my kind of "hope and change"

[dbw]

I like guitars to build and play.  :icon_scratch:

Yeah. Guitars rock.

Guitars are an evil tool of the secret Marxist-Fascist-Islamo-Judeo-Christian-Obama-Bush-Cheney-Gore-Lieberman-FBI-ATF-CIA-NSA-DEA-IRS-NRA-NBC-NCAA conspiracy.  All real Americans should abandon this forum and join me at www.lute-forum.com!

 

[Superlizard]

That's just a silly statement.  They're suffering from the same subversion of their religion by a powerful few that Christianity suffered in the middle ages.  Their religion makes it a bit easier, but to say it is all their fault is just a massive oversimplification of a very complicated issue.

Gotta disagree.

No subversion/"hijacking" going on when those verses read what they read; along with the teachings of mohammed.  That book is
the source of all their woes, and their religious leaders teach what is found within.

OTOH, Christianity certainly was subverted in the middle ages (as you say) when one considers the teachings of Christ.

There is a very distinct, clear difference between teachings.  In essence, one promotes getting along with others, the other promotes fighting others.  And when it comes to spreading their respective religions, one promotes peaceful methods, the other promotes violence.

 

[DocNrock]

That's just a silly statement.  They're suffering from the same subversion of their religion by a powerful few that Christianity suffered in the middle ages.  Their religion makes it a bit easier, but to say it is all their fault is just a massive oversimplification of a very complicated issue.

Gotta disagree.

No subversion/"hijacking" going on when those verses read what they read; along with the teachings of mohammed.  That book is
the source of all their woes, and their religious leaders teach what is found within.

OTOH, Christianity certainly was subverted in the middle ages (as you say) when one considers the teachings of Christ.

There is a very distinct, clear difference between teachings.  In essence, one promotes getting along with others, the other promotes fighting others.  And when it comes to spreading their respective religions, one promotes peaceful methods, the other promotes violence.

I don't know about that. 

Firstly, the majority of Muslims are moderate and tolerant of other religions.  It is those who stick to such strict interpretations of the Koran (which are the minority) who are the oppressive and the jihadists.  This would be the same Sharia law.  Such an interpretation of Islam allows the oppressive to keep their populations in check and then teach the most impressionable (poor and poorly educated) to become the suicide bombers, etc. 

Secondly, go back and read those quotes that Guitlouie put up from the Bible.  Not too much difference in my mind from the Koran quotes you put up there.

 

[tfarny]

Here's a theory of international relations:
People all over the world basically want three square meals a day for themselves and their families and a reasonable assurance they'll have that in the future. They want a chance to earn a livelihood and feel their lives are useful. When there's not much prospect of that, young men are more likely to listen to all kinds of craziness, especially when the guys doing the talking can make a convincing argument that their poverty is caused by X, and X is vulnerable. When the crazies doing the talking have access to money and technology, you get the potential for real terrorism. A few places where all of those conditions exist: Palestine, Saudi Arabia, increasingly Pakistan. A few places that those conditions do not exist: Malaysia, Indonesia, the United States. All six countries have plenty of Muslims, but only some of them have produced lots of terrorists. Also helps explain why the more marginalized muslim communities in Europe have produced many more radicals than the less-marginalized ones in the US. Blaming it on specific religious teachings is totally and completely beside the point, if religions were that powerful we would have all slaughtered each other centuries ago.
Recent example to prove the point: N. Ireland through The Troubles.

 

[Superlizard]

I don't know about that. 

Firstly, the majority of Muslims are moderate and tolerant of other religions.

- That's a rather sweeping statement - the "majority"?  Where did you find the stats/facts on that?  I can agree if you said "some"... but the "majority", well there's gotta be an actual number to claim "majority".

- As well, the terms jizyah and dhimmitude explain the islamic "tolerance" of other religions quite succinctly.

It is those who stick to such strict interpretations of the Koran (which are the minority) who are the oppressive and the jihadists.

- So you agree that the ones who stick to the strict writings of the koran are the oppressive, nasty ones... therefore you must agree with my statement: 
"But guaranteed that the ones who are cutting off heads and blowing themselves up are the true followers... they are doing exactly
what their book tells them to do." - again, they are doing what the koran tells them to do.

- As well, those (the moderates) who do not do the suicide bombings, headcutters, etc... they cannot be considered true islamists, for they do not
do what the koran explicitly instructs them to do.

- Again, you claim "minority"... what is the actual number that you used (and source) to determine the majority and minority?  I have to check your claims; of course.

This would be the same Sharia law.  Such an interpretation of Islam allows the oppressive to keep their populations in check and then teach the most impressionable (poor and poorly educated) to become the suicide bombers, etc.

- The "interpretation" here is, again, exactly what the koran says.  There's no adding or subtracting words; there's no fluffing things up for Whirled Peas.
They are reading the koran exactly as it reads... is it logical (and practical) to expect people to take an instruction manual and insert their own stuff?  Absolutely not.

Secondly, go back and read those quotes that Guitlouie put up from the Bible.  Not too much difference in my mind from the Koran quotes you put up there.

- Apparently you missed my discourse on that.  To rehash - the main difference being that what is in the OT (bible) is past-tense (Jewish history)... whereas the commands found in the koran have no chronological context.

To add, humoring your "the majority of Muslims are moderate and tolerant of other religions" statement:

Let's say the majority are moderate and tolerant... the fact remains that out of 41 current wars, 31 of them involve islam.  History also shows over time the countless expansionist wars done in the name of mohammed (for example, did you know that Spain was almost entirely muslim at one time? "al-andalus")  Regardless of the number of moderates, islam has been a major pain in the world's side since its inception.  And it's no surprise, considering all it is a ripoff of jewish and christian history mixed in with a little zoroastrianism... done for the sole purpose of raising and controlling an army and conquering nations.

 

[Lucky #7]

Sorry, it has been subverted in a realistic sense.  No one stones adulterers as the Bible commands and moderate Muslims don't kill infidels.  The deficiency in Muslim culture to this point has been the outright refusal by the vast majority of moderates to speak out against extremists.  Yes, they live in 3rd world conditions.  To say that is however their fault is like saying it's Cubans fault that Castro took over or saying that it is Mexicans fault that their government is a shambles and one of the most corrupt in the world.  When these people come to power they don't let go and detractors are dealt with swiftly.  However, even Muslims in the US by and large won't speak against their extremist brothers and sisters.  For some reason, they take  a "you're not Muslim, you can't say anything stance, but I am Muslim which means I have to defend other Muslims to non-Muslims no matter what they do."  That needs to change.

 

[DocNrock]

I don't know about that. 

Firstly, the majority of Muslims are moderate and tolerant of other religions.

- That's a rather sweeping statement - the "majority"?  Where did you find the stats/facts on that?  I can agree if you said "some"... but the "majority", well there's gotta be an actual number to claim "majority".

- As well, the terms jizyah and dhimmitude explain the islamic "tolerance" of other religions quite succinctly.

It is those who stick to such strict interpretations of the Koran (which are the minority) who are the oppressive and the jihadists.

- So you agree that the ones who stick to the strict writings of the koran are the oppressive, nasty ones... therefore you must agree with my statement: 
"But guaranteed that the ones who are cutting off heads and blowing themselves up are the true followers... they are doing exactly
what their book tells them to do." - again, they are doing what the koran tells them to do.

- As well, those (the moderates) who do not do the suicide bombings, headcutters, etc... they cannot be considered true islamists, for they do not
do what the koran explicitly instructs them to do.

- Again, you claim "minority"... what is the actual number that you used (and source) to determine the majority and minority?  I have to check your claims; of course.

This would be the same Sharia law.  Such an interpretation of Islam allows the oppressive to keep their populations in check and then teach the most impressionable (poor and poorly educated) to become the suicide bombers, etc.

- The "interpretation" here is, again, exactly what the koran says.  There's no adding or subtracting words; there's no fluffing things up for Whirled Peas.
They are reading the koran exactly as it reads... is it logical (and practical) to expect people to take an instruction manual and insert their own stuff?  Absolutely not.

Secondly, go back and read those quotes that Guitlouie put up from the Bible.  Not too much difference in my mind from the Koran quotes you put up there.

- Apparently you missed my discourse on that.  To rehash - the main difference being that what is in the OT (bible) is past-tense (Jewish history)... whereas the commands found in the koran have no chronological context.

To add, humoring your "the majority of Muslims are moderate and tolerant of other religions" statement:

Let's say the majority are moderate and tolerant... the fact remains that out of 41 current wars, 31 of them involve islam.  History also shows over time the countless expansionist wars done in the name of mohammed (for example, did you know that Spain was almost entirely muslim at one time? "al-andalus")  Regardless of the number of moderates, islam has been a major pain in the world's side since its inception.  And it's no surprise, considering all it is a ripoff of jewish and christian history mixed in with a little zoroastrianism... done for the sole purpose of raising and controlling an army and conquering nations.

One doesn't need to quote numbers when it is clear that the majority of Muslims are not suicide bombers.

Also, your discourse on Guitlouie's passages from the Bible completely misses the point.  The Bible, particularly the Old Testament was written ages ago.  Um, so was the Koran.  If one was to take those biblical quotes literally, then it would be read as God telling us to go out and kill and/or enslave the others in service to our Lord.  Similar to the Koran.

 

[DocNrock]

Here's a theory of international relations:
People all over the world basically want three square meals a day for themselves and their families and a reasonable assurance they'll have that in the future. They want a chance to earn a livelihood and feel their lives are useful. When there's not much prospect of that, young men are more likely to listen to all kinds of craziness, especially when the guys doing the talking can make a convincing argument that their poverty is caused by X, and X is vulnerable. When the crazies doing the talking have access to money and technology, you get the potential for real terrorism. A few places where all of those conditions exist: Palestine, Saudi Arabia, increasingly Pakistan. A few places that those conditions do not exist: Malaysia, Indonesia, the United States. All six countries have plenty of Muslims, but only some of them have produced lots of terrorists. Also helps explain why the more marginalized muslim communities in Europe have produced many more radicals than the less-marginalized ones in the US. Blaming it on specific religious teachings is totally and completely beside the point, if religions were that powerful we would have all slaughtered each other centuries ago.
Recent example to prove the point: N. Ireland through The Troubles.

Yes.

Sorry, it has been subverted in a realistic sense.  No one stones adulterers as the Bible commands and moderate Muslims don't kill infidels.  The deficiency in Muslim culture to this point has been the outright refusal by the vast majority of moderates to speak out against extremists.  Yes, they live in 3rd world conditions.  To say that is however their fault is like saying it's Cubans fault that Castro took over or saying that it is Mexicans fault that their government is a shambles and one of the most corrupt in the world.  When these people come to power they don't let go and detractors are dealt with swiftly.  However, even Muslims in the US by and large won't speak against their extremist brothers and sisters.  For some reason, they take  a "you're not Muslim, you can't say anything stance, but I am Muslim which means I have to defend other Muslims to non-Muslims no matter what they do."  That needs to change.

And yes again.

 

[guitlouie]

When there's not much prospect of that, young men are more likely to listen to all kinds of craziness, especially when the guys doing the talking can make a convincing argument that their poverty is caused by X, and X is vulnerable. When the crazies doing the talking have access to money and technology, you get the potential for real terrorism.

Please don't forget the "White Power" movement right here in the US, who, by the by use christian teachings to justify their desire to eradicate all kinds of people from "God's Country". 

 

[Superlizard]

Sorry, it has been subverted in a realistic sense.  No one stones adulterers as the Bible commands and moderate Muslims don't kill infidels.

Where exactly does Christ (christians follow christ's teachings) say in the bible to stone adulterers?

You're correct - moderate muslims don't kill infidels... but then again, moderate muslims aren't true muslims, because they don't follow what the koran tells them to do.

  The deficiency in Muslim culture to this point has been the outright refusal by the vast majority of moderates to speak out against extremists.

Correct - they don't speak out, but even if they did speak out against the "extremists" (or true followers), it wouldn't do any good, because what is written in the koran has been written.

Yes, they live in 3rd world conditions.  To say that is however their fault is like saying it's Cubans fault that Castro took over or saying that it is Mexicans fault that their government is a shambles and one of the most corrupt in the world.  When these people come to power they don't let go and detractors are dealt with swiftly.  However, even Muslims in the US by and large won't speak against their extremist brothers and sisters.

Correct - "these people" that you speak of certainly don't let go and detractors certainly get dealt with... but they also follow the koran & the teachings of mohammed, and what it instructs them to do... therefore the root of all these problems lies in the koran and teachings of mohammed.

The "moderate" muslim takes out what he doesn't like in the koran, & he takes out what he doesn't like when it comes to using mohammed as a role model - i.e. picks and chooses.  Which of course is a good thing for the rest of the world, but nevertheless, they are not true followers.

 

[Superlizard]

One doesn't need to quote numbers when it is clear that the majority of Muslims are not suicide bombers.

One doesn't need to do suicide bombings to be considered a true follower, either.

Since you haven't been paying attention to those koranic verses I posted, here's a big one:

[49:15] The true believers are those that have faith in Allah and His apostle, and never doubt; and who fight with their wealth and with their persons in the cause of Allah. Such are those whose faith is true.

Who's to say how many islamists fight with their wealth by giving to charities that are fronts (fact)?  Who's to say how many islamists there are who don't blow themselves up, but rather procure said explosives? Who's to say how many islamists there are who offer other services to aid al-queda, et al, etc etc...

Nobody really knows... and nobody really knows conversely, either.

So for you to make the claim that the majority of muslims are moderate just because "most don't blow themselves up" is specious logic.  The truth is you don't know; you're just making a sweeping statement based on anything but an actual number to work with.

Even with all my fact-mongering (lol), I wouldn't dare to put forth such an assumption.

Also, your discourse on Guitlouie's passages from the Bible completely misses the point.  The Bible, particularly the Old Testament was written ages ago.  Um, so was the Koran.  If one was to take those biblical quotes literally, then it would be read as God telling us to go out and kill and/or enslave the others in service to our Lord.  Similar to the Koran.

No, it completely hits the point. 

Where you are wrong is making the illogical assumption that just because so-and-so book was written ages ago, that somehow that automatically "proves" that said book was written
in a historical fashion when it comes to commandments and religious instruction.

Example (using one that was posted previously):

20:10-17 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . . This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
    However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.

To play Cap'n Obvious here, there are no Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, etc today.  This is obviously (and blatantly) a historical reference.

Now, let's contrast that with:

[49:15] The true believers are those that have faith in Allah and His apostle, and never doubt; and who fight with their wealth and with their persons in the cause of Allah. Such are those whose faith is true.

Where is the historical context with that verse?

Or how about this one:

[47:3] When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.

Again, where is the historical context with that verse?

Show me it.

========

The other mistake you (and others) are making in using christianity as a "comparison" (a mistake in the first place, since we're talking about islam, not x-tianity, but I humor you nevertheless) is the fact that you are making claims of commands/instructions that Christ never actually taught.  Christians are called so because they follow christ and his teachings.

(BTW I've already challenged others a few times to post "where christ said that".  So far, no responses.)

And again, regardless of "interpretation", "moderates", "percentage of moderates" etc... whatever:

In 31 of the 41 current wars today, islam is involved.  Not judaism, not christianity, etc... . 
This stat itself proves that while not all who practice islam are true followers, there's enough of them out there to cause serious consideration.

To add, tfarny makes the claim that it's not the (islamic) religious teachings to blame, but rather poverty (which you agreed to).  To that I say:

- then what is the point of chanting "allahu akhbar" while sawing off some victim's head or doing suicide bombing runs?
- if poverty is the root cause of all these nasty things they're doing, then why don't we have poor people cutting heads and blowing themselves up on a regular basis; chanting "allahu akbar" over here?

Certainly poverty doesn't help... but it definitely isn't the root cause - their religion is.  "Come blow yourself up in the name of allah and receive your 72 virgins afterwards..."

If anything, the poverty is a symptom of the (root) religious disease.

 

[Superlizard]

When there's not much prospect of that, young men are more likely to listen to all kinds of craziness, especially when the guys doing the talking can make a convincing argument that their poverty is caused by X, and X is vulnerable. When the crazies doing the talking have access to money and technology, you get the potential for real terrorism.

Please don't forget the "White Power" movement right here in the US, who, by the by use christian teachings to justify their desire to eradicate all kinds of people from "God's Country". 

The funny thing with that is that the teachings of Christ never mention anything which is in alignment with the white power movement.

OTOH, muslims doing mean nasty things, and the teachings found in the koran and by mohammed... align perfectly.

 

[Lucky #7]

Sorry, it doesn't specifically say they should be stoned, just that they must die.

Exodus 20:14 "You shall not commit adultery."

Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

 

[Superlizard]

Sorry, it doesn't specifically say they should be stoned, just that they must die.

Exodus 20:14 "You shall not commit adultery."

Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

Excuse me, are you saying Christ said those things?

Remember, I asked you this:

Sorry, it has been subverted in a realistic sense.  No one stones adulterers as the Bible commands and moderate Muslims don't kill infidels.

Where exactly does Christ (christians follow christ's teachings) say in the bible to stone adulterers?

 

[Lucky #7]

Quit switching.  If you're looking for quotes from Christ, then don't quote the Koran and then ask for a quote from Christ.  Point is, that moderates don't perform every damned thing in their respective religious texts.  If you're going to take the definition of modern day true believer from zealots then your Christian definition had better come from the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[Superlizard]

Quit switching.  If you're looking for quotes from Christ, then don't quote the Koran and then ask for a quote from Christ.  Point is, that moderates don't perform every damned thing in their respective religious texts.  If you're going to take the definition of modern day true believer from zealots then your Christian definition had better come from the Westboro Baptist Church.

Quit switching?  You're kidding right?

Arent you the one using christianity as supposed support for your argument?  (why I have no idea, because it doesn't disprove anything)

Again, if you're sticking to your x-tianity contrast - where exactly does Christ (christians follow christ's teachings) say in the bible to stone adulterers?

EDIT:

Or for that matter, a modern day true Christian believer/zealot = Westboro Baptist Church?

Are you even familiar with christ's teachings?  Feel free to point out any verse/command that christ spoke that aligns with the WBC's garbage.

 

[Lucky #7]

Already said it said nothing about stoning.  As for Christ, no he didn't say that.  It is however entirely relevant what the main religious text of the Christian religion says when one is acting like that is completely damning of the religion as a whole.  There are plenty of things that Christians did that the Bible commanded 2000 years ago that aren't done anymore or looked upon with near as much disdane.  The same can be said of Islam.  Saying that because the book says from a strict interpretation they aren't true believers is absurd.  Things change.  They have changed.  Merely because an extreme group of believers remain does not mean that they determine who is a believer and who is not.  Quite frankly, the reality is that the most common interpretation is the prevailing interpretation.  In this case it is not the extreme interpretation that is prevailing.

 

[dbw]

Christ never said anything about homosexuality as far as I know.  So why do Christians care about it?  Because they cherry-pick the Old Testament...

 

[Soylent]

ooooooh I love buildin guitars yeaaaah...  :dontknow:

 

[m4rk0]

Recent example to prove the point: N. Ireland through The Troubles.

After living in Ireland for many years, and visiting northern ireland many times, I always get slightly annoyed by how the troubles have been labled as protestant vs catholic. I think that when you get to the root of most 'religious' wars, it will mostly come down to 'give us the land back that you took many centuries ago'.
also, I love building guitars and am very excited about putting luke's guitar together this week!