Islam is NOT a religion of peace

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
''I am just a moderate Nazi. I don't believe in Anti-Semitism, I just agree on fuhrer's views on automotive industry and social order.
You can't judge Nazism by what fundamentalist Nazis do.''

Lets list some potential reactions to this statement from imaginary people.

SC: Cool, I'm glad your opposed to genocide and will support you in trying to stop it. Have you considered that Nazism has problems other than anti-Semitism?
LilB: I demand that you murder more people.

so, what are the qualifying factors that determine if something is a "religion of peace"?

like, how would one argue against the OP?

Originally posted by Oliver North
so, what are the qualifying factors that determine if something is a "religion of peace"?

like, how would one argue against the OP?

...a decent question. Gets into ideas of subjective interpretation and whatnot. I think, at best, one could probably argue that a particular sect of a religion is peaceful or non-peaceful. Because (western) religions are, almost by default, neither one intrinsically.

I think sometimes we want to make things too empirical though. As hard as it would be to standardize criteria that's truly objective and/or acceptable to all, there are probably several sociological factors (morality in certain situations, prejudice, disposition toward violence and justifications for it) of a religion that could be tested, that could lead us to a provisionally acceptable answer. It would just take a LOT of study.

Originally posted by Digi
Or you could address her points. Calling a person ignorant and saying where you live, shockingly, isn't a rational argument.

Originally posted by Digi
...a decent question. Gets into ideas of subjective interpretation and whatnot. I think, at best, one could probably argue that a particular sect of a religion is peaceful or non-peaceful. Because (western) religions are, almost by default, neither one intrinsically.

I think sometimes we want to make things too empirical though. As hard as it would be to standardize criteria that's truly objective and/or acceptable to all, there are probably several sociological factors (morality in certain situations, prejudice, disposition toward violence and justifications for it) of a religion that could be tested, that could lead us to a provisionally acceptable answer. It would just take a LOT of study.

Why make everything so complex and empirical? I think this would make much more sense by keeping it simple instead of saying this needs to be a multiple decade investigation into what qualifies as "peaceful", reviewed by peers and tested against all known standards. I cannot figure out why so many discussions on this board have to "devolve" into complex chaos.

Why not even just stick to the subject at hand: can a religion that holds to scripture stating that violence and murder are acceptable when its profits are leaders are not in danger, but simply insulted or caricatured in any way be considered a religion of peace? Yes or no and reasons why. Is it necessary to go off on tangential adventures?

d-do you not know what the Christian and Jewish texts say about blasphemy?

does the quran actually endorse violence in the case of blasphemy or the prophet being insulted?

serious question, i don't read the quran.

My understanding is that, depending on the context Mohammed was reciting the Quran in (war or peace, for instance), he has different answers.

I know that is the case in terms of religious tolerance.

Originally posted by Oliver North
d-do you not know what the Christian and Jewish texts say about blasphemy?

Sure do.

Christian: After Jesus, no one can kill anyone else for their sins and all judgement are up to God. Oh, and we (not you...but me and my peeps) have to forgive everyone of everything and turn the other cheek when they smack us. 😐

Example: adulteress was spared from a stoning, which was required through the law of Moses. Jesus forgave her and told everyone to settle the **** down because they are all just as evil.

And why don't we follow the Old Testament ("Old Covenant", or the Law of Moses) law? Because it was prophesied to be replaced by a New Covenant: Jer. 31:31 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah"

And when was this New Convenent mentioned in the New Testament?

Luke 22:20 "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."

But what is the most damming evidence from New Testament canon that speaks out against killing and speaks for life?

2 Cor. 3:6 "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

Why is this important and what doe those mean? Jesus came to renew the Letter of the Law (the Law of Moses which had a very strict adherence standard) and replace it with an even tougher law: the Spirit of the Law. No longer could you just blindly kill those that broke the Law: you had to forgive and love. That's much tougher to do than just go apeshit on someone for trespassing you (sometimes, grievously). Put down your stones, think about the enemy, and love them. A pretty tough pill to swallow, no doubt.

So whenever you see Christians saying shit like, "KILL THE MUZZIES!" Or , "turn it into a glass bowl!"...they are NOT being Christians nor are they following the teachings from the canon NT. It is very un-Christlike behavior.

Why do I say this?

Romans 12:18 "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."

That's pretty clear: try your absolute hardest to live peacefully with all peoples and cultures.

In other words, I (and Muslims) are required to do this: I love you, inimalist. May peace be upon you and your loved ones.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure do.

Christian: After Jesus, no one can kill anyone else for their sins and all judgement are up to God. Oh, and we (not you...but me and my peeps) have to forgive everyone of everything and turn the other cheek when they smack us. 😐

Example: adulteress was spared from a stoning, which was required through the law of Moses. Jesus forgave her and told everyone to settle the **** down because they are all just as evil.

And why don't we follow the Old Testament ("Old Covenant", or the Law of Moses) law? Because it was prophesied to be replaced by a New Covenant: Jer. 31:31 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah"

And when was this New Convenent mentioned in the New Testament?

Luke 22:20 "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."

But what is the most damming evidence from New Testament canon that speaks out against killing and speaks for life?

2 Cor. 3:6 "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

Why is this important and what doe those mean? Jesus came to renew the Letter of the Law (the Law of Moses which had a very strict adherence standard) and replace it with an even tougher law: the Spirit of the Law. No longer could you just blindly kill those that broke the Law: you had to forgive and love. That's much tougher to do than just go apeshit on someone for trespassing you (sometimes, grievously). Put down your stones, think about the enemy, and love them. A pretty tough pill to swallow, no doubt.

So whenever you see Christians saying shit like, "KILL THE MUZZIES!" Or , "turn it into a glass bowl!"...they are NOT being Christians nor are they following the teachings from the canon NT. It is very un-Christlike behavior.

Why do I say this?

Romans 12:18 "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."

That's pretty clear: try your absolute hardest to live peacefully with all peoples and cultures.

arguably, what you are talking about has more to do with the interpretation of scripture (we both know about penalties like stoning a man to death for working on the Sabbath, and one of the 10 commandments deals explicitly with blasphemy) rather than the existence of scripture that could justify violence in the case of blasphemy. Not to mention, there are numerous Muslim religious leaders who say the exact same thing about never killing people or violence not being justified in cases of blasphemy. [and lets not pretend there were't periods of time where Christians would have been equally violent toward blasphemers, I'd say this was before Christianity adopted secular morality, but this is a different argument]

If that's the case, we are looking at this in pretty much the same light. The problem isn't ontologically "Islam", but the way that Islam is being used by religious leaders for their own ends.

Just out of curiosity, did you follow anything about the 10 year old autistic girl charged with blasphemy in Pakistan?

Originally posted by dadudemon
In other words, I (and Muslims) are required to do this: I love you, inimalist. May peace be upon you and your loved ones.

no doubt, love ya brah!

lol, I'll talk with my girlfriend about our convos sometimes. We collectively refer to you as "doughnuts" because of your avatar. I mention this only to be endearing.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Historically all middle eastern abrahamic religions are violent. It's just in the modern period Islam is far worse.

US imperialism is the greatest issue in modern period.

I've been thinking about this for awhile. Islam and Christianity breed extremism whether it's crusades or terrorist attacks or riots or legislating from the pulpit. Yet other religions don't nearly have the same problem. I think it's partially this inclusivity bullshit. Islam and Christianity need to take a page from Judaism and NOT LET EVERYONE IN. Ministering in morality is fine, GOOD WORKS which is a concept that has been lost, especially for protestant Christianity should be a cornerstone of faith but by allowing any schmuck to convert and playing faith like a competition you allow the lowest common denominator to enter your faith and then taint it. Have a vetting process for God's sake, Religion is a supposed to be rules and responsibilities, and obligations, if people can't meet them, don't let them in to begin with.
Prison ministries are the worst because often they just give violent offenders a focus and an opportunity to be released via a bias parole board. From what I've seen, neither God nor Allah can make a psychopath grow a conscience or a taste for age-appropriate poon. Converting a serial killer for crack into a serial killer for Allah or a sister ****er into an abortion clinic bomber is not a victory for Islam or Christianity.
Maybe the first step into forcing religions to get some quality control would be to stop defacto subsidizing them in supposedly secular nations and TAXING them like any other private institution.

Taliban shoot 14 year old girl

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Horrible analogy.

US imperialism is the greatest issue in modern period.

You'll get no argument from me that the US is bullying other countries (at the behest of multinational corporations) when it should be pursuing a non interventionist foreign policy.

Having said that I stand by my original statement, Islam is not a religion of peace.

Weak minded people will always be fanatic about something. Similarly, in England a lot of people are fanatic about their football team. They are willing to fight, abuse and sometime even kill for it. And football is not even a religion.

Also, agree with Digi's "cultural climate". Specific environment makes people more likely to be fanatic about something. Again I will bring football example. Parents take children as young as 1 year old to watch football, obviously it will their future interests.

Originally posted by Arhael
Weak minded people will always be fanatic about something. Similarly, in England a lot of people are fanatic about their football team. They are willing to fight, abuse and sometime even kill for it. And football is not even a religion.

Also, agree with Digi's "cultural climate". Specific environment makes people more likely to be fanatic about something. Again I will bring football example. Parents take children as young as 1 year old to watch football, obviously it will their future interests.

Which is why religions shouldn't invite or allow the weak minded, though admittedly the more authoritarian religions and sects (Wahhabism, Dominionism, Mormonism, etc.) thrive on that. Many Muslims live in parts of the world that have been in conflict for centuries. Children born to parents in conflict exhibit signs of PTSD, more violent temper/behavior, and sociopathy for up to 2 generations after a conflict. Combine that with right wing governance which as a rule, likes to keep people really ****ing stupid and you have a recipe for disaster. Stupid, violent retards can find any reason to fight and tear each others heads off so maybe, could violence and terrorism be prevented by Islam raising their standards and not letting everyone become or be born a Muslim?
I mean the media could deligitimize these dickholes by calling the Qutbists instead of radical Muslims the same way it calls dumb Christians Dominionists and dumb Jews Kahanists but I doubt that's going to happen.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
So it's the fundamentalists, aka "THE ONES WHO ADHERE TO THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THEIR FAITH", that go up into murderous rampages?

The lukewarm Muslims don't because they don't ahere to the fundamentals of their faith. The supposed "religion of peace" is actually soaked in violence.

Why in the world would it be a Religion of Cheese? How would that even work? Makes no sense.