[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Prove it.
There is nothing to prove. People make up their own mind based on what they want to believe is correct. This goes for Christianity as it does for any other belief system.
LOL. So “hatred-inspiring fictions” are now “what they want to believe is correct?” [/quote]
Yes, these fictions influence people’s world views. Hatred is a very real emotion connected to these world views – I cannot help if people want to believe so strongly in something fictitious. I am just pointing out what is true for all world views.
That some fictitious person says this or that compared to some other fictitious person in some other work of fiction is irrelevant. They are both false so there should be no argument as to whether which idea is “better” than the other.
At least the majority of people understand Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology for what it is. Why don’t you backwards Christians, Muslims and Jews try to keep pace?
[quote]pat wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat wrote:
If the Black Panthers where launching missiles and committing acts of terror on a daily basis, I would expect the government to act.
Not with tanks and planes.
With what a strongly worded letter?[/quote]
Didn’t Waco have tanks involved?
We had a crisis here in Quebec in the early 1990s where the Mohawks protested a golf course expansion by closing one of the bridges to Montreal and drove citizens out of a nearby town and occupied their houses.
Tanks (Canadian ones - made of wood and beaver hides) got involved towards the end. No shooting by the tanks, but simply to show that business was meant. I don’t know about other parts of the world, but when tanks and soldiers got involved, people calmed the fuck down. Before that, confrontations between the Mohawk mob and the various police services had escalated to dangerous levels.
I remember that the world media branded Quebec and Canadian forces as “Nazis.”
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
When Pancho Villa “invaded America” by raiding Columbus, New Mexico, he killed 18 Americans. This is three more than the number of Israelis who have been killed so far, after over one thousand Qassam rockets have been fired into Israeli territory by Hamas.
Notice, however, that General Pershing did not, in response, launch a full assault on Chihuahua State, did not pound civilian neighborhoods with howitzer fire, and did not lead a cavalry battalion through towns, shooting and sabering people indiscriminately.[/quote]
Sherman unavailable?
[quote]The punitive operation concentrated on punishing the people actually responsible for the attacks. They took out Villa’s generals the old-fashioned way: by finding the varmints and plugging them. That it was ultimately unsuccessful in killing Villa himself is beside the point.
Similarly, during the Haitian Cacos Rebellion, the American Expeditionary Force did not indiscriminately firebomb Haitian villages in hopes of killing a Caco or two. Instead, a certain Marine sergeant named Herman Hanneken made his way through thick jungle in blackface, found rebel leader Charlemagne Peralte, took him out with one shot from his Colt 45, then brought him back to his commanding officer tied to a donkey.
Herman Hanneken’s action would be the equivalent of an IDF sergeant making his way through the crowded streets of Damascus, bearded and clad in shemagh, finding Khaled Mashal, taking him out with one well-placed shot from his Jericho pistol, then bringing him back to Jerusalem tied to the hood of his Humvee.
Highly improbable, perhaps, but probably more efficient than what the Israelis are doing now.[/quote]
Although the cases that you describe all pretty much concluded with those action. In no case did the hostilities continue at a low simmer for decades, with demands that the US vacate some territory. No?
Had the hostilities continued, don’t you think that an eventual escalation would’ve ensued until gave up?
Christians don’t take Deut. 7 seriously because Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law (Matthew 5:17-20) and the true Israel (Matthew 2:15), and the consummation of the entire Old Testament (Luke 24). Deut. 7 is not ignored, it’s fulfilled. Christians aren’t under the same obligations as Old Testament Israelites.
Martin Luther would have disagreed with you. I don’t think he actually smote the Jews with the edge of the sword, as suggested in Deuteronomy 13, but he did have some pretty outspoken views of the Jews and what should be done to them. And he did use Deuteronomy 13:12-17, ironically, as justification for the burning of synagogues and Jewish schools, destruction of Jewish prayer books, defrocking of rabbis, razing of Jewish homes, the confiscation of Jewish property, and finally, their forced labor, expulsion and killing.
Nothing against Martin Luther. He was just a product of his upbringing and the times in which he lived. But this is, after all, one of the single most important figures in Christian history. The man who reformed Christianity. At least as important to Protestantism as Muhammad was to Islam.
[/quote]
Another failed comparison. First of all, Luther was only one of many Reformers. Beza, Zwingli, Calvin, Ursinus, Anglican Reformers, and the Westminster Divines didn’t share Luther’s views, and Luther’s views on Jews haven’t been codified into any of the Reformation confessional standards. Luther was an antisemite. Of that there can be no doubt. But his Scriptural support for antisemitism collapses upon reading the Golden Rule and Romans 9-11. Luther is important to Lutheranism, but the Augsburg confession (the primary Lutheran confessional standard) still doesn’t incorporate Luther’s antisemitism. What remains of Luther’s Reforming activities, as far as Reformed Christianity is concerned, are the 5 solas.
People may form their own opinions, but we started this discussion with a comparison between the Bible and the Qur’an. Then, it proceeded to Luther’s interpretation of the Bible vis-a-vis the Jews (which was not at all unanimous amongst Christians) and the Qur’an. It still does nothing to dispute whether or not Muslims actually do interpret the Qur’an peacefully as you claim. We daily see evidence that they do not and that they interpret it exactly as Muhammad issued it. All 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence see Islam as matter of warfare, and that the earlier peaceful surahs are abrogated by the sword verse (9:5 and 9:29). If a peaceful interpretation is out there, it certainly has no traction amongst any of the Islamic scholars and jihadists, nor amongst the Muslims we see attacking the kuffar every day. Many do not choose to engage in any violence, but that doesn’t mean that the texts they espouse nor their interpretations actually don’t support violence. Indeed, they do.
I’m still waiting for the moral equivalists to drag up a statement by Jesus on par with the surahs I mentioned earlier. I have a feeling I’ll be waiting a long time.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Prove it.
There is nothing to prove. People make up their own mind based on what they want to believe is correct. This goes for Christianity as it does for any other belief system.
LOL. So “hatred-inspiring fictions” are now “what they want to believe is correct?”
Yes, these fictions influence people’s world views. [/quote]
Good. We agree. Try to keep your arguments in agreement with one another for at least a couple of pages - you’ll have more credibility around here.
I’m just having difficulty in accepting that Israel is randomly blasting away civilians indiscriminately.
I trust Palestinian cries of civilian losses about as well as Saddam-era Iraqi generals talking about how many Americans they’ve slaughtered.
It seems to me that the humane thing to do would be to just finish the damn job. And again, if Palestine wants their own state (a concept I’m very sympathetic to) then they should talk to Syria and Jordan.
I was hoping for your views on the rest of that post.
[/quote]
Different centuries, different mentalities.
Although Pancho Villa was by any definition of the word, a terrorist leader with an army at his command, the United States Congress in 1916 was not prepared to authorize a invasion, protracted occupation and overthrow of the government of Mexico in retaliation for his attacks. In fact, the United States entered Mexico only after President Wilson had obtained permission from President Carranza of Mexico, and assuring him that Mexican troops wouldn’t be fired on.
As it was, Pershing played cat and mouse with Villa for a few years without achieving his two primary objectives (stopping the raids and capturing Villa), so he declared victory and withdrew.
As for Haiti, well, Charlemagne Peralte’s rebellion was in response to the US occupation, not the other way around. The Cacos rebellion actually ended with the assassination of Peralte’s second-in-command, Benoit Brataville, a year after Peralte was killed, but the U.S. troops stayed on for another 15 years, sporadically fighting with insurgents, until the Duvalier government could be successfully installed.
So, I guess now that I think about it, all I can say is plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
If the 8000 or so rockets launched from Gaza had hit innocent civilians instead of missing would Israel have more right to retaliate. Just because the terrorists cannot aim does not lessen the significance of the firings as an act of war.
If the 8000 or so rockets launched from Gaza had hit innocent civilians instead of missing would Israel have more right to retaliate. Just because the terrorists cannot aim does not lessen the significance of the firings as an act of war.
[/quote]
And an “act of war” by person A means I can kill person B,C, …to Z, indiscriminately?
edit: I take it that you accept and understand OBL reasons then?
And please Mods, have the decency to remove the whole post if you do not agree with parts of it.
If an American uses the same reasoning OBL does THAT IS AN ISSUE WORTH ADDRESSING.
If the 8000 or so rockets launched from Gaza had hit innocent civilians instead of missing would Israel have more right to retaliate. Just because the terrorists cannot aim does not lessen the significance of the firings as an act of war.
And an “act of war” by person A means I tried to kill person B,C, …to Z, indiscriminately?[/quote]
If the 8000 or so rockets launched from Gaza had hit innocent civilians instead of missing would Israel have more right to retaliate. Just because the terrorists cannot aim does not lessen the significance of the firings as an act of war.
[/quote]
You miss the point of my post. I said nothing about whether firing a thousand (not eight thousand) rockets without significant casualties constitutes an act of war, or whether Israel has the right to retaliate. If it makes you feel any better, though, it probably does, and they probably do.
Read my post again. My point was that the United States military, facing an enemy force on its border that killed an equivalent number of people (18 as opposed to 15) nearly a hundred years ago, handled the situation a little differently than the Israelis are handling it now.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat wrote:
If the Black Panthers where launching missiles and committing acts of terror on a daily basis, I would expect the government to act.
Not with tanks and planes.
With what a strongly worded letter?
Didn’t Waco have tanks involved?
[/quote]
I don’t remember if tanks were involved, but heavy artillery was certainly involved. Unless I am mistaken, Clinton killed every single Branch Dravidian member…Man, woman and child…Where is his war crimes tribunal?
Oh I forgot, democrat…Abominations are a-ok if not status quo.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
I’m still waiting for your explanation as to the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist, PRCalDude.
An Islamist is a Muslim who actually believes and practices what is written in the Qur’an regarding jihad against the kuffar, esp. Surahs 9:5, 9:29, and 9:111:
And how many Muslims do you think take those surahs literally? All of them? Most of them?
Like I said, your curiosity about the contents of the Qur’an is about as deep as it is of the Bible. There can be little doubt 9:29 and 9:111 have a bearing on the Muslims in Palestine who “fight the people of the book” and “slay and are slain,” except to those who are incorrigibly dense.
I’ve studied both, thanks. I don’t think that most Christians and Jews today take Deuteronomy 7 and 13 all that literally, either. Should they?
Christians don’t take Deut. 7 seriously because Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law (Matthew 5:17-20) and the true Israel (Matthew 2:15), and the consummation of the entire Old Testament (Luke 24). Deut. 7 is not ignored, it’s fulfilled. Christians aren’t under the same obligations as Old Testament Israelites.
Muhammad, on the other hand, issued Surah 9:5 as a decree that abrogated all of his peaceful surahs during his Meccan period:
So, your comparison between the Bible and the Qur’an is completely ridiculous.
[/quote]
So Jesus says he came to fulfill the law, but in the very next line, Mat 5:18 he says: For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
I’ve never understood how Christians cite this as support for ignoring bits of the Old Testament we no longer find palatable.
What part of that don’t you get? Didn’t Jesus “accomplish” it all? Didn’t he say, “It is finished!” before he died?
If you deny that “until all is accomplished” is a reference to the institution of the new covenant, how will you justify not living by ALL the Mosaic law today when Christ has said that not the least change will be made to it until “all is accomplished”?
In other words, from your perspective, you ought to be traveling down to Jerusalem to consecrate your firstborn at the temple, sacrificing sheep and goats, bringing in a tenth of your grain, living in booths during the feast of booths, and abiding by every jot and tittle of the Mosaic law, including the dietary laws. Had any pork lately?
If a Mexican drug cartel was firing rockets into America and the Mexican government wasn’t doing anything about it (just as terrorists were firing rockets into Israel, and there was no government action to stop it), then America might wait how long? 30 minutes? an hour? before mobilizing some sort of military response.
I don’t know if this is a very good comparison, but I generally think that Israel has a duty to keep it’s people from being shot at.
The problem is that by invading Gaza, thousands of civilians will be killed. This just incites more rage and hatred against Israel, which can be used by religious leaders to further their own goals, which usually involves killing more people.
What I think Senator Paul was saying is that because America financially supports Israel, we are seen as allies that directly support their purchasing of weapons, which are then being used to attack the people of Gaza. I don’t think he meant that America was acting as a combatant.
I hope we can agree on one thing though: It’s a big shit show and there’s really fuck all we can do about it at the moment if we don’t want to piss anybody off more.