Crosswords2 mins ago
Christians & Muslims
103 Answers
Whatever "Team" you support, do you agree that a Christian who sticks closely to the teachings of the New Testament will not ever become a physical threat to anybody, whereas a Muslim who adheres to Koranic teaching, would applaud the violence we see around the world, the latest in Moscow.?
Your chances of being blown up by the former are nil, but by the latter? Increasing daily!
Worldwide, the first step in thwarting these attacks is to study what the koran actually teaches.
Or is it just coincidence that all over the world, the vast majority of terrorist outrages are perpetrated by muslims?
Your chances of being blown up by the former are nil, but by the latter? Increasing daily!
Worldwide, the first step in thwarting these attacks is to study what the koran actually teaches.
Or is it just coincidence that all over the world, the vast majority of terrorist outrages are perpetrated by muslims?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ankou, Jolly good. Now let us continue with the discussion.
Theland, no Christian follows the way of Christ. If they did, they would be Jews. Having said that, Muslim extremists are a greater threat to the world than Christian extremists not least because they murder on a bigger scale. Why don't you all just ditch religion and play nicely together? Come on ... you know it makes sense. ;o)
Theland, no Christian follows the way of Christ. If they did, they would be Jews. Having said that, Muslim extremists are a greater threat to the world than Christian extremists not least because they murder on a bigger scale. Why don't you all just ditch religion and play nicely together? Come on ... you know it makes sense. ;o)
Far more worrisome than the grimmest of fairy tales is that someone might actually believe them.
There is a deeper more fundamental and potentially dangerous premise at work here; the belief that believing makes something real and that faith is a justification for believing in anything. Acting on faith is the prescribed method of demonstrating ones devotion to beliefs that have no basis in reality. Blowing up others along with oneself is the ultimate demonstration of ones willingness to stand on convictions for which there is no possible real means of proving or rational justification for believing. Do we really need to ask, or for that matter prove, whose faith is greater, stronger . . . or more devastating?
There is a deeper more fundamental and potentially dangerous premise at work here; the belief that believing makes something real and that faith is a justification for believing in anything. Acting on faith is the prescribed method of demonstrating ones devotion to beliefs that have no basis in reality. Blowing up others along with oneself is the ultimate demonstration of ones willingness to stand on convictions for which there is no possible real means of proving or rational justification for believing. Do we really need to ask, or for that matter prove, whose faith is greater, stronger . . . or more devastating?
//when someone else’s god comes knocking at your door be prepared to reap the harvest of that which you have sown. //
And that is the most pertinent point. By justifying one belief, believers and their apologists are necessarily justifying all belief. And then they contradict that which they defend so vehemently by declaring one God right and all others wrong. Why can’t they see that in a world where religions conflict, as they always do and always will, there will never be peace - and in those circumstances how can anyone claim the religious belief is morally justified - or that any is morally right?
And that is the most pertinent point. By justifying one belief, believers and their apologists are necessarily justifying all belief. And then they contradict that which they defend so vehemently by declaring one God right and all others wrong. Why can’t they see that in a world where religions conflict, as they always do and always will, there will never be peace - and in those circumstances how can anyone claim the religious belief is morally justified - or that any is morally right?
Forgiveness implies wrongdoing. When neither side is able or willing to accept that they are wrong no one will be able or willing to accept forgiveness let alone acknowledge the need to be forgiven . . . neither by others nor themselves.
Apart from an objective standard based on a rational understanding of the essential rights stemming from the requirements imposed by the need to conform to a common reality, an understanding not to be found in nor to be derived from the pages of any religious text, there can be no mutually agreed determination of right from wrong nor a desire and will to abide by the natural laws which govern mutually beneficial rational self interest.
Better than forgiveness is learning to distinguish and determine right from wrong and to demonstrate and teach why one should be preferred over the other so that there is much less need to grant or seek forgiveness in the first place.
Apart from an objective standard based on a rational understanding of the essential rights stemming from the requirements imposed by the need to conform to a common reality, an understanding not to be found in nor to be derived from the pages of any religious text, there can be no mutually agreed determination of right from wrong nor a desire and will to abide by the natural laws which govern mutually beneficial rational self interest.
Better than forgiveness is learning to distinguish and determine right from wrong and to demonstrate and teach why one should be preferred over the other so that there is much less need to grant or seek forgiveness in the first place.
A broader view of the OT is to realise that it was also concerned with building a nation from nothing.
Some nations that stood in the way were heathen nations that God demanded were destroyed, others, were simply passed over.
The NT shows that same nation under occupation and being taught by the Son of God that the time of the sword was over.
Some nations that stood in the way were heathen nations that God demanded were destroyed, others, were simply passed over.
The NT shows that same nation under occupation and being taught by the Son of God that the time of the sword was over.
I think your premise is completely wrong, Theland - you only have to look at the Crusaders - the Christians fighting the Muslim Saracens in the Holy Land in those days were hardly "not a physical thread to anyone".
The Koran does exhort believers to defend their faith when it is threatened (that being the operative concept, not random violence for the sake of it) - it does not endorse the concept of suicide bombers, the taking of innocent life without reason is seen as an abhorrence, not a bonus.
The Koran does exhort believers to defend their faith when it is threatened (that being the operative concept, not random violence for the sake of it) - it does not endorse the concept of suicide bombers, the taking of innocent life without reason is seen as an abhorrence, not a bonus.
I know, naomi, they are so (I hesitate to say brainwashed) convinced that this is the most heroic thing that they can do in "defence" of their faith - and IMO this is due to Koranic wording being taken out of context, or interpreted to suit their intentions, the assurance they will have immediate Paradise... I'm sure they can quote chapter and surah, as you say! Howver - the religion of peace and submission just doesn't square with that for me.
So much war and suffering, all in the name of religion.... whichever one the warring sides are supporting - if only they realised how much they all have in common, if some of them bothered to look.
So much war and suffering, all in the name of religion.... whichever one the warring sides are supporting - if only they realised how much they all have in common, if some of them bothered to look.
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|