Christianity - Plague of the MIND

[thalbergmad]

Trying to "spread the word of the Good Book" is something that happened back in Biblical times when NO ONE KNEW ABOUT JESUS (just something that has always bothered me  ).

It is still happening now. Barely a month goes by during the summer when my doorbell is not pressed by some happy clappy, tambo banging, sandal wearing, bead juggling Jesus freak. I would have thought they would have learned not to bother me by now.

Thal 

[Essyne]

Yes, and that is where the stupidity comes in. What I meant was that Christianity is something that people (for the most part) have a common knowledge of. To clarify, I meant that that's the only time that it SHOULD happen; if people know, then it's up to them.

You can't force faith. It's like trying to force someone to be a different sexual orientation. It just doesn't work.

hehe - "bead juggling". . . .

I just told them that I was Jewish and they left me alone after that (Yes, I'm going to hell, but I found it quite amusing).

[thalberg]

Essyne, your perspective on Islam is fantastic in my opinion.  Because of course, I agree with it.

Thalbergmad, I understand your annoyance at Christianity.  Christians often do push their beliefs on others and get involved in their business.  I can fully understand the annoyance.

What bothers me about Islam is the violence.  Muslims bombed a bunch of Buddhist statues that were thousands of years old.  Buddhists did not retaliate.  Even the Jews, after the holocaust, never even had one suicide bomber.  Among religions, I believe Islam stands alone in their endorsement of violence as a means of spreading their faith.  This is not misinformation.  Even the Pope, who is one of the most scholarly and learned men in the world, has addressed their use of violence to spread their faith.

[retrouvailles]

Yes, I'm going to hell

Aren't we all.

[gyzzzmo]

Essyne, your perspective on Islam is fantastic in my opinion.  Because of course, I agree with it.

Thalbergmad, I understand your annoyance at Christianity.  Christians often do push their beliefs on others and get involved in their business.  I can fully understand the annoyance.

What bothers me about Islam is the violence.  Muslims bombed a bunch of Buddhist statues that were thousands of years old.  Buddhists did not retaliate.  Even the Jews, after the holocaust, never even had one suicide bomber.  Among religions, I believe Islam stands alone in their endorsement of violence as a means of spreading their faith.  This is not misinformation.  Even the Pope, who is one of the most scholarly and learned men in the world, has addressed their use of violence to spread their faith.

I think the problem of the Koran is that it hardly has been changed during time. If you read it, you'll notice that alot of passages/quotes in the Koran are pretty barbaric (like non-believers should burn in hell etc.). I think that in the early versions of the Bible same type of texts were used, but the Bible has been changed alot, especially in the middle ages.
Islam people base their believes on original ancient texts, and people who cant place this in the right perspective are much more likely to get more radical believes.
Christians especially shouldn't critisize Islam, if they remember what kind of slaughter they've done in africa and during those 'noble' actions to reclaim jeruzalem.

Yews however dont use suicide bombers no. BUT. If you critically look at what they're doing to Palestina now, and in the past, they're a bunch of barbarians too.
Only radical islam people are a threat to other people, but Israelians collectivly agree with the current politics of Israel wich makes them even worse.

Ban religion, make peace! :p

[Essyne]

The Giant Buddhas (2005 Documentary). Here's a link to it on imbd : https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478157/

You should watch it. My mother is Buddhist, and she has always told me about such violence, but hearing about it and witnessing it are two entirely different things. This is the face of religious extremism. This is the face of hatred. This is the face of the barbarity of Islam. It was condoned. It was unprovoked. It was deplorable.

Disgusting. Made me shed hot tears of complete and utter disgust.

~Ess~

[thalbergmad]

What bothers me about Islam is the violence.  Muslims bombed a bunch of Buddhist statues that were thousands of years old.  Buddhists did not retaliate.  Even the Jews, after the holocaust, never even had one suicide bomber.  Among religions, I believe Islam stands alone in their endorsement of violence as a means of spreading their faith.  This is not misinformation.  Even the Pope, who is one of the most scholarly and learned men in the world, has addressed their use of violence to spread their faith.

I do understand what you are saying, but if you have modern weapons and a huge army, you don't need suicide bombers.

The Iraqi people have had their Country invaded twice in recent history and hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been killed. They cannot fight back directly as they have simply not got the firepower. If your Country was invaded for whatever reason, justified or not, and your whole family was wiped out and home destroyed, would you not be slightly pissed off? Would you not attack your enemies by what ever means was at your disposal?

I do not accept that Islam is intrinsicly violent, or that  violence is generally used to spread faith. I also think that it is important to note that not all sects within the religion follow the Koran to the letter. Regretfully, all the media seems to focus on is the fanatical side, which obviously sells papers. However, this also causes divisions, general mistrust and if we are not careful, further conflict.

As for the Pope, he used to be in charge of what was left of the Inquisition. I would expect nothing less from him.

As i said before, I do not care what Muslims do in their own Country, I only care what they do in mine. If they follow the laws of my land and wish to live in peace, i have no problem with their presence. The small minority that don't should be deported with no trial and bollox to the Human Rights Act.

Thal

[ahinton]

I disagree with some of the way that Thal expresses himself but not with some of the principle behind of what he writes. The problem with so much of this is in the creation and development of proud stand-offs, whether it be Christian, Muslim, atheist or whomsoever; once this kind of thing begins to take root, only trouble and destruction can ever result, as we have seen in so many instances. We all know that there are cases where the application of alleged Islamic law results in the most grossly inhuman treatment of women but, whilst we deprecate that, we must recognise that not all Muslims behave in this way towards women. Likewise, not all Muslims persecute homosexuals of either sex. Frankly, the history of "Christian" behaviour in various places of the years has embraced not dissimilar treatment of women and homosexuals, so Christians have no cause to feel self-righteous about this kind of thing. A Muslim I know once said to me "if you paid me a million dollars, I wouldn't behave like a Jew - and if you paid me two million dollars, I wouldn't dream of persecuting one". There needs to be a whole lot of retraction and tolerance, without which people of different religions and none will never manage to live with and learn from one another without losing their individual identities; if this kind of thing doesn't establish itself, we'll all have major problems, whatever our religious beliefs or otherwise and wherever we may live.

Without saying where this was, I am reminded of a tourist in a small town where I spent a day some years ago who asked for directions to the mosque and was given them with the words "and when you round that corner, you can't miss it - it's almost opposite the synagogue, just up the road from the Roman Catholic Church"...

Best,

Alistair

[shortyshort]

I disagree with some of the way that Thal expresses himself but not with some of the principle behind of what he writes. The problem with so much of this is in the creation and development of proud stand-offs, whether it be Christian, Muslim, atheist or whomsoever; once this kind of thing begins to take root, only trouble and destruction can ever result, as we have seen in so many instances. We all know that there are cases where the application of alleged Islamic law results in the most grossly inhuman treatment of women but, whilst we deprecate that, we must recognise that not all Muslims behave in this way towards women. Likewise, not all Muslims persecute homosexuals of either sex. Frankly, the history of "Christian" behaviour in various places of the years has embraced not dissimilar treatment of women and homosexuals, so Christians have no cause to feel self-righteous about this kind of thing. A Muslim I know once said to me "if you paid me a million dollars, I wouldn't behave like a Jew - and if you paid me two million dollars, I wouldn't dream of persecuting one". There needs to be a whole lot of retraction and tolerance, without which people of different religions and none will never manage to live with and learn from one another without losing their individual identities; if this kind of thing doesn't establish itself, we'll all have major problems, whatever our religious beliefs or otherwise and wherever we may live.

Without saying where this was, I am reminded of a tourist in a small town where I spent a day some years ago who asked for directions to the mosque and was given them with the words "and when you round that corner, you can't miss it - it's almost opposite the synagogue, just up the road from the Roman Catholic Church"...

Best,

Alistair

Yes, but Thal's version is easier to understand

[thalbergmad]

Thanks shorty, but i feel AH is on a slightly higher intellectual level than most of us .

Thal

[shortyshort]

Ah, is that what you call it?

[pianogeek_cz]

Heh. What a treat this thread is...
The prize for making sense goes to...
lostinidlewonder.

I have been granted the great chance to attend lectures by this wise man. Just read the essays, you'll get the idea...

[ahinton]

OK then Thal, shorty et al (if there is any al); let's put it in simple bite-sized chunks. Certain Christians and perhaps a larger proportion of (though by no means all) Muslims live by a sense of prideful superiority along the lines of "my religion is right and your isn't", supporting that arrogance in some cases by violence and other inhuman behaviour. Are you with me so far? This is indefensible and destructive. It's a matter of degree, of course - the "Jehovah's Witness" that invades one's privacy by banging on one's door and wittering on without invitation is one thing and the religious fanatic that kills by means of suicide bombs is another, but they are equally anti-human, unwarranted and unwelcome in principle. They do not contribute to society but detract from it. It's as simple as that. No high-minded intellectualism. Just plain human decency and common sense that can recognise its opposite in a mirror. I am, as you know, not anti-Christian, anti-Islamic or against any other religion per se, but I do see the point of whoever it was that claimed that, had Christ witnessed the actions of some of the Christians of later centuries, he'd have sought to have "Christianity" banned.

Best,

Alistair

[shortyshort]

OK then Thal, shorty et al (if there is any al); let's put it in simple bite-sized chunks. Certain Christians and perhaps a larger proportion of (though by no means all) Muslims live by a sense of prideful superiority along the lines of "my religion is right and your isn't", supporting that arrogance in some cases by violence and other inhuman behaviour. Are you with me so far? This is indefensible and destructive. It's a matter of degree, of course - the "Jehovah's Witness" that invades one's privacy by banging on one's door and wittering on without invitation is one thing and the religious fanatic that kills by means of suicide bombs is another, but they are equally anti-human, unwarranted and unwelcome in principle. They do not contribute to society but detract from it. It's as simple as that. No high-minded intellectualism. Just plain human decency and common sense that can recognise its opposite in a mirror. I am, as you know, not anti-Christian, anti-Islamic or against any other religion per se, but I do see the point of whoever it was that claimed that, had Christ witnessed the actions of some of the Christians of later centuries, he'd have sought to have "Christianity" banned.

Best,

Alistair

Much clearer, thanks. 

[ahinton]

Much clearer, thanks. 

Well, I do hope so...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

but I do see the point of whoever it was that claimed that, had Christ witnessed the actions of some of the Christians of later centuries, he'd have sought to have "Christianity" banned.

Perhaps he would wish he never started it.

Oops, I forgot, he didn't.

Thal

[thalberg]

I do not accept that Islam is intrinsicly violent, or that  violence is generally used to spread faith.

As for the Pope, he used to be in charge of what was left of the Inquisition. I would expect nothing less from him.


Thal

If you do not accept that Islam is intrinsically violent, then I would encourage you to research that matter.  It is an official, declared belief of Islam that their faith is to be spread by the sword.  Of course you can always find Muslims who will disown this, but it's the official beliefs that count in my mind.

As for the Pope and the Inquisition, yes, the Catholic church has been guilty of wrongdoing, but Inquisitions are not a declared and official part of Catholicism any more than water boarding is an official part of being American.  In every religion, every country, every group of people, you just cannot avoid having some groups and some leaders who do horrible things.  But what sets Islam apart is that their belief is part of their faith rather than a result of the actions of specific people.

[thalberg]

And one more thing--

Discussions on Christianity get extremely hostile, but this discussion seems to have deliberate and careful politeness and rationality to it.

Which brings me back to an earlier point, which is that Christianity seems to strike more of a nerve and produce more hostile reactions than other religions.

[thalbergmad]

Discussions on Christianity get extremely hostile, but this discussion seems to have deliberate and careful politeness and rationality to it.

I can change that if you want to, but i fail to see the point.

I admit i used to get extremely hostile, but that was more because of Pianistimo and not Christianity.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

If you do not accept that Islam is intrinsically violent, then I would encourage you to research that matter. 

I have not finished researching Christianity yet, but I might do some mild reading.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Which brings me back to an earlier point, which is that Christianity seems to strike more of a nerve and produce more hostile reactions than other religions.

Due to the huge American and European presence here, I would have thought that a largish majority were Christians, which might explain the plethora of threads about the subject.

In any case, most of the hostility was only between a small group of people.

Thal

[maul]

I have not finished researching Christianity yet...

Simply take an electric drill, put it to your temple, and clasp the button with some pressure toward the skull. Research complete.

[pianogeek_cz]

If you do not accept that Islam is intrinsically violent, then I would encourage you to research that matter.  It is an official, declared belief of Islam that their faith is to be spread by the sword.  Of course you can always find Muslims who will disown this, but it's the official beliefs that count in my mind.

Now, careful here. The concept of "declared by Islam" is rather misleading. There is no such thing as a central authority in the islamic world - only more or less respected figures (which is one of the reasons why interfaith dialogue with the islamic world is rather difficult), of which none is respected universally. Now, I'm not saying that the majority of islamic authority (again, authority as in "a significant number of people believe what he says") is or, for that matter, isn't violent. Only that talking about an "official belief" is not applicable - there is no such thing as an official islamic theological institution.

Again, that is not to say that Islam as a fundamentally underlying cultural causa efficiens does -not- endorse violence in the majority of cases, I'm only trying to clear institutional matters up a bit.

As for the Pope and the Inquisition, yes, the Catholic church has been guilty of wrongdoing, but Inquisitions are not a declared and official part of Catholicism any more than water boarding is an official part of being American.

As far as the various inquisitions go, this is a good place to start.

[thalbergmad]

Simply take an electric drill, put it to your temple, and clasp the button with some pressure toward the skull. Research complete.

OK, i will let you know how i got on tomorrow.

Thal

[Essyne]

I ask all of you who say that Islam is not an "intrinsically violent" Religion : Why did it originate in the first place? What was the Prophet's motive? A little history, my friends? Opinions are great, but the basis of the Religion is in the Qu'ran. Any honest, non-brainwashed Muslim will concur (and those are few and far between) that this whole "we're poor, innocent, persecuted Muslims" thing is a facade.

Some recommended reading : Read The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She has mannnyyy other books out there that denounce Islam as well. What a brave woman. May whichever "God" bless her.

[thalbergmad]

Any honest, non-brainwashed Muslim will concur (and those are few and far between)

I do not see how you can actually state that, unless you have met a few hundred million.

Thal

[Essyne]

I'm a very accomplished young woman.   

No, you're right, that's just one of my little "opinions" - it seems that today I play the role of the hypocrite. 

~Essy~

[thalbergmad]

I think it might be acceptable to say that perhaps Muslims are more fervent believers than Christians, if that is the correct word.

If you criticised the Bible to a Christian, he would turn the other cheek. Do the same with the Koran to a Muslim and perhaps he would attach electrodes to your testicles.

I do not intend to test my theory outside of the local Mosque tomorrow, but it is my perception that they are less tolerant to non believers.

Thal

[pianogeek_cz]

I do understand what you are saying, but if you have modern weapons and a huge army, you don't need suicide bombers.

Ad 1: What would you need them for? (see later part of post)
Ad 2: Suicide bombing -is- an ideological phoenomenon, or, more precisely, ideology is the driving motivation. You wouldn't blow yourself up in the middle of a marketplace if someone - possibly someone dead for roughly 1350 years - didn't tell you it's a great way of getting to a big celestial... party.
Now, I'm by no means qualified to ascertain how exactly and which ideology is responsible for the current (for it is a relatively modern phoenomenon - no more than two or three decades, I think. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.) suicide bombings and the general cult of martyrdom, but I think that reading this essay may provide some insight.

(On a side note, is anyone actually reading the stuff I post a link to?)

The Iraqi people have had their Country invaded twice in recent history and hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been killed. They cannot fight back directly as they have simply not got the firepower. If your Country was invaded for whatever reason, justified or not, and your whole family was wiped out and home destroyed, would you not be slightly pissed off? Would you not attack your enemies by what ever means was at your disposal?

There's the crucial distinction.
At this point, yes, you are pissed off and you probably feel like blowing up a bunch of whoever gets in the way, preferrably those who fired the shots. I think I can at least superficially understand that (as in that I see the reason; I can't - and I hope none of us here can - relate to that situation).
You would attack those that pissed you off. You probably wouldn't pause to think who is the real enemy. (That sounds terribly like a propagandistic phrase, but it -is- worth considering.) Now, in the case of Iraq, what is your desired state of affairs? Which partaking party is the one that is most likely to achieve such a state?
(The answer to this question is not the point of my response.)
Thinking in the big picture, that is difficult. Especially when it means setting very, very grave emotions aside. The fact that it is so difficult and a harsh demand as well doesn't make it any less
necessary for a decision about allegiance to be made responsibly.
I definitely don't want to dismiss grief as something irrelevant. I only want to stress that the emotional state is does not in any way dismiss the duty to decide responsibly (though it may be responsible to delay a decision if you're not feeling up to it - again, circumstances differ).

(By the way, to the invasion part... There have been invasions for good reasons, to good ends, and there have been those to bad ends and with a truckload of bad reasons. Ends by themselves do not justify the means, but that doesn't mean that the ends are not important when formulating a stance to some event. Asking "what happened" is only the barest necessity, not a sufficient question!)

[thalbergmad]

You wouldn't blow yourself up in the middle of a marketplace if someone - possibly someone dead for roughly 1350 years - didn't tell you it's a great way of getting to a big celestial... party.

I am not so sure about that, but i have never talked to anyone who was considering doing it. Whatever is true, it is still an excellent way of fighting back against an enemy if you lack the firepower for a direct confrontation.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

(On a side note, is anyone actually reading the stuff I post a link to?)

Not me, I prefer posters to use their own words.

Thal

[Essyne]

. . . . or at least c/p them and add quotation marks. . . .

Easier on those w/ dial-up connection  .

[pianogeek_cz]

Not me, I prefer posters to use their own words.

Sorry, Thal, but this is plain laziness. I'm trying to contribute, even if it's just providing stuff important to the discussion, and you dismiss it as... what? I think I have the right to feel insulted (I don't, but that's not the point).
I - or you, for that matter - hardly have enough knowledge to write a thirty-page historical research on Wahhabism. I didn't use the essay as an argument, to stress my point, I only provided access to information I deem relevant to the discussion.
It's not a matter of my own words, it's a matter of informed/uninformed.

I am not so sure about that, but i have never talked to anyone who was considering doing it. Whatever is true, it is still an excellent way of fighting back against an enemy if you lack the firepower for a direct confrontation.

Thal

Neither have I, but I think there is plenty of evidence that humans generally want, given the choice, to stay alive as long as possible... The only thing that makes them think otherwise is ideology (early Christian martyrdom in aincient Rome, for a less controversial example).
But then again, it's an assumption without any real research behind it... I would need to do some digging in arabistics and psychology to be able to come up with something substantial, and I don't have the time or energy to do that.

[ramseytheii]

Ad 1: What would you need them for? (see later part of post)
Ad 2: Suicide bombing -is- an ideological phoenomenon, or, more precisely, ideology is the driving motivation. You wouldn't blow yourself up in the middle of a marketplace if someone - possibly someone dead for roughly 1350 years - didn't tell you it's a great way of getting to a big celestial... party.
Now, I'm by no means qualified to ascertain how exactly and which ideology is responsible for the current (for it is a relatively modern phoenomenon - no more than two or three decades, I think. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.) suicide bombings and the general cult of martyrdom, but I think that reading this essay may provide some insight.

I think those trying to prove Islam is inherently violent are making an absurd and uninformed argument.  You essentially have one quote to back it up, and you probably don't even know where that quote comes from.  Do you know the difference between the Qu'ran and the Sharia, without resorting to wikipedia?  Do you know the difference between the Nation of Islam, and Islam?  What about the difference between Sunni and Shiite?  If anyone arguing in this thread that Islam is inherently evil can give substantial answers to any of those questions, without going onto wikipedia and doing a shameless copy and paste, I will be very surprised.

But I couldn't let this one go, because if you think suicide as a means of attack is unique to Islamic tribes you are only fooling yourself.  I can name 5 historical incidents of suicide attacks that have nothing to do with Islam, and in fact, most of them derive from Central European, Christian nations (3 out of 5).  The others are Orthodox Russia, and heathen Japan. 

Please stick to what you know, and if you feel uncomfortable because your religion is being insulted, don't try and compensate by insulting other religions.  Defend yourself and your religion.  And if you can't, well you're in a sorry state.

Walter Ramsey

[Essyne]

inherently evil

Not evil, my friend - just violent - but what religion that declares that "this way is the only way" (i.e. all of them) does not have violent tendancies? It's about interpretation and perception (Brings up memories of a wacked-out church that got a singing job at about a year ago where the preacher's entire sermon was based on comparing MARVIN ZINDLER to JC. . .). Unfortunately, the books are not 100% applicable to modern-day society, as blind followers of the Books choose to believe. It's just a lose-lose situation.

EDIT : "all of them" - meant the 2 religions mentioned here - not talking about smaller sects (the more spiritual, knowledge-seeking sects, who will go outside the small parameters of one book's text),  like Gnostic Christianity, etc. . . .

[thalbergmad]

I - or you, for that matter - hardly have enough knowledge to write a thirty-page historical research on Wahhabism.

I could not write a 33 page essay on any subject, but link posting is not the same as reading the words of the person you are conversing with.

We can all post links to knowledgable people, but perhaps if we have to, we should not be commenting in the first place.

Thal

[maul]

You guys need to watch some of these videos:

Watch the whole series if you want to see some legendary ownage.

[pianogeek_cz]

I could not write a 33 page essay on any subject, but link posting is not the same as reading the words of the person you are conversing with.

No, it definitely isn't, but it's just as necessary, unless you want to cut-paste these essays in here. (In my opinion, it tends to be more valuable for those involved, though.) You need scientific reference for a well-informed discussion about a topic like this. Otherwise it's all vague assumptions.

We can all post links to knowledgable people, but perhaps if we have to, we should not be commenting in the first place.

Thal

Can you? Go ahead! I'm looking forward to it. (No sarcasm intended!)
Gah. It's a piece of relevant information, and the more relevant information, the better. Either you want to know more about what you're commenting on and [critically] use whatever source you have, or you don't. I didn't have to post it. However, I'm quite certain that if you actually read it, it would substantially improve your understanding of the topic. Which is always a good thing. So, posting the link is a valuable contribution.
Do you think you know enough?

One point for me, though: I'll try to provide a short annotation to the links I post.

I think those trying to prove Islam is inherently violent are making an absurd and uninformed argument. You essentially have one quote to back it up, and you probably don't even know where that quote comes from.

Huh? I'm not trying to prove Islam inherently violent. I'm only asking (or pointing to) questions that I don't really know good and thorough answers to, and I hope someone more knowledgeable around here might (a) provide a well-researched summary, (b) provide some research sources. I'm trying to learn here, not necessarily convince someone!

I'm very well aware that talking about "Islam" as a whole is correct only when talking in very, very general terms (as in "Islam is monotheistic").

By the way, what does it mean for Islam to be "inherently [insert your adjective here]"? What is Islam? Big question, and I think it has to do with some paradigms of how we of the western culture and philosophical tradition percieve what religion is.

Do you know the difference between the Qu'ran and the Sharia, without resorting to wikipedia? Do you know the difference between the Nation of Islam, and Islam? What about the difference between Sunni and Shiite? If anyone arguing in this thread that Islam is inherently evil can give substantial answers to any of those questions, without going onto wikipedia and doing a shameless copy and paste, I will be very surprised.

Substantial answers? Well, I do roughly know the difference*, but no, I'm unable to provide a well-researched answer. When I find the time, I'll work on it.
But - if I don't know something and I want to, heck, what's wrong with doing some research? And no, with very few exceptions, wikipedia doesn't qualify as good research. It is nothing more but a more or less solid starting point.

But I couldn't let this one go, because if you think suicide as a means of attack is unique to Islamic tribes you are only fooling yourself. I can name 5 historical incidents of suicide attacks that have nothing to do with Islam, and in fact, most of them derive from Central European, Christian nations (3 out of 5). The others are Orthodox Russia, and heathen Japan.

Dang, yes, you're right, I forgot the kamikaze pilots, for a start... What are the others? (Or should I conduct my own research? By the way, is there a causal connection between those five cases and the current trend? Is there a common denominator in the sociocultural circumstances, in the underlying ideology? Worth a study, definitely.)
However, again, I never tried to prove Islam is inherently violent! I just don't know enough to be able to say Yes, No or Not Applicable (although I'm strongly leaning towards the third option).
Today, however, I really don't know about other globally relevant cultures than the several of the much greater variety of Islamic tribes (is that an unambiguous and correct enough formulation?) that would endorse suicide attacks as a universally desirable act. Can anyone point me to some? Thank you in advance.

Please stick to what you know, and if you feel uncomfortable because your religion is being insulted, don't try and compensate by insulting other religions. Defend yourself and your religion. And if you can't, well you're in a sorry state.

Excuse me, but I do stick to what I know, and if I'm not very sure about something, I clearly state that I'm not!

___________________________________________________________________
*Okay, I couldn't resist, I'll have a go (mind you, it's past midnight here)...
Qu'ran is roughly the Moslem equivalent of the Bible, as it is the Holy Book of Islam. It is supposed to be a compendium of the life and prophecies of Mohammad. If I remember correctly, it is said that Mohammad was inspired to his actions and words through the angel Djibril (not sure what the correct transliteration is from the top of my head), which appeared to him on multiple occasions. The Islamic perspectvie of the Qu'ran is that there is a greag holy book which God has in his keepings and tries to communicate to his world (which is probably an imprecise formulation) at various times through various prophets; the Old and New Testaments are percieved as human-distorted versions of that book of God's, the Qu'ran is the only correct and precise representation of this book on Earth.
Sharia is generally referred to as "Islamic law", which, I suppose, is a greatly simplified formulation, however, I confess that I have even less knowledge about the subject than about the Qu'ran. As Islam lacks a unified hierarchical structure such as the Roman Catholics have, I would assume that the Sharia has multiple versions, those accpeted somewhere by some group; I'm fairly certain that some versions are closer to Christian spirituality than to some other verions. However, this is really thinking from the top of my head.
Islam and Nation of Islam... Well, I'd really like to see what you think Islam is (see above); I'm not sure how much is it a compendium of philosophies, ideologies, traditions, policies, internal vs. external relations, etc. It's definitely much, much more complicated than saying just "religion", or, more precisely, religion is much too vague a term - and susceptible to our sociocultural paradigms.
Nation of Islam is, I think, some sort of an apocalyptic (in the biblical sense of the word) reference... does it have to do with a duty to spread the faith in order to bring the coming of the Mahdi? A spiritual dimension of the pan-islamist concepts? I'm really at loss here... sorry.
Sunna is a collection of Mohammad's alleged statements. The Sunnis accept it as a part of the Qu'ran, the Shiites (or Shi'a Moslems) don't. At least nowadays, it's just as well a matter of nationality as of theology, I bet there are heaps of cultural differencies, art might be different as well, although the two latter might be more a matter of regional traditions than of the Sunni/Shia divide.
Hmm. How do I score? It doesn't really qualify as substantial answers, though...

[thalberg]

I think those trying to prove Islam is inherently violent are making an absurd and uninformed argument.  You essentially have one quote to back it up, and you probably don't even know where that quote comes from.  Do you know the difference between the Qu'ran and the Sharia, without resorting to wikipedia?  Do you know the difference between the Nation of Islam, and Islam?  What about the difference between Sunni and Shiite? 

Walter, your comments are always very intelligent.   Before I present my counter-arguments, I want you to know that you have pointed out to me that I need to research this more.  You did have an impact.

Now for my counter argument....

You can justifiably accuse me of being ill-informed (as I admit above).  But recently, Pope Benedict addressed the violent beliefs of Islam, and he quoted a Pope from earlier centuries who called their belief in violence "inhuman."  Pope Benedict wanted to urge Islam to stop using violence.   Pope Benedict is better informed than either of us.  Whether you agree with him or not, he is one of the most learned and well-read humans in existence.  If he claims Islam believes in violence, you may argue to the contrary if you wish, but you may not call it an uninformed argument.

So until I research the matter, I will cite his authority on the matter.

If anyone arguing in this thread that Islam is inherently evil

Evil and violent are two different words. 

can give substantial answers to any of those questions, without going onto wikipedia and doing a shameless copy and paste, I will be very surprised.

I admit I cannot. 

Can any of the people attacking Christianity tell me the difference between a Catholic and a Lutheran or a Baptist or a Pentecostal?  Or tell me the difference between a Catholic Bible and a Protestant one? 

But I couldn't let this one go, because if you think suicide as a means of attack is unique to Islamic tribes you are only fooling yourself.  I can name 5 historical incidents of suicide attacks that have nothing to do with Islam, and in fact, most of them derive from Central European, Christian nations (3 out of 5).  The others are Orthodox Russia, and heathen Japan.

I think Islam is unique in the specific way they endorse suicide attacks.

Please stick to what you know, and if you feel uncomfortable because your religion is being insulted, don't try and compensate by insulting other religions. 

After playing defense 99 times, I just had to try playing offense once.

Defend yourself and your religion.  And if you can't, well you're in a sorry state.

Walter Ramsey

Walter, in this thread, you have essentially encouraged people only to make intelligent and well-informed points. 

Please find me an intelligent and well-informed attack on Christianity in this thread.  Perhaps a Christian can defend their religion after all.  If the attacks are absurd and uninformed, though, then perhaps it's not the Christians who are in the sorry state.

[timothy42b]

Islam has Five Pillars.

(I hope everybody is literate enough to know what they are.)

These Five are explicit and written down.

But there is a Sixth Pillar.  It is implicit but shared:  It is the obligation of all followers to defend their faith against attack, by any means necessary including violence.  This is an obligation just as much as the prayer call, the tithe, the pilgrammage, etc. 

I think this may be at the root of the problem.  While not everybody agrees what constitutes an attack, nor on what method is appropriate response, all agree that when there is attack there MUST be response.   At least, so I'm told. 

Islam started in, what, 570 AD?  (too lazy to look it up, had to be somewhere around then)  So perhaps we should compare it to 15th century Christianity, which was a pretty violent and controlling regime.  Maybe Islam will mellow with time as well.

Christianity started off with willing martyrs who did not even defend themselves.  This was codified by Augustine in the late 300s, but around the late 1200s Acquinas effectively reversed it.  He separated action from intent, and this brought about not only self defense but "just war."   

[gyzzzmo]

Islam has Five Pillars.

(I hope everybody is literate enough to know what they are.)

These Five are explicit and written down.

But there is a Sixth Pillar.  It is implicit but shared:  It is the obligation of all followers to defend their faith against attack, by any means necessary including violence.  This is an obligation just as much as the prayer call, the tithe, the pilgrammage, etc. 

I think this may be at the root of the problem.  While not everybody agrees what constitutes an attack, nor on what method is appropriate response, all agree that when there is attack there MUST be response.   At least, so I'm told. 

Islam started in, what, 570 AD?  (too lazy to look it up, had to be somewhere around then)  So perhaps we should compare it to 15th century Christianity, which was a pretty violent and controlling regime.  Maybe Islam will mellow with time as well.

Christianity started off with willing martyrs who did not even defend themselves.  This was codified by Augustine in the late 300s, but around the late 1200s Acquinas effectively reversed it.  He separated action from intent, and this brought about not only self defense but "just war."   

I dont know if Islam will mellow with time too as what happened with christianity. As i wrote before, the Koran hardly changed since it has written (with some barbaric texts, like in the early Bible)  the Bible though had massive changes in the 10th-17th century. I dont think changing the Koran will be accepted by people that way.
But i can only hope that start to relativate once they start learning more about the world, and radical islamits will decrease.

BUT, current Israelic (yew)  and especially USA (christian) policy proves that barbarism still happens, whether theyre educated or not.

[thalbergmad]

Do you think you know enough?

Of course not, do you?

Or, are you so certain you are correct that you would stop seeking knowledge?

Thal

[pianogeek_cz]

No! I definitely do not. That's my point, actually - why do you have a problem with me posting links that help in seeking this knowledge?

[thalbergmad]

As I said before, i prefer people to express things in their own words. That way, it is more personalised.

I want to communicate with you, not a bloody link.

Thal

[gyzzzmo]

As I said before, i prefer people to express things in their own words. That way, it is more personalised.

I want to communicate with you, not a bloody link.

Thal

And i would like you to respond on the latest replies instead of ignoring opinions and talking gibberish about links. Thats were other forums are for.

[thalbergmad]

Thats were other forums are for.

Sorry, what does this mean?

[chopininov]

[thalbergmad]

And it continues to this day.

[chopininov]

Haha sorry. I saw this thread and figured i'd post that pic. It is NOT meant to start a debate. Hopefully Pianistimo is not lurking about this forum somewhere.

[pianogeek_cz]

Woo! Let's misinterpret. Great pic!