Woman Profiled on 9/11

[Relic]

Akami - I've got to be honest with you, this really does sound to me like paranoia. On my side it's coming across as though you're trying to say "yeah, most Muslims are just regular people but all of them are "bad guys" to some degree because secretly they all want to kill us..."
IMO that's just preposterous no matter how much "research" you do....
Again, while there are certainly terrorists out there and those who do horrible things in the name of religion, one would be blind to not see that there's more than just religion going into the equation.
My son had his birthday party last weekend complete with a sleepover of his best friends. One of them is Muslim and from Palestine. I can assure you that after watching them all wrestle, play soccer and have fart contests all weekend long, there's no Muslim conspiracy to kill us all. (unless you count the farting as a weapon)

My honest suggestion - maybe it's a good idea to put the books and the reading materials down and actually meet some Muslims? I get the feeling that if you interacted with folks of that faith on a daily basis the paranoia may go away.

 

[Relic]

Also - thanks to the mods for letting this thread go on. (I know that often such things are closed) Much appreciated

 

[macaroni tony]

Hello.

I don't regard any religion as peaceful (with the exception of Zen Buddhism, but that's more of a philosophy), there is a fair amount of superiority and self-justification for aggression in all of them.

Untrue Carry on

 

[Relic]

^^ well it depends on how one defines: "superiority and self-justification for aggression"
Christianity in it's purest form should be anything BUT aggressive. "Turn the other cheek" etc
but the human equation/tribalism inserts itself into it for many (not all of course)and you have this "we're right, they're wrong" thing going on. Doesn't really matter what religion, actually so long as there are human beings involved there will be the real potential of that sorta thing going on. It's unavoidable IMO

 

[macaroni tony]

So it's the people then, right? It's people that will use whatever banner they choose to assert their superiority and dominance. Be it religion, country, sports team, Lennon, Carlin....

I see what you're sayin, Relic and I'm not disagreeing with you, but for a religion to be anti-peace, IMO it would have to promote the whole "We're better than them so lets show it" thing.

 

[Relic]

I think so.

What I'm saying is that while each religion may have a set list of tenets that may make it very peaceful, or to play devil's advocate - very violent, etc, well then due to the fact that it's still involves humans, the followers are going to run the gamut of following it to the letter, to following it with only their own interpretations good or bad, to barely following it at all. Within that crowd you will almost always get a "we're better than them" thing going on.
That said, I don't think that any of the major religions are "anti-peace", I jus think that there are those within each religion who may have that sentiment due to plain ol' human nature.

 

[aborgman]

I didn't claim that hatred between the Jews and the Islam was the oldest in History. I claimed that anti-Semitism was and I'll stand by it. I'll readily admit that anti-Semitism goes back way before the founding of Islam and certainly is in no way confined to Islam. The first planned recorded attempt at ethnic cleansing was about two thousand years before Christ in Namens time.

Still not close to the oldest in history. That would still put it well over a thousand years newer than historic records of Egyptian/Nubian conflict.

...and if the only historical support is biblical, I need a lot more.

 

[aborgman]

^^ well it depends on how one defines: "superiority and self-justification for aggression"
Christianity in it's purest form should be anything BUT aggressive. "Turn the other cheek" etc

...but Christianity has interpretation issues even there - There are certainly pretty valid interpretations that imply that all of the Old Testament law is relevant to Christians.

...and Jesus wasn't exactly tolerant of the money changers in the Temple -he was rather aggressive.

 

[macaroni tony]

I think so.

What I'm saying is that while each religion may have a set list of tenets that may make it very peaceful, or to play devil's advocate - very violent, etc, well then due to the fact that it's still involves humans, the followers are going to run the gamut of following it to the letter, to following it with only their own interpretations good or bad, to barely following it at all. Within that crowd you will almost always get a "we're better than them" thing going on.
That said, I don't think that any of the major religions are "anti-peace", I jus think that there are those within each religion who may have that sentiment due to plain ol' human nature.

That's true. Just for the purpose of getting to where I made my statement:

Actium: Islam is not a religion of peace, with kooks reading into int what they want to. It's actually a religion of dominance and war, with the most people not following it properly and the few that are are declaring war on the western world.

Tegza: There is no such thing as a religion of peace. They all teach what they consider validated aggression toward outsiders.

Me: There are religions of peace. A lot of them have kooks, though, who will read into it what they want.

At the end of it all, I think you and I are saying the same thing (as usual), just from different angles this time

 

[Relic]

...but Christianity has interpretation issues even there - There are certainly pretty valid interpretations that imply that all of the Old Testament law is relevant to Christians.

...and Jesus wasn't exactly tolerant of the money changers in the Temple -he was rather aggressive.

Yeah, for sure. All I'm getting at is that I think most religions have a variety of interpretations for varying reasons the main one being the "human element".

That's true. Just for the purpose of getting to where I made my statement:

Actium: Islam is not a religion of peace, with kooks reading into int what they want to. It's actually a religion of dominance and war, with the most people not following it properly and the few that are are declaring war on the western world.

Tegza: There is no such thing as a religion of peace. They all teach what they consider validated aggression toward outsiders.

Me: There are religions of peace. A lot of them have kooks, though, who will read into it what they want.

At the end of it all, I think you and I are saying the same thing (as usual), just from different angles this time

Yep, looks like it!
I remember my grandmom, she was a very sweet lady - loved everybody and wouldn't hurt a fly but maintained that she felt sorry for Protestants because they were all going to hell when they died! lol

 

[macaroni tony]

HAHAHAHA! I know a few people like that myself

 

[Tegzsa]

I don't regard any religion as peaceful

Hello.

Untrue Carry on

No, it's true, I really don't. I do, however, believe that the vast majority of human beings are mostly peaceful by nature (we are still here, after all), no matter what faith (or lack thereof) they follow. I regard the written texts as being interesting documents that reflect the time and situation in which they were written.

 

[Dr. Cheese]

I think all of the major world religions are religions of peace. The catch is how that peace is defined.

 

[Tegzsa]

I believe that your view is based mainly upon what you see with your eyes, which like the description of the elephant by the blind men, is not inaccurate, and at any rate is what you truly believe.

You know, you may be right. It's not like I've spent 14 years here, learned the language, got to know a huge range of people from all walks of life and had numerous discussions on this very matter. Oh, wait...

Actually, let's roll with your elephant analogy. Consider someone who has co-existed with said elephant for a number of years. Not always comfortably (it being an elephant, after all), but generally getting along. Getting to know its elephantine foibles, its pachydermal idiosyncracies, its megaproboscal likes and dislikes. Now consider someone who has merely done research into what an elephant ought to be...now, who would you say had the clearer picture?

If I wanted to opine with any authority on Inuit culture (to pick an example completely at random), would you say I could research everything I needed online or from books, or would you recommend that I actually go and spend some significant time with them to find out what they really believe?

The thing that you don't understand is how islam works and that contrary to your comparisons with other religions, violence in the name of religion is a deliberate misinterpretation and you'd have a very hard time finding any justification for violence of any sort in the new testament of the bible, which displaces the old testament as the path to follow.

Well, that's very convenient, isn't it? The Old Testament can be swept away if it starts to look a bit iffy (I must have missed that particular papal edict). The fact remains that, like it or not, the Bible is what it is: complete and indivisible and the passages from the Old Testament are (quite correctly) still being used in Churches today, you can not separate the Old and New Testaments and I don't think you should try (it would spoil the ending). Oh, and we're still stuck on the Abrahamic religions, incidentally.

Now, the Koran is far more open to more interpretation, and misinterpretation, as everyone within the faith can be regarded as being their own interpreter of the Word. Now some, more "charismatic" characters may get a following for their particular (mis)interpretation, but their viewpoint is actually no more valid than anyone else's. So, you can see how "...they're doing it wrong" is not much of an argument.

Exactly the opposite with the Koran, which followed in chronological order leads one from a peaceful and inward looking approach during the years before military supremacy, is replaced with the concept of jihad, which is to be put aside anytime military supremacy is not held, only to be revived again once the time appears to be right.

That is entirely within the historical context of when they were written. In Old Testament times the Jews were a struggling but vigorous people in conflict with others, expanding and defending their territory (all the smiting), having adventures escaping from Egypt etc (keep the tribe together at all costs - no false idols). In the New Testament they were the powerless oppressed looking for solace in a better world. The Koran has an opposite timeline: at its beginning it was written by a wandering and somewhat introspective desert people, but by its end they were busy empire builders. The books reflect the people - not the other way around.

To repeat: fanatics are outliers, they do not represent the whole.

And, just to put your mind at rest: if you are right, then you are safe because most Muslims do not follow the letter of what you believe the Koran is priming them to do. If I am right, then you are safe because a vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims don't give two hoots about you. Either way, you're okay.

 

[Akami]

Akami - I've got to be honest with you, this really does sound to me like paranoia. On my side it's coming across as though you're trying to say "yeah, most Muslims are just regular people but all of them are "bad guys" to some degree because secretly they all want to kill us..."

That's because your hearing something that you can't find in any of my posts, so I'll say it once again.
Many of them are peaceful people just wanting to get along with their lives, as we are all born wanting to do.
The violence is in their texts and the examples of the founder of islam.

You know, you may be right. It's not like I've spent 14 years here, learned the language, got to know a huge range of people from all walks of life and had numerous discussions on this very matter.

If I wanted to opine with any authority on Inuit culture (to pick an example completely at random), would you say I could research everything I needed online or from books, or would you recommend that I actually go and spend some significant time with them to find out what they really believe?

To repeat: fanatics are outliers, they do not represent the whole.

And, just to put your mind at rest: if you are right, then you are safe because most Muslims do not follow the letter of what you believe the Koran is priming them to do.

Just because someone has lived in America all their lives doesn't mean they're going to be an authority on what Americans think, although it definitely doesn't stop them from proclaiming such, much as you're doing.

As far as the Inuit go, I'd say take whatever approach you want, but if possible, both. The problem with our disagreement here is that you dismiss me as ignorant about the content of a subject based on text, and like relic, keep crediting the statements I'm making regarding said text as being aimed at the followers, which is why we keep going round and round.

You claim authority on the subject based on your experiences with the people, a point that we've fairly well agreed on. On the other hand you claim ignorance on their texts, and yet argue on and on. It makes no more sense than to claim absolute knowledge of the Constitution due to having lived with the people it applies to.

 

[Tegzsa]

Just because someone has lived in America all their lives doesn't mean they're going to be an authority on what Americans think, although it definitely doesn't stop them from proclaiming such, much as you're doing..

That's a fair point. But an interested person can report on the overall atmosphere within a country and culture, and report on their personal experiences with people. And to be honest, your assumption that I was "seeing but not understanding" rankled a little.

On the other hand you claim ignorance on their texts, and yet argue on and on.

On this one, though, you appear have me confused with someone else.

 

[Akami]

That's a fair point. But an interested person can report on the overall atmosphere within a country and culture, and report on their personal experiences with people. And to be honest, your assumption that I was "seeing but not understanding" rankled a little.

On this one, though, you appear have me confused with someone else.

Okay, sorry to have worded in such a way as to offend, as it's only my intent to converse, not battle.

Still, my main point in that last post was that you cannot know what is in the books that people read by simply being around them and I hope that this discourse at least creates some curiosity to do some research into the islamic trilogy.

 

[sandmangeck]

I think all of the major world religions are religions of peace. The catch is how that peace is defined.

+1

 

[Relic]

That's because your hearing something that you can't find in any of my posts, so I'll say it once again.
Many of them are peaceful people just wanting to get along with their lives, as we are all born wanting to do.
The violence is in their texts and the examples of the founder of islam.

OK, so then I ask again - so what?

We're both (seemingly) in agreement that many if not most Muslims are just regular people trying to get by just like anyone else and the ones among them who commit atrocities in it's name are the minority, correct?
So why the the adamant stance that the text is all full of violence and conquest? I never defended that it was or wasn't. That's not my point. My point is - even if it was full of violence- then so what? Do you see armies of Muslims marching to destroy the west? I don't. In some ways it can almost be viewed as the opposite by many.
And frankly I don't understand you point of you focusing over and over again on just the text of the Koran while ignoring everything else. If we're agreeing that the vast majority are peaceful folks, then why is what's written in the Koran even an issue at all?
I still get the distinct impression that there's a bit of paranoia here regardless of how you're spinning it.

lastly - I've mentioned this several times now and you seem to either overlook it or avoid it - I'm asking you this:
Do you not think that what's going on in the world RE: "recent events" can be attributed to more than just the Koran?

 

[Akami]

OK, so then I ask again - so what?

lastly - I've mentioned this several times now and you seem to either overlook it or avoid it - I'm asking you this:
Do you not think that what's going on in the world RE: "recent events" can be attributed to more than just the Koran?

Since it means nothing to you, then there is no sense in continuing here, but it does mean something to you or you wouldn't keep on hitting me with the whole paranoia straw man.

I've ignored that statement because it has nothing to do with any of my posts.
You have your uninformed mind made up and there's no changing it - I will continue to question what I believe and adjust my opinions when I find reason to do so. You on the other hand will continue to call people paranoid when they come up with anything you don't agree with.