[sceptic]

Lets pretend, that Israel sign a ceasefire and the promise never to kill, bomb or shoot anyone ever again.

What do you really think will happen?

I am most interested in your views

does anyone see peace on earth?

does anyone believe that all the worlds problems will go away?

[mr1303]

I believe that the other Arabic states will then invade and destroy Israel. That's about the only thing that they all agree on.

[luke warm]

well absolutely that would happen.. but let's pretend a little further

hezbollah and hamas lay down their weapons... what now?

[DrTodd13]

I laugh out loud every time I see some pundit or politician on TV talking about how we can talk and negotiate ourselves to peace in the middle east. They are just revealing their ignorance. It is my understanding that Islam has a doctrine that it is unacceptable for any land previously controlled by Islam to subsequently not be controlled by Islam. Any orthodox Muslim must then believe that the Israeli government should not exist...or Spain for that matter. Asking these people for peace is the same as asking them to renounce their religion. So, unless you can get these people to reject Islam or get Israel to leave then I don't think there's going to be peace.

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Aug 1 2006, 08:51 PM, said:

I laugh out loud every time I see some pundit or politician on TV talking about how we can talk and negotiate ourselves to peace in the middle east. They are just revealing their ignorance. It is my understanding that Islam has a doctrine that it is unacceptable for any land previously controlled by Islam to subsequently not be controlled by Islam. Any orthodox Muslim must then believe that the Israeli government should not exist...or Spain for that matter. Asking these people for peace is the same as asking them to renounce their religion. So, unless you can get these people to reject Islam or get Israel to leave then I don't think there's going to be peace.

You should be careful throwing arround words like "ignorant", especially when you are spewing this sort of *****... You seem to pride yourself as being a rational individual. It seems strange that you seem unable to differentiate between the beliefs of a group of religious extremists and the beliefs of an entire religion.

Case in point: Ann Coulter says that the correction solution to the situation in the Middle East is "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity". I can find plenty of similar quotes from Republican office holders and even US generals. (Proud Christians all)

I don't condemn the entire Christian religion because there are some extremist nutjobs who warp the basic message.

To do so would be to act as a simpleton...

[DrTodd13]

There are always fanatics that warp and twist the message. The difference is that Christian scriptures don't order followers to go and _forcibly_ convert everyone. Whether these beliefs are valid parts of these people's religion is pretty much irrelevant. The important thing is that these beliefs are held and it is pointless to try to talk peaceful coexistence at this point.

[sceptic]

Quote

hezbollah and hamas lay down their weapons... what now?

NOW YOU ARE BEING RIDICULOUS Jimmy

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Aug 1 2006, 01:11 PM, said:

Ann Coulter says that the correction solution to the situation in the Middle East is "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity".

there's no way i can endorse this position... after all, they might end up methodists

[jtfanclub]

DrTodd13, on Aug 1 2006, 02:03 PM, said:

There are always fanatics that warp and twist the message. The difference is that Christian scriptures don't order followers to go and _forcibly_ convert everyone.

Actually, Christianity is the ONLY religion that orders followers to forcibly convert everyone. No other religion would even contemplate Crusades and the Inquisition.

Islam says that Moslems cannot be taxed, so for a Islamic country to survive, it must have non-Moslems to pay the dhimmis. They don't want every person to be Moslem, just every country to be ruled by them.

Hey, it's better than burning heretics at the stake.

[luke warm]

jtfanclub, on Aug 1 2006, 04:47 PM, said:

Actually, Christianity is the ONLY religion that orders followers to forcibly convert everyone. No other religion would even contemplate Crusades and the Inquisition.

really? where do you get that idea? as richard says, just because someone or some group perverts the meaning of a religion doesn't mean the religion teaches that particular perversion...

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Aug 1 2006, 10:03 PM, said:

There are always fanatics that warp and twist the message.  The difference is that Christian scriptures don't order followers to go and _forcibly_ convert everyone.  Whether these beliefs are valid parts of these people's religion is pretty much irrelevant.  The important thing is that these beliefs are held and it is pointless to try to talk peaceful coexistence at this point.

Nor does Islam

Its been 20 odd years since I last studied the Koran, however, back in the day, there was quite a lot of debate regarding how much of that book should be interpreted.

The Koran was revealed to Muhammad over (roughly) two and half decades. During this time, the early Muslim community experienced a number of very formative events. One of the most significant was the conflict between the Muslims who were based in Medina and the non-believers who held the city of Mecca.

DrTodd is referencing a number of themes that crop up in the Koran with respect to conquest, treatment of non-believers, etc. As far as I know, there is no consensus whether these are general principles, applicable to all non-believers scattered across the enter world, or, instead, referencing a very specific conflict that took place back in the 7th century. Islam is a religion that streaches across the globe, with hundreds of millions of adherents and multiple very distinct sects and schools. Trying to paint all these individuals with a single broad brush is incredibly ignorant.

What is particular infuriating is DrTodd's original post, where he acts as if he has some esoteric knowledge that has been denied to the rest of humanity, when in fact he appears to been nothing more than another dittohead...

[Al_U_Card]

Onward, Christian soldiers! Marching as to war....sounds belligerant to me...but that is only a hymn...inspired by fervour.

Most people that I know of Islamic faith are quiet, law-abiding, peaceful individuals (strangely, as are most devout Christians that I know). The criminal element knows no (religious) bounds I guess.

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 2 2006, 03:54 PM, said:

Onward, Christian soldiers! Marching as to war....sounds belligerant to me...but that is only a hymn...inspired by fervour.

it helps to know exactly who the song is about and who the foe is... that song has nothing at all to do with fighting a war against anyone, on a human level anyway... that isn't to say that misguided folks haven't used it for ill

[DrTodd13]

hrothgar, on Aug 1 2006, 03:34 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Aug 1 2006, 10:03 PM, said:

There are always fanatics that warp and twist the message.  The difference is that Christian scriptures don't order followers to go and _forcibly_ convert everyone.  Whether these beliefs are valid parts of these people's religion is pretty much irrelevant.  The important thing is that these beliefs are held and it is pointless to try to talk peaceful coexistence at this point.

Nor does Islam

Its been 20 odd years since I last studied the Koran, however, back in the day, there was quite a lot of debate regarding how much of that book should be interpreted.

The Koran was revealed to Muhammad over (roughly) two and half decades. During this time, the early Muslim community experienced a number of very formative events. One of the most significant was the conflict between the Muslims who were based in Medina and the non-believers who held the city of Mecca.

DrTodd is referencing a number of themes that crop up in the Koran with respect to conquest, treatment of non-believers, etc. As far as I know, there is no consensus whether these are general principles, applicable to all non-believers scattered across the enter world, or, instead, referencing a very specific conflict that took place back in the 7th century. Islam is a religion that streaches across the globe, with hundreds of millions of adherents and multiple very distinct sects and schools. Trying to paint all these individuals with a single broad brush is incredibly ignorant.

What is particular infuriating is DrTodd's original post, where he acts as if he has some esoteric knowledge that has been denied to the rest of humanity, when in fact he appears to been nothing more than another dittohead...

If you think I'm a dittohead then you have no idea who I am.

There is always debate about how scripture should be interpreted and there are verses in the Koran that talk about peace and verses that talk about killing the infidel so which one applies now? It's not my job to interpret the Koran. I leave that up to Islamic scholars. I've seen a couple of shows where people purported to be Islamic scholars claim that the generally recognized interpretation of the Koran is that later commands have precedence over earlier commands and that the verses about killing the infidels come later than the verses about peace. Were these people actually Islamic scholars? I don't know for sure. The context was not one that was obviously biased. Were they telling the truth about this being a widely held interpretation? Again, we have to get our information from somewhere and how do we know it is accurate? It isn't like we can take a survey ourselves of every Islamic cleric in the world. I repeat what I said before. If Indonesian Muslims don't accept this interpretation then fine and dandy but from all the information and actions that I've seen, there is every reason to believe that those in the middle east do and they'd wipe Israel off the map if they thought they could do it. Is their hatred of the state of Israel based on racism or religious hatred? Certainly some of both but in either case, I don't see that a negotiation could possibly change the underlying causes. Attitudes and religious doctrines will have to change before there can be lasting peace there.

[cherdano]

DrTodd13, on Aug 2 2006, 11:46 PM, said:

If you think I'm a dittohead then you have no idea who I am.

Nobody cares who you are. In this forum, you are what you write. If your writing is perceived as coming from a dittohead, then you are a dittohead to the rest of us.

[luke warm]

strange, todd doesn't appear to be a dittohead to me (and i know what a dittohead refers to)...

[jtfanclub]

luke warm, on Aug 1 2006, 05:54 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Aug 1 2006, 04:47 PM, said:

Actually, Christianity is the ONLY religion that orders followers to forcibly convert everyone.  No other religion would even contemplate Crusades and the Inquisition.

really? where do you get that idea? as richard says, just because someone or some group perverts the meaning of a religion doesn't mean the religion teaches that particular perversion...

Some group being the Catholic Church? They've declared for centuries that heritics should be converted or killed. As far as I know, they've never even stated that the Inquisition was heresy and expunged the popes in question from their records, let alone the Crusades.

The Catholic Church has believed in forcible conversion since the Roman Empire. I think at some point, you can stop dancing around saying 'some group', and just flat out say it. If you want to substitute Catholicism for Christianity, I suppose you can, but it's disingenuous. If one of the Johnny-Come-Latelies believes that forcible conversion is wrong, they're the ones doing the perverting. The Catholic Church literally wrote the book on Christianity. I think that gives them the right to interpret it.

[luke warm]

jtfanclub, on Aug 3 2006, 12:44 AM, said:

luke warm, on Aug 1 2006, 05:54 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Aug 1 2006, 04:47 PM, said:

Actually, Christianity is the ONLY religion that orders followers to forcibly convert everyone.  No other religion would even contemplate Crusades and the Inquisition.

really? where do you get that idea? as richard says, just because someone or some group perverts the meaning of a religion doesn't mean the religion teaches that particular perversion...

Some group being the Catholic Church? They've declared for centuries that heritics should be converted or killed. As far as I know, they've never even stated that the Inquisition was heresy and expunged the popes in question from their records, let alone the Crusades.

The Catholic Church has believed in forcible conversion since the Roman Empire. I think at some point, you can stop dancing around saying 'some group', and just flat out say it. If you want to substitute Catholicism for Christianity, I suppose you can, but it's disingenuous. If one of the Johnny-Come-Latelies believes that forcible conversion is wrong, they're the ones doing the perverting. The Catholic Church literally wrote the book on Christianity. I think that gives them the right to interpret it.

'christianity' is based on the new testament of the bible, not on (necessarily) the teachings of any one denomination... so i took your post to mean that new testament "ordered" its followers to forcibly convert others and i wondered where you saw that

i won't get into any argument about catholicism except to say that there were many reasons for the reformation

[bearmum]

luke warm, on Aug 1 2006, 08:49 PM, said:

well absolutely that would happen.. but let's pretend a little further

hezbollah and hamas lay down their weapons... what now?

I would expect that Hell freezes over

OR more to the point -- some OTHER terrorist organisation would take over trying to eliminate Israel.