tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post7941261516965830319..comments2024-02-19T04:50:58.170-08:00Comments on Shuck and Jive: Easter Sermon 2008John Shuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-41644031425271305822008-04-04T20:05:00.000-07:002008-04-04T20:05:00.000-07:00Because I suspect I may be becoming a masochist, I...Because I suspect I may be becoming a masochist, I will continue to drop bits of interest here.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>“Those who destroyed the World Trade Centre are regarded as terrorists … Might it be fair to say that the Crusaders who attacked the Muslim inhabitants of Jerusalem were also terrorists?”<BR/>Why the Crusades took place<BR/>No it wouldn’t be fair. Nor would it be true. In the story Paul Stenhouse tells, the 463 years between the death of Muhammed in 632 AD, and the First Crusade in 1095, were extremely dangerous for Christian Europe. Instead of peace there were unrelenting Islamic wars and incursions; Muslim invasions of Spain, Italy, Sicily and Sardinia; raids, seizures, looting of treasure, military occupations that lasted until Saracen forces were forcibly dislodged, sackings of Christian cities including Rome, and desecrations of Christian shrines. And be it noted: all this went on for 463 years before any Christian Crusade in response to these murderous provocations took place.<BR/>Sixteen years after the death of Muhammed, in 648 AD, Cyprus was overrun. Rhodes fell in 653, and by 698 AD the whole of North Africa was lost. In 711 Muslims from Tangier crossed into Spain, set their sights on France, and by 720 AD Narbonne had fallen. Bordeaux was stormed and its churches burnt in 732. As Gibbon emphasised, only the resistance at Poitiers of Charles Martel in 732 saved Europe from occupation, and arrested the Muslim tide. <BR/>From 800 on, incursions into Italy began. In 846 a Saracen force of 10,000 landed in Ostia, assaulted Rome, and sacked and desecrated the Basilicas of St Peter and St Paul. In 859 they seized the whole of Sicily. After capturing a fortress near Anzio, Muslim forces “plundered the surrounding countryside for forty years”. In southern France at the end of the ninth century they held a base near Toulon from which they ravaged both Provence and Northern Italy, and controlled the passes over the Alps, robbing and murdering pilgrims on their way to Rome. Genoa was attacked in 934 and taken in 935. In 1015 Sardinia was taken, occupied, and held my Muslim forces until 1050. <BR/>In 1076 the Seljuk Turkish capture of Jerusalem finally exhausted the patience of Islam’s victims in Christian Europe. Only then were concerted moves begun to drive back the infidel, launch the First Crusade, and retake Jerusalem<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Roger Sandall<BR/>Feb 2008Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-61400338112660966132008-04-03T18:26:00.000-07:002008-04-03T18:26:00.000-07:00"(I am not getting into any argument about who is ..."(I am not getting into any argument about who is worse, Christians or Muslims, as if the less oppressive should get a medal of honor. The Muslims are horribly oppressive)."<BR/><BR/>Gee, If I would have said this the fur would have started flying. Too bad I didn't.<BR/><BR/>I'll send you a dollar if you can ID the person responsible for this intolerance.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-19872177682959203902008-04-03T15:22:00.000-07:002008-04-03T15:22:00.000-07:00I'm beginning to understand, the only way to get m...I'm beginning to understand, the only way to get membership in your club is to denounce the right people. Could you please post a list of those to be denounced, as well as the proper form of denouncement, so that I won't miss denouncing anyone else.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-15808973417648578082008-04-03T09:00:00.000-07:002008-04-03T09:00:00.000-07:00Now you've gone five minutes without denouncing Ti...Now you've gone five minutes without denouncing Timothy McVeigh!<BR/><BR/>See, that PROVES all Christians support the bombing of government buildings!<BR/><BR/>Give me a break.Flycandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08599392875619723740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-80319806333480603272008-04-02T15:11:00.000-07:002008-04-02T15:11:00.000-07:00Rob, Fly, and MS,Please bash among yourselves, don...Rob, Fly, and MS,<BR/><BR/>Please bash among yourselves, don't mind me. I'll be interested to see how long you can keep this going. <BR/><BR/>BTW, logical trio, thank you for restating several of the points I made, they sounded so much better when you said them. <BR/><BR/>Fly, you never let me know if my Phelps bashing was in tense enough for you. I realize it wasn't as clever as your bashing of me, but it was from the heart.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-5853106014130425782008-04-02T14:10:00.000-07:002008-04-02T14:10:00.000-07:00Flycandler and Mystical,Thank you both for your in...Flycandler and Mystical,<BR/><BR/>Thank you both for your intelligent and informed posts, which put to rest the blather Craig attempts to foist on this blog as truth and fact.<BR/><BR/>Much appreciated.<BR/><BR/>RobRobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00802983318768021197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-16637164096924622292008-04-02T10:09:00.000-07:002008-04-02T10:09:00.000-07:00Flycandler, your examples of Turkey and France are...Flycandler, your examples of Turkey and France are good ones. Both are staunchly secular countries, one Christian and the other Moslem.<BR/><BR/>The French model of laïcité is definitely stronger than that of the US. Many Christians in the US have frequently opposed the separation of church and state, have tried to involve Christian religion more directly and explicitly in public affairs, and there was even a brouhaha when a Muslim was elected to the US Congress. US Christianity is often anything a bastion of pluralism and tolerance. It depends on which segment of Christianity we are talking about, of course--which is exactly the point. You can't make generalizations about Christianity based its intolerant conservatives any more than you can do the same with Muslims.<BR/><BR/>Intolerance and pluralism have had their periods of ascendancy and decline in various cultures of the world at various times in history. Fundamentalisms of all faiths are opposed to secularism, and that is the real problem. As Karen Armstrong <A HREF="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101011001-175987,00.html" REL="nofollow">has written</A>, <I>Every fundamentalist movement I have studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced that liberal, secular society is determined to wipe out religion. Fighting, as they imagine, a battle for survival, fundamentalists often feel justified in ignoring the more compassionate principles of their faith. But in amplifying the more aggressive passages that exist in all our scriptures, they distort the tradition.</I><BR/><BR/>Fundamentalism versus secularism. Liberalism versus intolerance. Not Christianity versus Islam. Bigotry against other faiths is itself an expression of that very intolerance. It is ironic that some who condemn Islam for its alleged intolerance are themselves exhibiting the very bigotry they ostensibly condemn.<BR/><BR/>She points out that Islam has a record of tolerance for other faiths. As she writes, <I>Islam did not impose itself by the sword. In a statement in which the Arabic is extremely emphatic, the Koran insists, "There must be no coercion in matters of faith!" (2: 256). Constantly Muslims are enjoined to respect Jews and Christians, the "People of the Book," who worship the same God (29: 46). In words quoted by Muhammad in one of his last public sermons, God tells all human beings, "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another" (49: 13)--not to conquer, convert, subjugate, revile or slaughter but to reach out toward others with intelligence and understanding.</I><BR/><BR/>It is interesting to note what she <A HREF="http://www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/islam.html" REL="nofollow">wrote</A> elsewhere about how Muslims were more tolerant than Christians were towards the Jews living in Jerusalem during the Middle Ages:<BR/><BR/><I>Respect for other faiths was manifest in Islamic Jerusalem. When Caliph Umar, one of Muhammad's successors, conquered the Jerusalem of the Christian Byzantines in 638, he insisted that the three faiths of Abraham coexist. He refused to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher when he was escorted around the city by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch....<BR/><BR/>The Jews found their new Muslim rulers far more congenial than the Byzantines. The Christians had never allowed the Jews to reside permanently in the city, whereas Umar invited 70 Jewish families back. The Byzantines had left the Jewish Temple in ruins and had even begun to use the Temple Mount as a garbage dump.<BR/><BR/>Umar, according to a variety of accounts, was horrified to see this desecration. He helped clear it with his own hands, reconsecrated the platform and built a simple wooden mosque on the southern end, site of al-Aqsa Mosque today.</I><BR/><BR/>The point is clear. Both religions can and do exhibit intolerance towards other faiths. Intolerance and bigotry manifests itself in a lot of ways, and the best way to counter that is to encourage mutual respect and tolerance.Mystical Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10828225180668865911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-13780692596400138932008-04-02T07:28:00.000-07:002008-04-02T07:28:00.000-07:00I know, I know, I'm still hung up on these little ...I know, I know, I'm still hung up on these little facts about geography and anthropology.<BR/><BR/>First, ETHIOPIA IS NOT A MUSLIM COUNTRY. It is overwhelmingly Christian, admittedly a form of Christianity that many American Christians would find exotic, but Christians still outnumber the Muslims there two to one. Ethiopian law IS NOT SHARIA, it is CIVIL LAW, which is a system invented in the Roman Empire and refined by Napoleon (as opposed to the Common Law system used in Britain and her former colonies). Sharia is NOT the "law of the land" in Ethiopia.<BR/><BR/>Are there countries that experience religious freedom that are not "nominally Christian" (whatever that means)? Yes. Some are even "Muslim countries". Ataturk abolished Sharia in Turkey, replacing it with a civil law system based on the Swiss. There is total separation between church/mosque and state in Turkey. <BR/><BR/>India is the world's largest democracy, and it is overwhelmingly Hindu (80%), followed by the Muslims (13%). Christians only make up 2%, but each religious group is given a large amount of latitude to settle domestic issues (marriage, divorce, inheritance) according to their own religious traditions. The government itself is secular.<BR/><BR/>France has been staunchly secular since the Revolution (the French term is <I>läcité</I>) and has a commitment to separation of church and state even stronger than that in the United States. Everyone is free to worship how they wish as a result.<BR/><BR/>The fundamental problem is that Christianity does not lead to religious freedom. Läcité almost always does. To wildly paraphrase Madison, the purpose of separation of church and state is to protect the integrity of both institutions.Flycandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08599392875619723740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-75444510697994573032008-04-01T23:07:00.000-07:002008-04-01T23:07:00.000-07:00After picking myself up off the floor from laughte...After picking myself up off the floor from laughter, that was certainly the argument Mr. Circlular is making.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps besides Kung, he ought to read a book on basic critical thinking skills and logic 101 ;-)Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00802983318768021197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-29119128542701878342008-04-01T22:33:00.000-07:002008-04-01T22:33:00.000-07:00Of course, this is false, because there have been ...<I>Of course, this is false, because there have been in the past and are in the present Muslim countries that do have secular-civil law as the common law of the land. There are Muslims intellectuals who argue that secular-common law and democracies are the ideal, not Shariah law. Ergo, not all Muslims believe, uphold, or teach that Shariah law should be the law of the land and many, many Muslims do not believe that "theocracy" is the ideal form of government.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh Rob, you are being so silly. Those Muslims who don't believe in "theocracy" obviously can't be <I>real</I> Muslims, because if they were, they would believe in theocracy, and the proof of that is that all Muslims believe in theocracy, except for those who don't, but those who don't can't be real Muslims because they don't believe in theocracy, and the proof of that is...<BR/><BR/>Don't you love circular reasoning?<BR/><BR/>Reminds me of the assertions made by the Hitchens/Dawkins crowd, when they make sweeping statements about what is supposedly inherent about Christian belief and the evils that derive from it. When it is pointed out that not all Christians conform to their sweeping statements about what Christianity supposedly entails, thus disproving the general statement, the standard response is basically just to dismiss these examples and say that they don't count.<BR/><BR/>Straw men are wonderful. So are sweeping generalizations that are disproved by actual counter-examples. <BR/><BR/>And it is always interesting how those who aren't even a member of the particular faith tradition in question (Christianity in the case of Hitchens or Dawkins, and Islam in the case of the anti-Islam crowd) somehow think they get to decide who is and is not a legitimate member of that faith, or that they know what the real meaning of the faith is better than those who profess it.Mystical Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10828225180668865911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-57631360984653614112008-04-01T21:58:00.000-07:002008-04-01T21:58:00.000-07:00I realize that the content of or the response to t...<I>I realize that the content of or the response to this film does not represent all muslims, the fact that those who react this way are not castigated (as the abortion clinic bombers tend to be) says volumes about what Islam really teaches.</I><BR/><BR/><I>Perhaps I misspoke (wrote) using less specific terms than ... appropriate.</I><BR/><BR/><I>I did say that the Koran teaches that in a Muslim country Sharia (or religious) law is the law of the land.</I><BR/><BR/><I>There are countries that are ethnically/culturally Muslim, that have secular governments But the Koranic ideal for a Muslim country is a theocracy.</I><BR/><BR/>The Qur'an existed prior to the interpretations of Shariah as the so-called "law of the land", which came later as Muslim cultures attempted to establish legal systems based upon the principles of the Qur'an as interpreted at any one given point in time and place. Hence, there are many different examples of Shariah having been implemented, some more liberal and democratic, some more theocratic, depending again on time and place. But there was no such developed theory of jurisprudence until well after the Qur'an and long after the death of the Muhammad. <BR/><BR/>Clearly, the above statement notes there have been "theocracies" throughout Muslim history, yet, we see how Craig ignores the explicit statement, twists and distorts meanings, and continues in his litany of falsehoods:<BR/><BR/><I>... your denial of the fact that sharia law is the "law of the land" in muslim theocracies as we speak.</I><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/><I>the Koranic ideal for a Muslim country is a theocracy.</I><BR/><BR/>Of course, this is false, because there have been in the past and are in the present Muslim countries that do have secular-civil law as the common law of the land. There are Muslims intellectuals who argue that secular-common law and democracies are the ideal, not Shariah law. Ergo, not all Muslims believe, uphold, or teach that Shariah law should be the law of the land and many, many Muslims do not believe that "theocracy" is the ideal form of government. As usual, Craig is little more than a mallious liar and falsehood monger. <BR/><BR/><I> I would suspect that most muslim scholars would argue that the Sharia simply codifies what is written in the Koran.</I><BR/><BR/>Utter hogwash; most Muslim scholars say no such thing, in fact, only the fanatical fundamentalist militants make such a-historical ridiculous claims. <BR/><BR/>Those are the false claims I take issue with; you keep making them, speaking in stereotypes, and seem to be repeating on gross falsehood after another. <BR/><BR/>You are playing loose with the truth.<BR/><BR/>Really, if you want to have an intelligent conversation start at least being a bit more careful in you use of stereotypes.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00802983318768021197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-88679463531264638432008-04-01T18:53:00.000-07:002008-04-01T18:53:00.000-07:00Rob,Of course I'll take a look at Kung's unbiased ...Rob,<BR/><BR/>Of course I'll take a look at Kung's unbiased scholarship. As soon as I get the chance. I'd be glad to hear a progressive christian stop speaking in stereotypes, but I know that won't be you.<BR/><BR/>This is pointless, your denial of the fact that sharia law is the "law of the land" in muslim theocracies as we speak. The fact that not all muslim scocieties do not practice this does not invalidate the point that Sharia Law is practiced. To say that just because Sharia was codified post Koran somehow invalidates it or makes it less a part of modern islamic life is splitting hairs. It would be somewhat equivelent to saying that the Apostles Creed has not impacted modern day Christianity even though it post dates the Bible. I would suspect that most muslim scholars would argue that the Sharia simply codifies what is written in the Koran. In much the same way we see in Jewish tradition. <BR/><BR/>Thank you for making my point vis-a-vis Christian/Muslim treatment during the middle ages. MS stated as a fact that Christrians were better treated by Muslims than vice versa, I have repaetedly maintained that it is impossible to make that blanket statement (especially with zero offer of evidence to back it up). It is obvious that in localized cases groups of Christians and Muslims treated each other well. No one is arguing otherwise. <BR/><BR/>Again, this is spliting hairs. Look at the muslim countries as they exist today in real life. Are you seriously arguing that they are more tolerant than the so called "christian west". How many countires allow women the right to vote. Hom many would allow you to be as openly critical of Islam as you are of Christianity. You are looking at the ideal, how it should be in the best possible situation. That doesn't exist. This may shock you, but fallible people will misuse the Koran to oppress people. Just like people have misused the Bible to oppress people. This is news? Yes, you could say that Islam is having growing pains trying to adapt to the 21st century, I don't know that you would be able to get a lot of muslims to agree with you, but that's fine. We disagree, so what. If you could put aside your preconceptions, and deal with me as an individual (fallible as we all are), it might be possible to disagree more agreeably. But, your constant accusations about my motives are getting old. I have no problem disagreeing, I have no problem admitting when I am wrong (when presented with evidence)I do have a problem being called someone who spreads falsehoods, lies and malicious stereotypes rather than seeking the truth. You can tell me I have made a factual mistake, and I'll look at your evidence to the contrary. You however choose not to give me the same courtesy. Again, I'm tired of this crap. So if you want to try a different tactic that would be great, if not I'll live. I'm sure you'll keep this going, since you can't seem to let go, I may or may not respond depending on what is going on in my real life. But I'm not going to invest additional effort in this, it really has gotten pointless.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-26240129794930227982008-04-01T17:34:00.000-07:002008-04-01T17:34:00.000-07:00I realize that the content of or the response to t...<I>I realize that the content of or the response to this film does not represent all muslims, the fact that those who react this way are not castigated (as the abortion clinic bombers tend to be) says volumes about what Islam really teaches.</I><BR/><BR/>You clearly imply one case is sufficient to tell us "what Islam really teaches." <BR/><BR/>Apparently, you have changed you mind:<BR/><BR/><I>Perhaps I misspoke (wrote) using less specific terms than ... appropriate.</I> <BR/><BR/>Yes, perhaps you did ... and continue to do so as your words below show. <BR/><BR/><I>I did say that the Koran teaches that in a Muslim country Sharia (or religious) law is the law of the land.</I> <BR/><BR/>You continue to display your ignorance of both history, the Qur'an, and the now specifically, the origin of Shariah within Muslim tradition. I suggest you read Hans Kung's latest work, called "Islam: Past, Present, and Future" so you might become intelligently informed of about something you apparently know very little. The Qur'an existed prior to the interpretations of Shariah as the so-called "law of the land", which came later as Muslim cultures attempted to establish legal systems based upon the principles of the Qur'an as interpreted at any one given point in time and place. Hence, there are many different examples of Shariah having been implemented, some more liberal and democratic, some more theocratic, depending again on time and place.<BR/><BR/><I>There are countries that are ethnically/culturally Muslim, that have secular governments But the Koranic ideal for a Muslim country is a theocracy.</I><BR/><BR/>Another falsehood; this is a case of self-chosen ignorance. There was no such developed theory of jurisprudence until well after the Qur'an and long after the death of the Muhammad. Again, Kung's work puts such balderdash to rest.<BR/><BR/>There is ample evidence in the historical record to support MS's claim that Muslim cultures treated Christians well at different times in history; there is also evidence there were Christian cultures that did the same. Neither has a monopoly on good and evil. The point is relevant because it proves that at any point in time it is culture that determines how religion and scripture is interpreted and practiced. Modernity is impacting all religions, some at a fast pace than others. Religious pluralism as a problem of modern society is a relatively recent phenomena, having given rise to the fields of religious studies and comparative religion. Muslims have been historically open to intelligent dialogue with other faiths, such as the Mughal ruler Akbar the Great, who during his reign built great halls for inter-faith dialogue and debates. He didn't have much patience with the narrow-minded theologians or orthodox Islam or Christianity, <BR/><BR/>Suddenly the theologians of our time became highly disputatious, and noise and confusion prevailed. His Majesty became angry at their rude behavior, and said to me, 'In future report to me if any of the theologians talk nonsense and don't behave themselves. I'll see to it that they leave the room!' I said quietly to Asaf Khan, 'If I carry out this order, the majority of them will have to leave the room.' His Majesty suddenly asked me what I'd just said. He was pleased with my reply and repeated it to those sitting near him. Indeed, when 'learned men wield the sword of the tongue on the battlefield of mutual disagreement', it could lead to 'the moustache of the emperor bristling like that of a tiger'. Akbar's religious fervour encompassed all religions. (The Empire of the Great Mughals History, Art, and Culture, pp. 35-36)<BR/><BR/>That some cultural manifestations of Islam are facing the challenge of modernity, democracy, and religious pluralism, just as Christianity has had to face these issues in its own history, does not imply that Islam is inherently less tolerant, peaceful, or able to evolve and adapt to the challenges of modernity. <BR/><BR/>Kung addresses the concerns you have but in a balanced manner, based upon evidence, rather than stereotypes and baseless speculation.<BR/><BR/>I would be happy to hear an evangelical Christian speak in other than stereotypes; perhaps you could be the first ;-)Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00802983318768021197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-68991394052844866632008-04-01T15:41:00.000-07:002008-04-01T15:41:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mystical Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10828225180668865911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-3051476217598540252008-04-01T15:29:00.000-07:002008-04-01T15:29:00.000-07:00It's like frekin' quicksand.Rob, I have not malign...It's like frekin' quicksand.<BR/><BR/>Rob, I have not maligned all muslims any more thatyou havea maligned all evangelicals. Perhaps I misspoke (wrote) using less specific terms than you consider appropriate. Be that as it may Yo have consistantly twisted what I have said, while ignoring much of my comments. As I continue to say, let it go. I have never said that my Ethopian friends represent all Muslims. I DID say, that it might be interesting to get feedback from actual Muslims rather than simply googlling a bunch of of verses from the Koran. Obviously, you feel that your SF frieend (who in Iraq represents the "occupying forces" and it is POSIBLE that these imams are simply telling him what he wants to hear) is a much better source fine. Pardon me for trying to get some non internet feedback.<BR/><BR/>I think it is interesting that your friend who is talking to imams in Iraq who are speaking out against the radicals. I'm glad to hear that, I would hope to hear more, but it is not widely circulated that this is happening. Despite that, you cannot deny that a significant segment of Islam is dedicated to jihad. You also cannot deny that the Koran teaches jihad. I'm sure different sects of Islam interpret that differently, but you can't deny it's there. I'm not sure what compels you to keep this up, but if it makes you feel better keep going.<BR/><BR/>Fly,<BR/><BR/>Please read my posts. If you do you will find that I did not say that Etheopia was/is a Muslim theocracy. I did say that the Koran teaches that in a Muslim country Sharia (or religious) law is the law of the land. There are countries that are ethnically/culturally Muslim, that have secular governmets. But the Koranic ideal for a Muslim country is a theocracy. <BR/><BR/>I'm sure Yohannes will be happy to know that you know the situation so well that you feel you can make light of his situation. <BR/><BR/>The point I was trying to make was in response to MS who made the blanket statement (which is appearantly frowned on here), that in the middle ages Christians in Muslim countries were treated better than Muslims in Christian countries. While I personally doubt that there is any way to actually "prove" his assertion true, it really doesn't matter. We don't live in the middle ages any more. At this point in history the countries with the most religous freedom are countries that are at least nominally "christian". Muslim countries at the present time have much less tolerance for religious pluralsm than non-muslim countries. I'm not sure how that relatively simple point generated all this crap, but it did.<BR/><BR/>As far as the Phelps tribe, I would not be suprised if I was the only person on this thread who has ever told one that he was wrong to his face. So, since I've already told them, I have no problem telling you. They are a bunch of inbred ntermarried morons who damage the cause of Christ every time they open their mouths. (I'm betting that I won't get called on painting them with a broad brush) Is that direct enough for you? I do assume that you were not attempting to malign me or any other evangelical Chriatian by associating me with them. "How, fair or truthful is that?" <BR/><BR/>PS. I really don't think you were doing that, just trying to inject a little into this discussion.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-15525531653911905562008-04-01T13:34:00.000-07:002008-04-01T13:34:00.000-07:00Sorry, I do have a question. Where is this Etheop...Sorry, I do have a question. Where is this Etheopia place that is a Muslim theocracy? I can't seem to find it on my map.<BR/><BR/>Now, I have heard of a place called Ethiopia, which is over 60% Christian and less than 35% Muslim, and is a constitutional, parliamentary democracy. I cannot speak to Craig's friend's experiences (or even what country he's really talking about), but it seems odd that he would be targeted for death for preaching Christianity by the government of the place that is, after all, the center of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.<BR/><BR/>No, I can't think of any theocracies I would want to live in off the top of my head. I am a small-d, small-r democratic republican who believes in separation of church and state. I am appalled by modern Iran and early 18th-century Massachusetts. By definition, a theocracy tends to frown on freedom of religion. I don't understand what point Craig is making.<BR/><BR/>And since he's failed to condemn Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps and the Westboro nuts, are we to assume that all Christians really support Phelps?Flycandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08599392875619723740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-6874647090712215392008-03-31T21:50:00.000-07:002008-03-31T21:50:00.000-07:00Craig,You have attempted to malign the Qur’an and ...Craig,<BR/>You have attempted to malign the Qur’an and all Islam, rather than speak to the real issue of those radical Muslims who capture the headlines. Ethiopia and its cultural interpretation of Islam does not represent all of Islam, and therefore it does not represent what “Islam really teaches.” And if you cared about the truth you know this, and would not therefore attempt to paint all of Islam with the same brush.<BR/>I have a friend who has been in the US Special Forces for over twenty years now; his wife flies special op into their missions. They both risk their lives so you can have the freedom to express such false claims about the religion they were both born into; he speaks Arabic fluently of course, as it is his mother tongue. He was recently in Iraq under cover, hunting high value Al Qaeda targets, blending in with the Iraq community, living, eating, and praying in the Mosque with Muslims. He had many conversations with the Muslim Imams in Iraq, and has seen for himself how they are preaching against the radicals and denouncing Al Qaeda both in the Mosque and in their personal lives. Some have paid with their lives for doing so. They do because this is what Islam teaches them; because they believe this is the will of God. <BR/>Yet, you would paint them with the same brush as those whom they denounce, and say that Islam really teaches violence. Odd, here they are risking their lives in the name of Islam teaching it means peace, not violence, denouncing the radicals as false teachers and against true Islam. <BR/>Just because you are unaware of what Muslim leaders are doing to combat radical Islam, you attempt to malign their religion. How, fair or truthful is that? How ironic that Muslims risk their lives to fight radical militants, and you malign their religion and faith. <BR/><BR/>Someone who cares about the truth would given at least a second thought before making such sweeping statements, I would think.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00802983318768021197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-64041011042844736832008-03-31T18:59:00.000-07:002008-03-31T18:59:00.000-07:00Rob,I knew you couldn't leave it alone. I have no...Rob,<BR/><BR/>I knew you couldn't leave it alone. I have not made malicious and false comments at any point in this thread. You have offered no proof to back up your opinions. And to accuse me of lying about my reason for trying to end this foolishness is not Christlike in any way shape or form.<BR/><BR/>I have said repeatedly, you have your opinions. No matter how much I respond to you you are going to dismiss it so what is the point of continuing to go further afield. If it makes you feel better to take shots at me then I'll just have to turn the other cheek. <BR/><BR/>So once more, I am withdrawing, I bow to your superior logical, reasoning, and google skills. You have bested me I am incapable of keeping up with your awesome intellect, so please, I'm begging let it go. Move on, Get a life. It's been an interesting way to spend my day off, but I've got to work and parent, so while I'll probably drop back by to see what you've said about me, this will most likely be my last post on this thread. Enjoy your victory.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-33070574322289370552008-03-31T17:41:00.000-07:002008-03-31T17:41:00.000-07:00The bottom line is that it is fundamentally unChri...The bottom line is that it is fundamentally unChristlike and unJesusonian to refuse to accord the same degree of fairness to the other (whether enemy or adversary) that one would accord to oneself or one's fellows.<BR/><BR/>Any intelligent Christian can recognize the error in those who justify (both past and present) violent acts in the of religion as being misguided and not representing the "what Christianity truly teaches," yet when one turns around and refuses to accord these this same truth to the other, is fundamentally unjust, unrighteous, and unfair. <BR/><BR/>It is not Godlike, let alone Christlike, to allow prejudice to blind one to such simple truth and fairness.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00802983318768021197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-39474091262902981122008-03-31T17:22:00.000-07:002008-03-31T17:22:00.000-07:00Jeez,Imagine that, someone who claims to be Christ...Jeez,<BR/><BR/>Imagine that, someone who claims to be Christian spreading falsehoods and lies, mischaracterizing the truth so he can malign the innocent, and when it is pointed out that is what he is doing, getting mad because he cannot back them up, and crying I don't want to play anymore ;-)<BR/><BR/>The truth matter my friend, and spreading malicious lies is unChristlike.<BR/><BR/>Jesus did not play loose with the truth; that was why he made the Samaritan the central figure of the parable of the Good Samaritan, for in his day the same kind of prejudiced, malicious, falsehoods were regulary repeated about the Samaritans that Craig now spreads about all Islam.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00802983318768021197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-61177582099601981782008-03-31T17:18:00.000-07:002008-03-31T17:18:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00802983318768021197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-61379008978923479752008-03-31T17:16:00.000-07:002008-03-31T17:16:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00802983318768021197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-50251634383858129912008-03-31T17:08:00.000-07:002008-03-31T17:08:00.000-07:00Jeez,You guys win already, just can't keep yoursel...Jeez,<BR/><BR/>You guys win already, just can't keep yourselves from piling on. I can't waste any more time. Mischaracterize all you want, malign me all you want, I'm walking away. It's pointless to continue, you are obvioulsy committed to your preconceptions, enjoy. <BR/><BR/>PS If you are going to make truth claims then you could at least back them up.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-14239588472193302902008-03-31T17:05:00.000-07:002008-03-31T17:05:00.000-07:00I realize that the content of or the response to t...<I>I realize that the content of or the response to this film does not represent all muslims, the fact that those who react this way are not castigated (as the abortion clinic bombers tend to be) says volumes about what Islam really teaches.</I><BR/><BR/>You lack basic simple logic my friend, for you make a claim, which is based on the premise that Muslims do not speak out against acts (verbal or otherwise) of violence, and because they don't the conclusion follows that those acts of violence (verbal or otherwise) is what Islam really teaches.<BR/><BR/>Let us parse your ignorant fallacious logic.<BR/>Premise = p<BR/>Conclusion = c<BR/><BR/>p: Muslims do not speak out against violent acts in speech and deed.<BR/><BR/>c: Therefore, Islam really teaches violence in speech and deeds.<BR/><BR/>The premise of this claim that Muslims don't speak out against violence (in word and deed) is false, for many Muslim leaders have and continue to speak out against violence. <BR/><BR/>The truth is that many Muslim leaders are speaking out against the militants, both in public and in the Mosque.<BR/><BR/>The conclusion therefore is false. It is nothing more than the fear laden, prejudiced parroting of stereotypes that is typically of evangelical fundamentalist Christians, really no different than the mentality of the very radical militants they seek to use to stereotype all Islam. They love not nor care for the truth, but only seek to justify their own prejudices and do not hesitate to spread falsehoods in so doing. As I said, it is the nature of religious bigotry to play loose with the truth.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00802983318768021197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-63651360469701413292008-03-31T15:05:00.000-07:002008-03-31T15:05:00.000-07:00If anything I was giving "primacy" the the entiter...<I>If anything I was giving "primacy" the the entiterty of the NT not part of one chapter. It's a fairly common practice.</I><BR/><BR/>Common practice or not, it is inherently problematic an attempt at harmonizing disparate documents, written by different people at different times and circumstances, and reflecting different theologies, under the pretense that all these disparate elements somehow reflect an identical theology. And when this effort at harmonization suppresses the theology of one part of the New Testament in favor of another one, it is creating a kind of de factor primacy of the passages that the resulting harmonization favors (over those passages that contradict this harmonization.)Mystical Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10828225180668865911noreply@blogger.com