[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
How about Christian Suicide Bombers
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4223
Christian news, analysis and comment - welcome to Martin Roth Christian Commentary [/quote]
So a Kama Kaze pilot was a Christian? He could have been any religion. Were ALL Kama Kaze pilots Christians. If not, I fail to see your point.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
How about Christian Suicide Bombers
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4223
All two of them?
One being a Japanese Kamikaze pilot? Seriously?
Found in about 30 seconds of looking. Cushin was saying that this never happened, I was pointing out that it did.
And why does him being a Japanese Kamikaze pilot suddenly stop it from being a suicide bombing? Talk about double standards.[/quote]
Even Lixy can point to suicide bombers in Sri Lanka. The point is, the majority of suicide bombers in todays world happen to be Muslims. This does not excude others from being suicide bombers.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Again, you are just referring to the Spanish Inquisition. The Medieval Inquisition was fully sanctioned by the Pope.[/quote]
The key word here is Medieval. Back then, (I saw this on the history channel) they thought rats generated spontaneously from garbage, that bleeding a sick person would cure him, that there were only 5 elements.
Today these same people doing the killing for their religion are flying planes, splitting the atom, ect.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
valiance. wrote:
Chushin wrote:
valiance. wrote:
A lot of interesting stuff.
Thank you.
I don’t have time to read it closely right now, but definitely will.
As you may have discovered already, asking about those quotes made me quite the evil person here…
Thank you again.
thoughts?
Thanks for asking.
You’ve always been a reasonable and fair person, and I want to answer honestly.
First, yes, I DID read what you posted, as well as the links. 
Starting with the “conclusion,” I was pleasantly surprised by a lot of it, and want to try and be more optimistic (and balanced) about Islam. What I read certainly presents a different picture than anything else I’ve seen.
At the same time, some of what I read struck me as a bit disingenous. Like how a big deal was made that killing is forbidden “unless for a really good reason” (yes, that’s my paraphrasing; can’t recall what words were used). Or the implication that it’s so “good” that a guy who says, “It’s ok to beat your wife, so long as she doesn’t bleed” is against Bin Laden. All-in-all, I’m a bit sceptical about your “source” being completely unbiased.
[/quote]
You should be:
http://www.google.com/search?q=juan+cole+site%3Ajihadwatch.org&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
How about Christian Suicide Bombers
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4223
[/quote]
Thank you for that N=2, CB.
Most of us are more interested in what the two religions actually teach - rather, how they are understood. But keep linking these non sequiturs. They demonstrate your lack of inductive reasoning skills.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
How about Christian Suicide Bombers
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4223
All two of them?
One being a Japanese Kamikaze pilot? Seriously?
Found in about 30 seconds of looking. Cushin was saying that this never happened, I was pointing out that it did.
And why does him being a Japanese Kamikaze pilot suddenly stop it from being a suicide bombing? Talk about double standards.[/quote]
I didn’t say he wasn’t.
Would you like to discuss atheistic atrocities. Do you want to go there? Crimes against humanity done by non-believers is epic in scale. If you want to pin one against the other, athiests win everytime.
[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
How about Christian Suicide Bombers
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4223
All two of them?
One being a Japanese Kamikaze pilot? Seriously?
Found in about 30 seconds of looking. Cushin was saying that this never happened, I was pointing out that it did.
And why does him being a Japanese Kamikaze pilot suddenly stop it from being a suicide bombing? Talk about double standards.
I didn’t say he wasn’t.
Would you like to discuss atheistic atrocities. Do you want to go there? Crimes against humanity done by non-believers is epic in scale. If you want to pin one against the other, athiests win everytime.[/quote]
Christ on a bike, are you even reading the posts that I type? Someone posted that they felt the situation with Islam was hopeless and that we were all doomed.
I pointed out that in the past similar horrible things were done in the name of various beliefs both religious and non religious. We survived those issues and we will survive the modern militant Islamic issue.
The whole point is that this was in the past. If it was now then I wouldn’t have a point.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
How about Christian Suicide Bombers
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4223
Thank you for that N=2, CB.
Most of us are more interested in what the two religions actually teach - rather, how they are understood. But keep linking these non sequiturs. They demonstrate your lack of inductive reasoning skills. [/quote]
What the hell are you talking about? I was told by Pat that there were no examples of suicide bombings by anyone other than Muslims. I was merely pointing out that he was wrong. Again.
Also, what does the first sentence of your post mean? I think there is a word missing but as it stands you have lost me.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
How about Christian Suicide Bombers
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4223
Thank you for that N=2, CB.
Most of us are more interested in what the two religions actually teach - rather, how they are understood. But keep linking these non sequiturs. They demonstrate your lack of inductive reasoning skills.
What the hell are you talking about? I was told by Pat that there were no examples of suicide bombings by anyone other than Muslims. I was merely pointing out that he was wrong. Again.
Also, what does the first sentence of your post mean? I think there is a word missing but as it stands you have lost me.[/quote]
No I said that there were none that did it in the name of Christ or Christianity.
[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
How about Christian Suicide Bombers
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4223
Thank you for that N=2, CB.
Most of us are more interested in what the two religions actually teach - rather, how they are understood. But keep linking these non sequiturs. They demonstrate your lack of inductive reasoning skills.
What the hell are you talking about? I was told by Pat that there were no examples of suicide bombings by anyone other than Muslims. I was merely pointing out that he was wrong. Again.
Also, what does the first sentence of your post mean? I think there is a word missing but as it stands you have lost me.
No I said that there were none that did it in the name of Christ or Christianity.
[/quote]
Actually, no you didn’t unless you are also cushin.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
valiance. wrote:
Chushin wrote:
valiance. wrote:
A lot of interesting stuff.
Thank you.
I don’t have time to read it closely right now, but definitely will.
As you may have discovered already, asking about those quotes made me quite the evil person here…
Thank you again.
thoughts?
Thanks for asking.
You’ve always been a reasonable and fair person, and I want to answer honestly.
[/quote]
Thanks. I decided to engage with you because we’ve had pleasant interactions in the past and you seemed genuinely interested in another view on the topic.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
First, yes, I DID read what you posted, as well as the links.
Starting with the “conclusion,” I was pleasantly surprised by a lot of it, and want to try and be more optimistic (and balanced) about Islam. What I read certainly presents a different picture than anything else I’ve seen.
At the same time, some of what I read struck me as a bit disingenous. Like how a big deal was made that killing is forbidden “unless for a really good reason” (yes, that’s my paraphrasing; can’t recall what words were used). Or the implication that it’s so “good” that a guy who says, “It’s ok to beat your wife, so long as she doesn’t bleed” is against Bin Laden. All-in-all, I’m a bit sceptical about your “source” being completely unbiased.
[/quote]
I think any religious apologetic is going to seem a bit disingenuous; but sometimes the obvious is the enemy of the true. I think the important thing to do is engage with the text and the traditional analyses and see where that gets you. I think Juan Cole’s analysis is trenchant, especially where Quran 5:51 is concerned.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
And, while I really DO want to try and be fair about this whole issue, the fact still remains that many people calling themselves Muslims (and Islamic leaders) are doing some pretty heinous things on a daily basis around the world (in the name of Islam).
Maybe they really AREN’T “real” Muslims, but are something else… But Muslims can hardly expect non-Muslims to not be suspicious of the religion when so much evil is being done (proudly) in its name. At a minimum, IMO, they should be capable of understanding why there is so much animosity everywhere towards Islam, and respond in some way other than full-blown indignation. I actually believe they’d benefit from not meeting anger with anger – something your link said is actually prescribed in Islam.
[/quote]
I think you underestimate the ability of the human mind to provide justification–however flimsy–for whatever action it’s already decided to perform. In other words Quranic justification for violent action is an important motivator for Muslim violence, but that doesn’t mean ipso facto that Muslims can never interact peacefully with the West longterm. I can’t really get down with this clash of civilizations bullcrap that gets so many people hard.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Chushin wrote:
valiance. wrote:
Chushin wrote:
valiance. wrote:
A lot of interesting stuff.
Thank you.
I don’t have time to read it closely right now, but definitely will.
As you may have discovered already, asking about those quotes made me quite the evil person here…
Thank you again.
thoughts?
Thanks for asking.
You’ve always been a reasonable and fair person, and I want to answer honestly.
First, yes, I DID read what you posted, as well as the links.
Starting with the “conclusion,” I was pleasantly surprised by a lot of it, and want to try and be more optimistic (and balanced) about Islam. What I read certainly presents a different picture than anything else I’ve seen.
At the same time, some of what I read struck me as a bit disingenous. Like how a big deal was made that killing is forbidden “unless for a really good reason” (yes, that’s my paraphrasing; can’t recall what words were used). Or the implication that it’s so “good” that a guy who says, “It’s ok to beat your wife, so long as she doesn’t bleed” is against Bin Laden. All-in-all, I’m a bit sceptical about your “source” being completely unbiased.
If we’re talking about bias I hardly think a site called Jihad Watch is likely to be the apotheosis of even-handed argument. I’ve seen you engage with Quranic text, Tafsir, and Hadith before, so this is a particularly weak effort from you. If you have a factual counterclaim I’d be happy to read it. Hell, I might even agree with it; but you can’t refute my sources simply by casting aspersions on their integrity (neither am I refuting any of your jihad watch links by expressing my skepticism of their evenhandedness). Bottom line: the man asked for an alternate interpretation and I gave him one. If that interpretation is incorrect it’d be more useful to point out its factual flaws than to assert that the author is biased.
[quote]valiance. wrote:
Chushin wrote:
valiance. wrote:
Chushin wrote:
valiance. wrote:
A lot of interesting stuff.
Thank you.
I don’t have time to read it closely right now, but definitely will.
As you may have discovered already, asking about those quotes made me quite the evil person here…
Thank you again.
thoughts?
Thanks for asking.
You’ve always been a reasonable and fair person, and I want to answer honestly.
Thanks. I decided to engage with you because we’ve had pleasant interactions in the past and you seemed genuinely interested in another view on the topic.
Chushin wrote:
First, yes, I DID read what you posted, as well as the links.
Starting with the “conclusion,” I was pleasantly surprised by a lot of it, and want to try and be more optimistic (and balanced) about Islam. What I read certainly presents a different picture than anything else I’ve seen.
At the same time, some of what I read struck me as a bit disingenous. Like how a big deal was made that killing is forbidden “unless for a really good reason” (yes, that’s my paraphrasing; can’t recall what words were used). Or the implication that it’s so “good” that a guy who says, “It’s ok to beat your wife, so long as she doesn’t bleed” is against Bin Laden. All-in-all, I’m a bit sceptical about your “source” being completely unbiased.
I think any religious apologetic is going to seem a bit disingenuous; but sometimes the obvious is the enemy of the true. I think the important thing to do is engage with the text and the traditional analyses and see where that gets you. I think Juan Cole’s analysis is trenchant, especially where Quran 5:51 is concerned.
Chushin wrote:
And, while I really DO want to try and be fair about this whole issue, the fact still remains that many people calling themselves Muslims (and Islamic leaders) are doing some pretty heinous things on a daily basis around the world (in the name of Islam).
Maybe they really AREN’T “real” Muslims, but are something else… But Muslims can hardly expect non-Muslims to not be suspicious of the religion when so much evil is being done (proudly) in its name. At a minimum, IMO, they should be capable of understanding why there is so much animosity everywhere towards Islam, and respond in some way other than full-blown indignation. I actually believe they’d benefit from not meeting anger with anger – something your link said is actually prescribed in Islam.
I think you underestimate the ability of the human mind to provide justification–however flimsy–for whatever action it’s already decided to perform. In other words Quranic justification for violent action is an important motivator for Muslim violence, but that doesn’t mean ipso facto that Muslims can never interact peacefully with the West longterm. I can’t really get down with this clash of civilizations bullcrap that gets so many people hard.
PRCalDude wrote:
Chushin wrote:
valiance. wrote:
Chushin wrote:
valiance. wrote:
A lot of interesting stuff.
Thank you.
I don’t have time to read it closely right now, but definitely will.
As you may have discovered already, asking about those quotes made me quite the evil person here…
Thank you again.
thoughts?
Thanks for asking.
You’ve always been a reasonable and fair person, and I want to answer honestly.
First, yes, I DID read what you posted, as well as the links.
Starting with the “conclusion,” I was pleasantly surprised by a lot of it, and want to try and be more optimistic (and balanced) about Islam. What I read certainly presents a different picture than anything else I’ve seen.
At the same time, some of what I read struck me as a bit disingenous. Like how a big deal was made that killing is forbidden “unless for a really good reason” (yes, that’s my paraphrasing; can’t recall what words were used). Or the implication that it’s so “good” that a guy who says, “It’s ok to beat your wife, so long as she doesn’t bleed” is against Bin Laden. All-in-all, I’m a bit sceptical about your “source” being completely unbiased.
You should be:
http://www.google.com/search?q=juan+cole+site%3Ajihadwatch.org&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
If we’re talking about bias I hardly think a site called Jihad Watch is likely to be the apotheosis of even-handed argument. I’ve seen you engage with Quranic text, Tafsir, and Hadith before, so this is a particularly weak effort from you. If you have a factual counterclaim I’d be happy to read it. Hell, I might even agree with it; but you can’t refute my sources simply by casting aspersions on their integrity (neither am I refuting any of your jihad watch links by expressing my skepticism of their evenhandedness). Bottom line: the man asked for an alternate interpretation and I gave him one. If that interpretation is incorrect it’d be more useful to point out its factual flaws than to assert that the author is biased.[/quote]
I could actually care less what you think. The link wasn’t for you, it was for Cushin. Dialog between us on this matter is probably impossible based on the fact that you’re using Juan Cole as a resource. That’s more or less the equivalent of reading Noam Chomsky for information on US foreign policy. Cole, like Esposito and Armstrong, is a useful idiot for repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia (that even lixy won’t defend) who is bent on distorting what infidels see daily with their own lying eyes because of all of the Saudi oil money that funds his “research.”
Posting links to Juan Cole’s drivel is a “particularly weak effort from you.”