Please don’t feed the troll.

Its now trolling on a right wing website to hate those who were enemies of America? I thought we were patriots. Why should we not despise those who attempted to betray the Union for the benefit of slavery and human subjugation.

Osama Bin Laden fights for the way of life and cause he believes in too

Is Osama Bin Laden then a hero who should be celebrated like Stonewall Jackson?

Stonewall Jackson stood for the subjugation of human beings. He fought to preserve the treatment of one man as property of the other.

At least Bin Laden only kills people. Stonewall Jackson wanted to give them a life worse than death.

Question for you, Stan. At a guess, how many German soldiers, from Private to General, died between 1939 and 1945, “fighting for a way of life and the cause (they) believed in”? Does that make them good. Does that make them honorable? Should we be naming warships for them? Don’t think so, myself, but…your take?
To me, Jackson was an enemywho fought against my country – *OUR* country, the USA – and that’s all I need to know.

That was not my intent, nor was it my intent to imply tohat you were judging Christianity. I thought we were talking about how Christianity was being judged in the Dark Ages to justify Muslims atrocities today.

This is an imperfect media to express emotions. My apologies for confusing the issue.

Justin, not to belabor the point, but can you define specifics as to the Christians “sucking” during the Dark Ages. It’s unfortunate but a lot of what we learned (or didn’t learn) in our history classes in school are not the truth or accurate. Most of what we were taught about the Christians during the Crusades was and is written more like the fare we’re served by today’s movies. Dark, evil Christians v long-suffering, noble Islamic warriors. The problem is, most of it isn’t true. So what we assume is the truth that both sides sucked and we are now jockeying for who sucked less, may not be the truth. I’ve got a degree in American and World history, and believe me, most of the “cultural” versions of historical events such as the Crusades, Salem Witch Trials, etc are very far from true. A lot like the “Evolution” information we were given in freshman biology that was taught as true, which even at the time it was printed in text books, was known to be false.

Christians don’t use the crusades as a justification for current acts the way Islamists do with the crusades or the fall of Andalusia.

I actually know an intellectual Muslim and I have a friend who is dating one. The Koran can be interpreted peacefully, it is simply very easy to interpret it violently. Sharia, as an example, merely means “law of the land”. To the intellectual Muslim this means one of two things; it means an ancient set of secular laws that had little to do with Islam and can be changed at a whim, or it means that the law of the nation you live in. Either way, it can be interpreted peacefully.

Interpretation is also difficult in that the ‘rules’ for reading and determining correct meaning where there is contradiction state that a longer the sura is the more relevant.

“An ancient set of “*SECULAR* rules that had little to do with Islam and can be changed at whim”, or the law of the land in which you live? Are you claiming that sharia doesn’t derive (in large part) from the Koran? Polygamy, for example? (There is, of course, a plethora of other examples.) And “the law of the land in which you live”? So…sharia includes US law, as it currently exists? So there is no reason for Moslems to try to change US law – or to have “sharia law” apply in their own courts and communities, as they have partially succeeded in doing in the UK and some other Western countries?
Does ANYONE else on this board take that seriously?

@Joe

Polygamy and slavery are both allowed in Jewish law. Further, genocide was actually justified during the conquering of the Holy Land. Yet, no one can argue that in the last 3000 years, Judaism has been the LEAST violent religion.

The East European Orthodox Christianity wasn’t much better than the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages, so that isn’t much of an argument. Those were the two major factions, with very little else.

You are correct. The conquering of the Holy Land I consider to be a dark time in Jewish history. The point I’m making is that no one should be trying to say who was better than anyone else in such terrible times. The Dark Ages are the times that I see people arguing over with Christianity and Islam, so that is what I was discussing. I have already pointed out that Islam is flawed because it seems unwilling to leave that savage mentality. The point is that no one should be arguing about who was better, because everyone was bad.

I agree with that fully.

The exact same should be done with the Dark Ages. It should be condemned at every turn, not defended as less worse. Then, all the triumphs of Christianity from the Renaissance onward can be lifted up to their true glory, and no one can accurately claim any form of self righteousness on the part of Christianity. Condemn the Dark Ages for both Christianity AND Islam, there is no point in trying to defend either. Only the petty could possibly see a reason to do so.

“I will not apologize for things that happened hundreds of years before I was born.”

I didn’t ask you to apologize for it, I asked you to condemn it. Major difference. No apology is needed for the actions of others. I don’t ask Germans today to apologize for the Holocaust. I do ask them to condemn Hitler and their forefathers who supported him. Christians should do the exact same thing with the Dark Ages. Don’t apologize for them, there is nothing to apologize for. It wasn’t you who created the Dark Ages, evil men who abused Christianity for power did that. But I do expect you to condemn those people, as their abuse of your religion hurts you as well.

“You can continue to expect that, Justin, but the Dark Ages are meaningless for today. I won’t condemn it because it is not as simple as that. And I think you keep bringing up Christianity in the Dark Ages in areas where it has no bearing so that you can condemn both Christianity and Islam, while Judism is not a part of the conversation.

Let us agree to disagree and drop this. It serve no purpose. ”

I think it serves a great purpose. I’m pointing out that any form of jockeying for position during the Dark Ages is petty and harms your credibility. Understand that I like Christianity. I firmly believe that the world would be a far worse place without it. Imagine what the world would be like if we lived in a culture where the elements were considered deities to be worshiped. Scientific inquiry would simply never have occurred without Christianity. However, every time I see a Christian defend the Cristian Dark Ages as less worse than Islam, my opinion of Christianity does go down. That’s like a German saying, “Well, at least we didn’t produce Stalin!” That kind of argument is as pathetic as it gets.

“I have not defended the Christian acts during the Dark Ages, nor will I. As I said, it is irrelevant.”

Did I say that you did? I’ve merely made a point that people have, and yes, on this blog and in its comment section.

“The only person that has been “jockeying for position” has been you. When I begin to defend the acts or say we were better than the Muslims, you may have a point. But I have done neither and will not allow you to slander me as such.”

I haven’t jockeyed for any position. I make no claims that my own faith is better than any other. I merely point out a simple fact about history that no one can deny.

“You may respond to this if you wish, but this conversation is OVER!”

Clearly.

Seriously, this is the best you can come up with to defend Muslism terrorists? The vast majority of Christians everywhere sondemn abortion clinic bombings, the murder of abortion doctors, and the non-Christian leftists IDIOTS that protest military funerals.

Have many Muslims condemn the terrorism and murder done in their name? A few? Are there ANY?

And we’ll use this as a standard. If as many Muslims condemn the terrorists as Christians that condemned the abortion doctors murder, I’ll concede the point to you.

Have fun!

Speaking as an outsider, I’ve seen Christiandom renounce anti-abortion violence. Heck, they tend to renounce all violence. I’ve also seen them renounce the disgusting acts of your fellow Democrat, Fred Phelps (spit, spit). Do I see Imams renouncing militant Islam? Not so much. Sure there are a few, but most remain silent on the subject or deflect.

You want a number? Um, how about all of them that don’t condone terrorist attacks..? What kind of supposed “Holy man” supports the cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians?
Btw, I didn’t contradict myself. Not so much doesn’t mean none.

That is a number close to a billion ya know. We both know that’s not gonna happen. And to add some balance to your request. Christ followers are not turning out in as large numbers as that either. To renounce clinic bombings.

So what do we do now?

The reason the more violent passages are taken over the peaceful passages is due to the length of the suras containing the passages. Mohamed had a couple of ‘visions’ that contradicted what he previously wrote, so he was forced to come up with a system for his followers to divine the more relevant meaning…that is covered in the Hadiths.

I’ve done a little more research on the Hadiths. I still need to chat with the intellectual, but I think I know where he will stand.

What I’ve found speaks of Quranists who reject the Hadiths entirely. First, the Quran bars other works from superseding it. So a true follower of Islam can’t follow the Hadiths. Second, the earliest Hadiths are dated to 90 years after the death of Mohammed. Clearly, the Hadiths are not the words of Mohammed, but were created by people to hijack the religion the same way the Catholic church hijacked Christianity in the Dark Ages. I know that in dealing with the Quran alone, you run into much, much fewer problems in Islam. From what I can find, it seems that rejection of the Hadiths as hokum is the strongest indicator of ‘progressive’ Islam. I’ll have to double check, but I’m almost certain that he’ll make an even more reasoned argument than what I’ve seen so far against the Hadiths.

If we logically assume that the Hadiths were a hijacking of the Quran, Islam loses much of its murderous bent. Things like Sharia law fall completely off the map. No more killing of apostates, no more stoning for adultery, no more death penalty for homosexuals. The extremism we see appears to come from the Hadiths almost exclusively. So the solution is not to attack Islam, but Sunnis and Shi’ites, where the majority of the world’s extremists come from.

http://birmingham.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/bh102710.htm

You misread again. WHY are they so afraid? If they are afraid, it’s because they know the tide is against them. Why is the tide against them? Because terrorist activity is a valid interpretation from the Koran. What do you not get about that?

Let me put it in terms I know you’ll get: If some extremist bombed an abortion clinic and I spoke out against it, but the community of Christians threatened me for it, I would conclude that the community of Christians approved of it, which means they found justification for it. That’s what happens in the Muslim community. Suicide bombings, Jew-hating and the like are perfectly acceptable in the Koran. Speaking out against it brings condemnation because no one can say, “Well, the Koran doesn’t approve of that.”