not scriptural. This is important because a believer is free to understand scripture literally, figuratively, or merely poetically when it does not have a normative or legal gloss provided by Islamic jurisprudence.
The moderate-rated literature was authored by respected Shari'a religious and/or legal authorities; while expressing positive attitudes toward violence, it was predominantly concerned with the more mundane aspects of religious worship and ritual. The severe material, by contrast, largely consists of relatively recent texts written by ideologues, rather than Shari'a scholars, such as Abul Ala Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb. These, as well as materials published and disseminated by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, are primarily, if not exclusively, aimed at using Islam to advance a violent political agenda."

[Tiribulus]

There is plenty of horrific hands on genocidal divinely decreed violence in the OT. Unlike many claiming the name of Jesus as their own. I will make no pretense otherwise. God sent Joshua on the heathen city states for instance as an unstoppable exterminating juggernaut under the command to kill absolutely everything alive. He did.

[smh23]

reddog6376 wrote:

smh23 wrote:
Hence my previous statement that "I do believe that Islam is an especially dangerous and violent religion, and that Christianity promotes, on paper certainly and in practice often, a much more peaceable world view."

The point stands that the mere presence of a violent text within a house of worship is not in its self sufficient proof that said house of worship does indeed explicitly condone violence.

The Quran is violent. There are peaceable Mosques.

And again, this study did not consider the Koran as "violent literature".

http://www.meforum.org/2931/american-mosques

"The mosques surveyed contained a variety of texts, ranging from contemporary printed pamphlets and handouts to classic texts of the Islamic canon. From the perspective of promoting violent jihad, the literature types were ranked in the survey from severe to moderate to nonexistent. The texts selected were all written to serve as normative and instructive tracts and are not scriptural. This is important because a believer is free to understand scripture literally, figuratively, or merely poetically when it does not have a normative or legal gloss provided by Islamic jurisprudence.
The moderate-rated literature was authored by respected Shari'a religious and/or legal authorities; while expressing positive attitudes toward violence, it was predominantly concerned with the more mundane aspects of religious worship and ritual. The severe material, by contrast, largely consists of relatively recent texts written by ideologues, rather than Shari'a scholars, such as Abul Ala Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb. These, as well as materials published and disseminated by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, are primarily, if not exclusively, aimed at using Islam to advance a violent political agenda."

Noted.

[smh23]

Tiribulus wrote:
There is plenty of horrific hands on genocidal divinely decreed violence in the OT. Unlike many claiming the name of Jesus as their own. I will make no pretense otherwise. God sent Joshua on the heathen city states for instance as an unstoppable exterminating juggernaut under the command to kill absolutely everything alive. He did.

Thank you for the realism and honesty.

[orion]

reddog6376 wrote:

orion wrote:

reddog6376 wrote:

smh23 wrote:
I would consider the Old Testament to be a "violence-positive" text, which would put the percentage of Christian Churches in the US which teach and support violent texts at 100.

Really? I've sat in a Christian Church ~40 times/year for the last 40 years, and I've never heard anyone recomend, encourage or even condone violence. I think you are ignorant as to what the Old Testament says and take individual versus out of context.

Really?

There is not one clergyman in all of the US that would support a war or those that fight in it?

A. I hope you'd agree there is a difference between war and terrorism. Primarily the tagets.
B. I've never heard it in my church, but maybe that's unique to Catholics.

A) Of course there is a difference, war is expensive and kills more people, terrorism not so much.

B) Well, our catholic and protestant priests were awfully busy blessing the Wehrmachts weapons.

[Tiribulus]

smh23 wrote:

Tiribulus wrote:
There is plenty of horrific hands on genocidal divinely decreed violence in the OT. Unlike many claiming the name of Jesus as their own. I will make no pretense otherwise. God sent Joshua on the heathen city states for instance as an unstoppable exterminating juggernaut under the command to kill absolutely everything alive. He did.

Thank you for the realism and honesty.

Ok, but see I don't view the OT as some wince worthy problem for me to overcome. The manifestation of the covenant of the Father at that time in preparation for the coming of the Son, necessitated the cleansing and conquest of that land by force. Why? Because that's the way He decreed it. The whole of the history of OT Israel is the earthly illustration of what is now spiritual truth in Christ. Always was actually. The books of Romans, Galatians and Hebrews (which was written precisely for the purpose of teaching what I'm saying) spells this out with unmistakable clarity.

It is now utterly not possible that that type of command could ever again come from the God of the bible. All was fulfilled in Christ who told Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). All of new covenant Christian warfare is spiritual in nature, "we battle not against flesh and blood" (Ephesians 6:12).

The full armor of God is "the helmet of salvation, the breastplate of righteousness, the shield of faith, the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God, the girdle of truth and feet shod with the gospel of peace". (Ephesians 6:10-18)

[reddog6376]

orion wrote:

reddog6376 wrote:

orion wrote:

reddog6376 wrote:

smh23 wrote:
I would consider the Old Testament to be a "violence-positive" text, which would put the percentage of Christian Churches in the US which teach and support violent texts at 100.

Really? I've sat in a Christian Church ~40 times/year for the last 40 years, and I've never heard anyone recomend, encourage or even condone violence. I think you are ignorant as to what the Old Testament says and take individual versus out of context.

Really?

There is not one clergyman in all of the US that would support a war or those that fight in it?

A. I hope you'd agree there is a difference between war and terrorism. Primarily the tagets.
B. I've never heard it in my church, but maybe that's unique to Catholics.

A) Of course there is a difference, war is expensive and kills more people, terrorism not so much.

B) Well, our catholic and protestant priests were awfully busy blessing the Wehrmachts weapons.

Yeah that the same as encouraging the slaughter of civilians. Brilliant.