A principle of islam i do find appealing...
-
Its a nice work around though...."oh no people werent forced into nothin they they sold themselves voluntarily"
Nauseating rubbish
-
"Today". I say this unequivocally, without secular progressives conservatives would never have abandoned slavery. Why would they? Its in their bible.
Instead of addressing the debate of radical Islam that is terrorizing the world you have to go back hundreds of years to find bad behavior in another faith. The unhappy fact is you will find evil people doing evil things in the name of all faiths but there is one real problem today and that is radical Islam. They are the ones cutting heads off of innocent people and killing innocent people in terrorist attacks in the name of Allah.
Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?"
Answer: There is a tendency to look at slavery as something of the past. But it is estimated that there are today over 27 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery?
The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.
The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible condemns race-based slavery in that it teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27). At the same time, the Old Testament did allow for economic-based slavery and regulated it. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.
In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8–10).
Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. He will see, with Paul, that a slave can be “a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16). A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.
Recommended Resource: Hard Sayings of the Bible by Kaiser, Davids, & Brauch
Instead of addressing the debate of radical Islam that is terrorizing the world you have to go back hundreds of years to find bad behavior in another faith. The unhappy fact is you will find evil people doing evil things in the name of all faiths but there is one real problem today and that is radical Islam. They are the ones cutting heads off of innocent people and killing innocent people in terrorist attacks in the name of Allah.
Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?"
Answer: There is a tendency to look at slavery as something of the past. But it is estimated that there are today over 27 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery?
The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.
The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible condemns race-based slavery in that it teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27). At the same time, the Old Testament did allow for economic-based slavery and regulated it. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.
In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8–10).
Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. He will see, with Paul, that a slave can be “a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16). A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.
Recommended Resource: Hard Sayings of the Bible by Kaiser, Davids, & Brauch
-
All lies u bloodthirsty mooslim, just waitin for the day u can eat that dog. No doubt
Did I say best dog ever? I meant to say best-tasting dog ever...
I don't know Cleve maybe it is because we have Muslims today in this century killing innocent people in the name of Allah and we are not having that problem today with other faiths ?
False. Western media simply under-reports it. Americans don't want to hear about stuff like this happening in the world, because only the 'other' is capable of such things:
The Army of God - attacks on abortion clinics and doctors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(United_States)#Actions
Ant-Balaka - a Christian terrorist group killing Muslims in Africa and burning down mosques
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/central-african-republic-christian-militias-revenge
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/22/central-african-republic-muslims-held-captive-raped
Buddhist Extremism in Myanmar
http://world.time.com/2013/06/20/extremist-buddhist-monks-fight-oppression-with-violence/
Hindu Terrorism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashimpura_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffron_terror
Yes they are..."today". In 100 years we'll see. People forget that when europe was burning things were good in the middle east.
As I've said before, Islam is 640 years younger than Christianity. Reform of interpretation is needed and ongoing. A more accurate comparison with today's Islam is Christianity in the 1400s.
"I said, 'I need someone who's going to want to get on the roller coaster with me knowing that it's not always going to be fun,'" -Paul DePodesta -
Instead of addressing the debate of radical Islam that is terrorizing the world you have to go back hundreds of years to find bad behavior in another faith. The unhappy fact is you will find evil people doing evil things in the name of all faiths but there is one real problem today and that is radical Islam. They are the ones cutting heads off of innocent people and killing innocent people in terrorist attacks in the name of Allah.
Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?"
Answer: There is a tendency to look at slavery as something of the past. But it is estimated that there are today over 27 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery?
The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.
The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible condemns race-based slavery in that it teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27). At the same time, the Old Testament did allow for economic-based slavery and regulated it. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.
In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8–10).
Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. He will see, with Paul, that a slave can be “a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16). A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.
Recommended Resource: Hard Sayings of the Bible by Kaiser, Davids, & Brauch
Instead of addressing the debate of radical Islam that is terrorizing the world you have to go back hundreds of years to find bad behavior in another faith. The unhappy fact is you will find evil people doing evil things in the name of all faiths but there is one real problem today and that is radical Islam. They are the ones cutting heads off of innocent people and killing innocent people in terrorist attacks in the name of Allah.
Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?"
Answer: There is a tendency to look at slavery as something of the past. But it is estimated that there are today over 27 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery?
The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.
The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible condemns race-based slavery in that it teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27). At the same time, the Old Testament did allow for economic-based slavery and regulated it. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.
In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8–10).
Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. He will see, with Paul, that a slave can be “a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16). A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.
Recommended Resource: Hard Sayings of the Bible by Kaiser, Davids, & Brauch
-
Oh ic, so when Muslims do bad shit it's cause they're muslim but when Christians do bad shit it's just a few bad apples is it? So when Columbus was sending back 9 year old girls from the new land to be slaves to other christians under the watchful eye of priests sent along with him on his voyages all reporting back to the vatican, never was he or any of the spanish fleet even said a cross word to. So spare me your bullshit coatse.
I don't know Cleve maybe it is because we have Muslims today in this century killing innocent people in the name of Allah and we are not having that problem today with other faiths ?
OldBrownsFan, on 13 Feb 2017 - 09:40 AM, said:
I don't know Cleve maybe it is because we have Muslims today in this century killing innocent people in the name of Allah and we are not having that problem today with other faiths ?
False. Western media simply under-reports it. Americans don't want to hear about stuff like this happening in the world, because only the 'other' is capable of such things:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There may be some extremism in other faiths but not comparable to radical Islam that is a problem world wide today. The main problem today in regards to terrorism is from radical Islam. Hands down...not even debatable.
-
this is stupid. a few examples around the world where some nasty cult
commits violent crimes.
how is that the same as a world wide major sub-religion - "Islamic Extremist" jihad?
It's freaking everywhere.
Meanwhile, bringing up the "army of God" is asswholish. Know why? There's about one dozen
members. Smaller than the Weathermen of bill ayers and bernadine dorn fame.
12... members.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(United_States)
Now, compare twelve members to tens of thousands of Muslim extremists terrorists
all around the world.
Now, which number is bigger, twwwweeeellllllvvvvve.... or.... tens of thousands?
-
Osiris, to be quite fair and honest...what must have been done to piss off a nation of fucking buddhists to get them to that stage? And they're terrified of muslims gaining power there and destroying "thousands" of years of their heritage like what isis did in palmyra.
I know they're brutal against muslims there but when basically told ur buddhist heritage is haram and will eventually be destroyed, what choice do they have?
This is the conundrum moderate muslims will always face because people dont trust moderates, for with them come the fundamentalists that preach destruction of all things un islamic.
I have no answer for that problem, because i see both sides. Muslims like u chafe at being lumped in with the assholes, which is regrettable that happens
-
Nobody is arguing that Daesh and their kind are not the biggest terrorism problem. The media, however, would have you think they are the only problem. A map that provides a more rational view of modern terrorism shows significant terrorism occurring in Africa and other non-Middle-Eastern countries, and also shows that it is almost non-existent in the USA despite America's obsession with it.
A map that traces 45 years of terrorism shows even more ambiguity:
-
I never understood the reasoning behind Obama not wanting to call out radical Islamic terrorism. What I heard was in his administration they were afraid of turning off and alienating moderate Muslims. It seems to me that moderate Muslims would have no problem with calling out radical Islam. Why would they not?
-
Osiris, to be quite fair and honest...what must have been done to piss off a nation of fucking buddhists to get them to that stage? And they're terrified of muslims gaining power there and destroying "thousands" of years of their heritage like what isis did in palmyra.
I know they're brutal against muslims there but when basically told ur buddhist heritage is haram and will eventually be destroyed, what choice do they have?
This is the conundrum moderate muslims will always face because people dont trust moderates, for with them come the fundamentalists that preach destruction of all things un islamic.
I have no answer for that problem, because i see both sides. Muslims like u chafe at being lumped in with the assholes, which is regrettable that happens
Osiris, to be quite fair and honest...what must have been done to piss off a nation of fucking buddhists to get them to that stage? And they're terrified of muslims gaining power there and destroying "thousands" of years of their heritage like what isis did in palmyra.
I know they're brutal against muslims there but when basically told ur buddhist heritage is haram and will eventually be destroyed, what choice do they have?
This is the conundrum moderate muslims will always face because people dont trust moderates, for with them come the fundamentalists that preach destruction of all things un islamic.
I have no answer for that problem, because i see both sides. Muslims like u chafe at being lumped in with the assholes, which is regrettable that happens
To be fair, reverse the question. "What must've been done to piss of the entire Muslim world to get them to that stage." And it isn't just extremist Muslims who hold attitudes that their religion is superior to others. I rode a school bus as a kid where a Catholic kid was fond of telling me I was going to hell because I wasn't Christian. That Anti-Balaka group of Christians has killed Muslims who refuse to convert to Christianity.
Also, when you say "I know they're brutal against muslims there but when basically told ur buddhist heritage is haram and will eventually be destroyed, what choice do they have?" It sounds like you are arguing that uncomfortable speech is grounds for violent retaliation. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't intend that meaning because I know you to be a reasonable person here.
Palestinians are displaced en-masse from their homes, their civilians are killed 3 times as much Israelis according to a Jewish non-profit, but they don't (and shouldn't) get a pass for acts of terrorism. The entire Middle-East has been the world's oil-spurting punching bag for decades. Many terrorists have probably radicalized when their relatives were killed in war. Every terrorist can come up with justifications for their actions, it doesn't make it right. If you are going to be 'understanding' of brutal behavior as a response to existential threats, than do it evenhandedly.
-
I never understood the reasoning behind Obama not wanting to call out radical Islamic terrorism. What I heard was in his administration they were afraid of turning off and alienating moderate Muslims. It seems to me that moderate Muslims would have no problem with calling out radical Islam. Why would they not?
I never understood the reasoning behind Obama not wanting to call out radical Islamic terrorism. What I heard was in his administration they were afraid of turning off and alienating moderate Muslims. It seems to me that moderate Muslims would have no problem with calling out radical Islam. Why would they not?
I explained this in another thread. He doesn't have a problem calling them out. He has a problem using the word "radical Islamic terrorism." It implies a fundamental link between Islamic doctrine and terrorism, and Obama understands that the problem is one of interpretation and manipulation, not the doctrine itself.
So, put another way, you are well-versed in the Bible and are a devout Christian it seems. How does the term "radical Christian terrorism" make you feel?
-
I never understood the reasoning behind Obama not wanting to call out radical Islamic terrorism. What I heard was in his administration they were afraid of turning off and alienating moderate Muslims. It seems to me that moderate Muslims would have no problem with calling out radical Islam. Why would they not?
I explained this in another thread. He doesn't have a problem calling them out. He has a problem using the word "radical Islamic terrorism." It implies a fundamental link between Islamic doctrine and terrorism, and Obama understands that the problem is one of interpretation and manipulation, not the doctrine itself.
So, put another way, you are well-versed in the Bible and are a devout Christian it seems. How does the term "radical Christian terrorism" make you feel?
I explained this in another thread. He doesn't have a problem calling them out. He has a problem using the word "radical Islamic terrorism." It implies a fundamental link between Islamic doctrine and terrorism, and Obama understands that the problem is one of interpretation and manipulation, not the doctrine itself.
So, put another way, you are well-versed in the Bible and are a devout Christian it seems. How does the term "radical Christian terrorism" make you feel?
If Christians were doing the terrorist acts that radical Islam is doing I would have no problem in calling them out. I would want them called out in fact because they would be hurting the cause of Christianity (like radical Islam does with Islam). There is a fundamental link with the Koran and radical Islam and you cannot deny it. Every evil act done by radical Islam they justify by the some of the scriptures of violence in the Koran. Unfortunately scriptures in the Koran that say kill the infidels where you find them are open ended and what is radical Islam but those who actually believe and act on those scriptures?
Radical Islam is an enemy. They are an enemy who have declared war on all who do not believe like they do including other Muslims. Obama by not wanting to even identify the enemy here is almost being treasonous.
-
Osiris, to be quite fair and honest...what must have been done to piss off a nation of fucking buddhists to get them to that stage? And they're terrified of muslims gaining power there and destroying "thousands" of years of their heritage like what isis did in palmyra.
I know they're brutal against muslims there but when basically told ur buddhist heritage is haram and will eventually be destroyed, what choice do they have?
This is the conundrum moderate muslims will always face because people dont trust moderates, for with them come the fundamentalists that preach destruction of all things un islamic.
I have no answer for that problem, because i see both sides. Muslims like u chafe at being lumped in with the assholes, which is regrettable that happens
To be fair, reverse the question. "What must've been done to piss of the entire Muslim world to get them to that stage." And it isn't just extremist Muslims who hold attitudes that their religion is superior to others. I rode a school bus as a kid where a Catholic kid was fond of telling me I was going to hell because I wasn't Christian. That Anti-Balaka group of Christians has killed Muslims who refuse to convert to Christianity.
Also, when you say "I know they're brutal against muslims there but when basically told ur buddhist heritage is haram and will eventually be destroyed, what choice do they have?" It sounds like you are arguing that uncomfortable speech is grounds for violent retaliation. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't intend that meaning because I know you to be a reasonable person here.
Palestinians are displaced en-masse from their homes, their civilians are killed 3 times as much Israelis according to a Jewish non-profit, but they don't (and shouldn't) get a pass for acts of terrorism. The entire Middle-East has been the world's oil-spurting punching bag for decades. Many terrorists have probably radicalized when their relatives were killed in war. Every terrorist can come up with justifications for their actions, it doesn't make it right. If you are going to be 'understanding' of brutal behavior as a response to existential threats, than do it evenhandedly.
To be fair, reverse the question. "What must've been done to piss of the entire Muslim world to get them to that stage." And it isn't just extremist Muslims who hold attitudes that their religion is superior to others. I rode a school bus as a kid where a Catholic kid was fond of telling me I was going to hell because I wasn't Christian. That Anti-Balaka group of Christians has killed Muslims who refuse to convert to Christianity.
Also, when you say "I know they're brutal against muslims there but when basically told ur buddhist heritage is haram and will eventually be destroyed, what choice do they have?" It sounds like you are arguing that uncomfortable speech is grounds for violent retaliation. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't intend that meaning because I know you to be a reasonable person here.
Palestinians are displaced en-masse from their homes, their civilians are killed 3 times as much Israelis according to a Jewish non-profit, but they don't (and shouldn't) get a pass for acts of terrorism. The entire Middle-East has been the world's oil-spurting punching bag for decades. Many terrorists have probably radicalized when their relatives were killed in war. Every terrorist can come up with justifications for their actions, it doesn't make it right. If you are going to be 'understanding' of brutal behavior as a response to existential threats, than do it evenhandedly.
I agree with everything u said here, exvept when it comes to the buddhists. I am not technically buddhist but u revere buddhism more than any other religion/theology on the planet. I "know" something had to be done to them for them to react like that. Some kind of "severe" existential threat had to be brought before them.
But as i said, terrorists coming about in the middle east.....i mean yeah, why should that surprise anyone given whats historically been done there. So i "understand" fundamentalist hatred of the west. And if evicting western influence from the middle east was the long and short of it, i eould also perfectly understand that. But it goes beyond that now and u know it. And the whole thing with the buddhists smacks of when christians sailed around the world trying to smack around other little peoples cause the muslims were a stronger bloc back then. And my conciliatory pragmatism comes to an abrupt close.
If there was a buddhist here from myanmar he would say what happens in 50 or so years when we invited them all in graciously and then they start blowing up our statues of buddha cause theres more of them than us? What would u say to a buddhist from there osiris? Could u srsly assure him that muslims would never destroy his culture and religion? Because you might not want to but then theres thst pesky little bloc of muslims that absolutely would. And take buddhist women as slaves to boot.
Look at what christians did to native americans in this country, they should honestly not have been so noce and welcoming but thats another discussion. But even christians didnt stamp out native american culture and history.
-
As I said before Cleve evil has been done in the name of every religion including Buddhists. I would love to say Christianity was different but I would be lying. That is not an indictment on Christ but some of those who said they were His followers.
As to Buddhists who you seem to think are not capable of doing evil weren't the Japanese who committed some of the most evil brutal things imaginable to other human beings in WW2 Buddhists?
-
Isnt shintoism an offshoot of buddhism?
-
I just looked it up, they're not related
-
As I said before Cleve evil has been done in the name of every religion including Buddhists. I would love to say Christianity was different but I would be lying. That is not an indictment on Christ but some of those who said they were His followers.
As to Buddhists who you seem to think are not capable of doing evil weren't the Japanese who committed some of the most evil brutal things imaginable to other human beings in WW2 Buddhists?
As I said before Cleve evil has been done in the name of every religion including Buddhists. I would love to say Christianity was different but I would be lying. That is not an indictment on Christ but some of those who said they were His followers.
As to Buddhists who you seem to think are not capable of doing evil weren't the Japanese who committed some of the most evil brutal things imaginable to other human beings in WW2 Buddhists?
U might be conflating buddhism with hinduism which is understandable because buddha grew up a hindu. Hinduism yes, is like every other religion. Buddhism is something else. Especially theravada buddhism which is the original form buddha taught. It is nothing like the dogmatic anthropomorphic theologies we know as religions today
-
All lies u bloodthirsty mooslim, just waitin for the day u can eat that dog. No doubt
Did I say best dog ever? I meant to say best-tasting dog ever...
I don't know Cleve maybe it is because we have Muslims today in this century killing innocent people in the name of Allah and we are not having that problem today with other faiths ?
False. Western media simply under-reports it. Americans don't want to hear about stuff like this happening in the world, because only the 'other' is capable of such things:
The Army of God - attacks on abortion clinics and doctors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(United_States)#Actions
Ant-Balaka - a Christian terrorist group killing Muslims in Africa and burning down mosques
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/central-african-republic-christian-militias-revenge
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/22/central-african-republic-muslims-held-captive-raped
Buddhist Extremism in Myanmar
http://world.time.com/2013/06/20/extremist-buddhist-monks-fight-oppression-with-violence/
Hindu Terrorism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashimpura_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffron_terror
Yes they are..."today". In 100 years we'll see. People forget that when europe was burning things were good in the middle east.
As I've said before, Islam is 640 years younger than Christianity. Reform of interpretation is needed and ongoing. A more accurate comparison with today's Islam is Christianity in the 1400s.
Did I say best dog ever? I meant to say best-tasting dog ever...
False. Western media simply under-reports it. Americans don't want to hear about stuff like this happening in the world, because only the 'other' is capable of such things:
The Army of God - attacks on abortion clinics and doctors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(United_States)#Actions
Ant-Balaka - a Christian terrorist group killing Muslims in Africa and burning down mosques
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/central-african-republic-christian-militias-revenge
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/22/central-african-republic-muslims-held-captive-raped
Buddhist Extremism in Myanmar
http://world.time.com/2013/06/20/extremist-buddhist-monks-fight-oppression-with-violence/
Hindu Terrorism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashimpura_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffron_terror
As I've said before, Islam is 640 years younger than Christianity. Reform of interpretation is needed and ongoing. A more accurate comparison with today's Islam is Christianity in the 1400s.
Ehhhh, that last bits a stretch. The rest of the world is a lot more advanced now too. You don't get to handicap yourself to 1400s levels
-
OBF, I'd by curious to know your answer here. You obviously seem against the things Christians did hundreds of years ago. Crusades and what not. But what exactly changed within the religion to facilitate this change on the surface? I mean, it's still the same bible, right? How do you worship as a Christian that's different than they did hundreds of years ago, and why is that difference OK now?
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
As I said before Cleve evil has been done in the name of every religion including Buddhists. I would love to say Christianity was different but I would be lying. That is not an indictment on Christ but some of those who said they were His followers.
As to Buddhists who you seem to think are not capable of doing evil weren't the Japanese who committed some of the most evil brutal things imaginable to other human beings in WW2 Buddhists?
U might be conflating buddhism with hinduism which is understandable because buddha grew up a hindu. Hinduism yes, is like every other religion. Buddhism is something else. Especially theravada buddhism which is the original form buddha taught. It is nothing like the dogmatic anthropomorphic theologies we know as religions today
Meditating On War And Guilt, Zen Says It's SorryU might be conflating buddhism with hinduism which is understandable because buddha grew up a hindu. Hinduism yes, is like every other religion. Buddhism is something else. Especially theravada buddhism which is the original form buddha taught. It is nothing like the dogmatic anthropomorphic theologies we know as religions today
To many Americans, Zen Buddhists primarily devote themselves to discovering inner serenity and social peace. But Zen has had strong ties to militarism -- indeed so strong, that the leaders of one of the largest denominations in Japan have remorsefully compared their former religious fanaticism during Japan's brutal expansionism in the 1930's and 40's to today's murderously militant Islamists.
The unexpected apology for wartime complicity by the leaders of Myoshin-ji, the headquarters temple of one of Japan's main Zen sects, was issued 16 days after 9/11, which gave it a particular resonance. But the leaders of Myoshin-ji -- as well as other Zen Buddhist leaders who have also delivered apologies over the past two years -- mainly credit a disillusioned Westerner for their public regrets: Brian Victoria, a former Methodist missionary, who is a Zen priest and historian.
From its beginnings in Japan, Zen has been associated with the warrior culture established by the early shoguns. But the extent of its involvement in World War II has stayed mostly submerged until recently. Many people in the United States and Europe know Zen's indirect traces through the poetry of the Beats or the quietist aura of contemporary architecture and clothing.
Even John Dower, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian of modern Japan at M.I.T., whose early interest in Japan was kindled by Zen-inspired architecture, said that Mr. Victoria's works had opened his eyes to ''how Zen violated Buddhism's teachings about compassion and nonviolence.''
''Zen was a large part of the spiritual training not only of the Japanese military but eventually of the whole Japanese people,'' he said in an interview. ''It would have led them to commit national suicide if there had been an American invasion.''
''Zen War Stories'' quotes from manuals for battlefield behavior that Mr. Victoria says drew on Zen. It tells how the military modeled eating utensils on those in monasteries, how kamakazi pilots visited for spiritual preparation before their final missions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/11/books/meditating-on-war-and-guilt-zen-says-it-s-sorry.html
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login