Is Islam a totem religion?

[barnasha]

Once again, you seem to be playing with words similar to your "Allah" is also "God" word-play in Christianity and Islam posts.

The word Allah is used to refer to God by all Arabic speaking Christians, is it "word play" then?

[shunyadragon]

Shunya,

You said:

"..the Crusades were against the Jews as much as the Moslems in cleansing the claimed Christian lands. The spread of Christianity in Roman Europe was by 'Convert or Die' tactics and the extermination of other Christians the held politically incorrect beliefs."

May be, but this 'convert / die' tactic or idea has NO SANCTION whatsoever from the Gospel texts, whereas, the same tactic and approach is ENJOINED in the Quran and the Hadiths and so has official islamic sanction!

See sura 9/5 and sura 9/29 just for starters.

Dan.

Selective reading of both the Quran and the Bible may ENJOIN persecution, cleansing and Convert or Die tactics, or if other passages are chosen, tolerance, love and peaceful coexistence with those that do not believe. Ancient religious texts classically have this problem because they were intended for another place and time in the past. The ancient religions have become divided again and again in the quest for truth and desire for peace, but the result has been mixed on all sides, sort of an ironic paradoc of 'Holy War and Peace.'

The parable in Luke and the Book of Revelation also gives sanction and ENJOINS Christians for war if that is their motivation, artful dodges of interpretation of parables and dreams can vary greatly, and without instructions or specific laws to interpretation that do not allow persecution and extermination of non-believers the results are a bloody history of Holy Wars and cleansing on non-believers.

As with the title of this thread, the Abrahamic succession of religions have become sort of an ancient totem pole of images with two faces, one of peace, love and tolerance, the other side, seperation, persecution, cleansing, Convert or Die, intolerance, religious bigotry, and ignorance.

[Dan Zebiri]

Not quite true again! Shunya... I have already demolished your false interpretation of the Luke passage you MISREPRESENTED to wishfully assert that Christians are also taught so-called 'violence against detractors' there.

Your clear misreading of the Biblical texts is further proof of your haphazard, cherry-picking style of proof-texting that is devoid of properly doing justice to the text, fair and accurate exegesis based on the appropriate rules of biblical interpretation.

You cannot take out a supporting idea in a Parable of the Lord Jesus Christ, and then in isolation, insist that that is the actual lesson and teaching that was meant to be followed literally...!

And as regards to the End times factor, which is relevant to your Luke passage, you failed pitifully to realise that according to the Christ Himself, the END will ONLY COME when His Gospel has been preached through out the entire World, among all the peoples of the Nations therein..Matthew 24 verse 14. ie.Matt.24:14.

Your ludicrous assertion and red-herring theory that the Christians of that time were all just waiting for the second coming and not occupied with anything else is truly LAUGHABLE! How could the end time COME THEN (OR, at THAT time), when the Gospel of Jesus Christ had not yet even reached many other lands in and around the mediterranean basin??

Thats why if you really took time to STUDY the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, you will realise how barren your theory is! Christians in the Acts were busy on many missionary journeys, engaging with both the Jews and the Gentiles, with the philosophers as well as the working classes.

There was NOTHING whatsoever to justify your clearly wild and nonsensical theory that Christians were fighting around with the apostates or detractors of their day and time (1-4 centuries A.D.)

Christians were AT THE RECEIVING ENDS OF :

1) violent persecutIon,

2) attacks, religious vilificaltion and ostracism

3) conspiracies by Jewish religious authorities (including PAUL, BEFORE his conversion to Christianity) to punish AND to incarcerate them,

4) Roman inquests and inquisitions to get Christians to engage in Emperor-Worship - which Christians REFUSED, of course.

Prove to us, shunya, according to historical facts FROM THE FIRST 3 CENTURIES of Christian History, that the early Church engaged as a matter of rule, religious persecutions and punishments of the SAME kind that MUSLIMS officialy indulged in, during the first 3 centuries of the Islamic calendar!

The Christians who are in the New Testament were not giving out such treatments but were actually at the receiving end of much attacks for diverging from their previous co-religionists.

No, the early Christians followed the New Covenant that was enunciated officially by the Lord Jesus Himself. That was the Covenant that God had already prophesied through Jeremiah 31:31-34 will come to pass when He Himself establishes this as an everlasting Covenant.

This New Testament or New Covenant that Jesus Christ established, has no need for Arms and any war-fare whatsoever. Because it is not an earthly Kingdom based on geo-political theocracies or laws or eschatologies (like your end-time selective misrepresentations).

Your wild theory is already dead in the water since you cannot find ANY SUPPORT for it at all Biblically, without doing gross violence and injustice to the very Christian Scriptures you try alluding to!

On the other hand, violence and injunctions to LITERAL violence are found almost everywhere in the Quran! Almost a dime a dozen! Violence against 'apostates', Jews, Christians and the mushrikun, violence against women who 'disobey' their husbands, and also forceful violence personally exemplified by Muhammad himself.

That much, is clearly Islamic teaching and injunctions! For all time and to be practised everywhere Islam spreads its tentacles.

Regards, Dan.

Selective reading of both the Quran and the Bible may ENJOIN persecution, cleansing and Convert or Die tactics, or if other passages are chosen, tolerance, love and peaceful coexistence with those that do not believe. Ancient religious texts classically have this problem because they were intended for another place and time in the past. The ancient religions have become divided again and again in the quest for truth and desire for peace, but the result has been mixed on all sides, sort of an ironic paradoc of 'Holy War and Peace.'

The parable in Luke and the Book of Revelation also gives sanction and ENJOINS Christians for war if that is their motivation, artful dodges of interpretation of parables and dreams can vary greatly, and without instructions or specific laws to interpretation that do not allow persecution and extermination of non-believers the results are a bloody history of Holy Wars and cleansing on non-believers.

As with the title of this thread, the Abrahamic succession of religions have become sort of an ancient totem pole of images with two faces, one of peace, love and tolerance, the other side, seperation, persecution, cleansing, Convert or Die, intolerance, religious bigotry, and ignorance.

[shunyadragon]

Not quite true again! Shunya... I have already demolished your false interpretation of the Luke passage you MISREPRESENTED to wishfully assert that Christians are also taught so-called 'violence against detractors' there.

Your clear misreading of the Biblical texts is further proof of your haphazard, cherry-picking style of proof-texting that is devoid of properly doing justice to the text, fair and accurate exegesis based on the appropriate rules of biblical interpretation.

You cannot take out a supporting idea in a Parable of the Lord Jesus Christ, and then in isolation, insist that that is the actual lesson and teaching that was meant to be followed literally...!

And as regards to the End times factor, which is relevant to your Luke passage, you failed pitifully to realise that according to the Christ Himself, the END will ONLY COME when His Gospel has been preached through out the entire World, among all the peoples of the Nations therein..Matthew 24 verse 14. ie.Matt.24:14.

Your ludicrous assertion and red-herring theory that the Christians of that time were all just waiting for the second coming and not occupied with anything else is truly LAUGHABLE! How could the end time COME THEN (OR, at THAT time), when the Gospel of Jesus Christ had not yet even reached many other lands in and around the mediterranean basin??

Thats why if you really took time to STUDY the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, you will realise how barren your theory is! Christians in the Acts were busy on many missionary journeys, engaging with both the Jews and the Gentiles, with the philosophers as well as the working classes.

There was NOTHING whatsoever to justify your clearly wild and nonsensical theory that Christians were fighting around with the apostates or detractors of their day and time (1-4 centuries A.D.)

Christians were AT THE RECEIVING ENDS OF :

1) violent persecutIon,

2) attacks, religious vilificaltion and ostracism

3) conspiracies by Jewish religious authorities (including PAUL, BEFORE his conversion to Christianity) to punish AND to incarcerate them,

4) Roman inquests and inquisitions to get Christians to engage in Emperor-Worship - which Christians REFUSED, of course.

Prove to us, shunya, according to historical facts FROM THE FIRST 3 CENTURIES of Christian History, that the early Church engaged as a matter of rule, religious persecutions and punishments of the SAME kind that MUSLIMS officialy indulged in, during the first 3 centuries of the Islamic calendar!

The Christians who are in the New Testament were not giving out such treatments but were actually at the receiving end of much attacks for diverging from their previous co-religionists.

No, the early Christians followed the New Covenant that was enunciated officially by the Lord Jesus Himself. That was the Covenant that God had already prophesied through Jeremiah 31:31-34 will come to pass when He Himself establishes this as an everlasting Covenant.

This New Testament or New Covenant that Jesus Christ established, has no need for Arms and any war-fare whatsoever. Because it is not an earthly Kingdom based on geo-political theocracies or laws or eschatologies (like your end-time selective misrepresentations).

Your wild theory is already dead in the water since you cannot find ANY SUPPORT for it at all Biblically, without doing gross violence and injustice to the very Christian Scriptures you try alluding to!

On the other hand, violence and injunctions to LITERAL violence are found almost everywhere in the Quran! Almost a dime a dozen! Violence against 'apostates', Jews, Christians and the mushrikun, violence against women who 'disobey' their husbands, and also forceful violence personally exemplified by Muhammad himself.

That much, is clearly Islamic teaching and injunctions! For all time and to be practised everywhere Islam spreads its tentacles.

Regards, Dan.

Selective reading of both the Quran and the Bible may ENJOIN persecution, cleansing and Convert or Die tactics, or if other passages are chosen, tolerance, love and peaceful coexistence with those that do not believe. Ancient religious texts classically have this problem because they were intended for another place and time in the past. The ancient religions have become divided again and again in the quest for truth and desire for peace, but the result has been mixed on all sides, sort of an ironic paradoc of 'Holy War and Peace.'

The parable in Luke and the Book of Revelation also gives sanction and ENJOINS Christians for war if that is their motivation, artful dodges of interpretation of parables and dreams can vary greatly, and without instructions or specific laws to interpretation that do not allow persecution and extermination of non-believers the results are a bloody history of Holy Wars and cleansing on non-believers.

As with the title of this thread, the Abrahamic succession of religions have become sort of an ancient totem pole of images with two faces, one of peace, love and tolerance, the other side, seperation, persecution, cleansing, Convert or Die, intolerance, religious bigotry, and ignorance.

[Dan Zebiri]

Parroting your non-answer to my refutation of your desperate misrepresentation of the Gospel text does nothing for you, Shunya, but exposes your bankruptcy of facts to back up your WILD assertions about the Luke passages and Revelation!

Heres the destruction of your nonsensical and wild misinterpretation, again :

Shunya... I have already demolished your false interpretation of the Luke passage you MISREPRESENTED to wishfully assert that Christians are also taught so-called 'violence against detractors' there.

Your clear misreading of the Biblical texts is further proof of your haphazard, cherry-picking style of proof-texting that is devoid of properly doing justice to the text, fair and accurate exegesis based on the appropriate rules of biblical interpretation.

You cannot take out a supporting idea in a Parable of the Lord Jesus Christ, and then in isolation, insist that that is the actual lesson and teaching that was meant to be followed literally...!

And as regards to the End times factor, which is relevant to your Luke passage, you failed pitifully to realise that according to the Christ Himself, the END will ONLY COME when His Gospel has been preached through out the entire World, among all the peoples of the Nations therein..Matthew 24verse 14. ie.Matt.24:14.

Your ludicrous assertion and red-herring theory that the Christians of that time were all just waiting for the second coming and not occupied with anything else is truly LAUGHABLE! How could the end time COME THEN (OR, at THAT time), when the Gospel of Jesus Christ had not yet even reached many other lands in and around the mediterranean basin??

Thats why if you really took time to STUDY the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, you will realise how barren your theory is! Christians in the Acts were busy on many missionary journeys, engaging with both the Jews and the Gentiles, with the philosophers as well as the working classes.

There was NOTHING whatsoever to justify your clearly wild and nonsensical theory that Christians were fighting around with the apostates or detractors of their day and time (1-4 centuries A.D.)

Christians were AT THE RECEIVING ENDS OF :

1) violent persecutIon,

2) attacks, religious vilificaltion and ostracism

3) conspiracies by Jewish religious authorities (including PAUL, BEFORE his conversion to Christianity) to punish AND to incarcerate them,

4) Roman inquests and inquisitions to get Christians to engage in Emperor-Worship - which Christians REFUSED, of course.

Prove to us, shunya, according to historical facts FROM THE FIRST 3 CENTURIES of Christian History, that the early Church engaged as a matter of rule, religious persecutions and punishments of the SAME kind that MUSLIMS officialy indulged in, during the first 3 centuries of the Islamic calendar!

The Christians who are in the New Testament were not giving out such treatments but were actually at the receiving end of much attacks for diverging from their previous co-religionists.

No, the early Christians followed the New Covenant that was enunciated officially by the Lord Jesus Himself. That was the Covenant that God had already prophesied through Jeremiah 31:31-34will come to pass when He Himself establishes this as an everlasting Covenant.

This New Testament or New Covenant that Jesus Christ established, has no need for Arms and any war-fare whatsoever. Because it is not an earthly Kingdom based on geo-political theocracies or laws or eschatologies (like your end-time selective misrepresentations).

Your wild theory is already dead in the water since you cannot find ANY SUPPORT for it at all Biblically, without doing gross violence and injustice to the very Christian Scriptures you try alluding to!

On the other hand, violence and injunctions to LITERAL violence are found almost everywhere in the Quran! Almost a dime a dozen! Violence against 'apostates', Jews, Christians and the mushrikun, violence against women who 'disobey' their husbands, and also forceful violence personally exemplified by Muhammad himself.

That much, is clearly Islamic teaching and injunctions! For all time and to be practised everywhere Islam spreads its tentacles.

Regards, Dan.

[OfficialPro]

This is classic, since Holy War has been the motive since Constintine.

Oh really? Was Constantine conquering in the name of the Bible or God?

It is not the default correct definition, it is the common definition that is accepted by dictionaries, and used in the English language. That is how modern laguages work.

Dictionary definitions are greatly simplified. And they're not always acceptable to those who are professionals. Just ask anyone who's an expert on Fascism whether the dictionary definition is adequate.

This is not a necessary requirement of the Definition of a Holy War. But, nonetheless the primary punishment in all these conflicts is non-belief or believing differently.

That sentence made absolutely no sense. Are you trying to say that the motivation was nonbelief or believing differently?

I would venture to say that rather than unbelief or different beliefs being the motivating factor, that some aggravating factor of aggression was the primary reason (with possibly the idea that the unbelief or different belief inspired the aggravating factor of aggression).

All three religions are wrong.

In what way, and what are you basing this on?

Well, the definition of a Holy War that I am using is the one that is generally accepted in the English language. It appears you have a problem with this definition.

Ummm, no, you're not. You're not even using the dictionary definition. You're extrapolating.

Nontheless, disagreements are not necessarilly based on a deficiency in language. You are the one accusing me of this, as a typical form of Red Herring.

No, I am not using a red herring. I am accusing you of nothing more than misunderstanding what I'm posting. At least if you have a "deficiency of language" then you have the benefit of the doubt (why don't you realize this?). The only other option is that you are deliberately twisting what I'm saying, which is a far less charitable assessment. Don't shoot yourself in the foot, here. If you're either misunderstanding or twisting what I'm saying, how can we have a meaningful debate?

There are different sources for this book. It is odd that your library is not a part of what is a universal library loan system in the USA. Where are you at?

Umm, it's NOT odd, mainly because of the fact that I'M NOT IN THE USA. I'm in Canada and there is no universal system among libraries. It's all regional.

Not at all. The religious basis for the Jews right to the Holy Lands, is at the root of Zionism, which was outright supported by much of the Christian world. These are facts of history, and very much at the heart of our disagreement. The symbol of 'Masada' is very much at the heart of the belief in the religious right to the land.

Again, it would only be a war because of the surrounding Arab countries wanting to wipe out the state of Israel. If they left well enough alone there would be no war, Holy or otherwise.

I am making very good sense here. just getting a response, does make a debat meaningful. If your playing the role of the 'devil's advocate' and not seriously addressing the issues, it detracts from the debate.

Devil's Advocate DOES seriously address the issues--just from the other point of view. It gave me the response I was looking for.

The accademic community has more than one school or 'box' as you call it. This does not detract from the fact that the DNA and archeological evidence describes an evolving turf war, at first based on tribal differences that evolved when writen scripture from the core of religious claims for this turf war.

I think it's stretching it to say that the "turf war" was a religious war right out of the starting gate. I don't think the Moabites went after Israelites way back when because they didn't like the fact that Israel worshipped Yahweh instead of Chemosh.

Convert or die is not a requirement of a Holy War. The Moslems did not say it first, the Roman Christians proclaimed 'Convert or Die' before Islam existed.

I don't recall the Roman Empire doing that. It wasn't in any of my history texts--texts which weren't necessarily sympathetic to Christianity. Heck, it was the other way around--it was the Pagan Romans who were telling the Christians, "convert or die."

History is a continuum to the presnt and not the just the past. As I said before Convert or Die is not a prerequesite for a Holy War.

According to whom?

You saying it as wrong does not detract from the fact that Luther is not alone, and it is a distinct part of Christian history.

And I'm not denying either.

Than why blame the religion Islam?

Islam is the only religion that has uncontexted commands in its "holy book" to slaughter the infidels. Any similar texts in Judaeo-Christianity are bounded by context and the situations. In the Quran there is no context. There can't be any, from the way it is set up.

Prior to the State of Isreal they had a government and governed themselves.

Proof?

Google does not help you here. The economic claim is a scape goat issue targeting Judaism as a religion, Nontheless Judaism was targeting as a religion.

I said nonreligious objections. As in, complete atheists fearing the Banker Theory. They are not targeting Jews on religion. Most don't care what Jews believe. It's actually more of a "racial" thing now than a religious thing.

By the definition of a Holy War, Christians are involved in a Holy War in support of the Zionists for the religious claim of their right to the State of Isreal.

SOME Christians. Not all. Some Christians are quite anti-Zionist.

[barnasha]

The Quran orders to slay the disbelievers in the context in which there is a war and the disbelievers are trying to kill you. I suppose there is nothing against killing a "believer" who is attacking you either. It's just the case that in this situation, it was the "disbelievers" (those who rejected Muhammad and wanted his blood) who were waging an unprovoked war of aggression.

Arabian Peninsula history 101, I would think

[Dan Zebiri]

Already disproved PROPOGANDA by you other islamist / islamophiles..!!

I will give you the links on T-WEB to this effetc if you like!

Dan.