Teacher charged in teddy bear case
November 28th, 2007Have you heard about the British teacher in Sudan who could face 40 lashes because she allowed her class to name a teddy bear “Mohammed”?
Yeah, Islam is a religion of peace. What a joke.
68 Responses to “Teacher charged in teddy bear case”
Yeah, and a prominate Christian leader said “…the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays, and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen’.” ragarding the 9/11 trajedies. Yeah, Christianity is a religion of love. What a joke.
I hope my point is clear: to take an isolated incident out of a news story and apply it across the board is doomed to be highly inaccurate. Blanket statements and stereotypes are almost always wrong.
The truth is, that some Muslims are increadibly violent, as are some Christians, Buddhists, atheists etc. Some Muslims are peace loving, devoted followers of Allah. We cannot let ourselvs sterotype like this. I cringe anytime we as Christian start throwing stones, because we are certainly guilty of doing horrible things in the name of God and his church as well.
Well done Nick.
I’d agree in principle, Nick, except in this case we’re talking about the laws for an entire country. I think that’s enough to eliminate this from being a case of “blanket statements and stereotypes.”
And I’ve read enough other stuff to know that this isn’t only an isolated incident out of a news story. I’d recommend “While Europe Slept,” by Bruce Bawer.
Well, you are right about it being the laws for an entire country, and I guess my response would be that it should not surprise us that the dominant religion would effect the laws, in this case being militant Islam. The same thing happens in America, that is Christianity influencing the laws, and though I am struggling to think of a good example, I’m sure that Christianity’s influence on American law has been foolish at some point. That doesn’t mean that Christianity or all Christians or even most of the Christians world wide feel that way.
In addition, there are now several million Muslims in the U.S. Are we to suggest that they are all or even most of them millitant? Of course not.
To clarify further, I am not saying that Christainity and Islam are equal, or that Christianity today causes as much pain as Islam does. I think we caould for the most part agree that extreme, militant Islam has done more damage to humans in the last 10 years than any extremest Christian group you could point to. My problem is when we paint with a wide brush and lebel all Muslims that way, as miltant and not peaceful, which is simply not true, the same way not all Christians are Evangelicals or Republicans or snake handlers or whatever.
To say that Islam is not peaceful is not labeling all Muslims as militant and violent.
It’s the same thing as saying that Massachusetts is liberal. Does that mean that every resident in the state is liberal? Of course not. But the label of “liberal” is certainly accurate for the state as a whole.
Same thing with Islam. Yes, there are certainly peaceful Muslims. I never said otherwise. But they have allowed the radicals to hijack their religion, and thus the religion as a whole gets painted that way.
If the peaceful Muslims don’t like it, then they need to start standing up and condemning things like terrorism and this action in the Sudan.
I would go a step further and say that Islam is a violent religion not just because of modern radicals but because of events surrounding its inception and propagation. Islam and violence go way back together.
“But the label of “liberal” is certainly accurate for the state as a whole.”
What if we apply the label of “Violent” to Monotheism as a whole instead of only to Muslims. A strong case can be made for this when the 1,000 year history of religion is examined: The Crusades, The Inquisition, etc., as well as events in Old Testament and the Qu’ran.
I agree with Nick. Stereotyping and blanket statements serve no useful purpose. To the secular world, it often seems as if there is no difference between Islam and Christianity. Adherents of both religions have done despicable things in the name of their God: The Inquisition, The Crusades, The Salem Witch Trials, 911, etc. I have to remind myself that I shouldn’t stereotype all Religion > Monotheism > Christians > Protestants > Evangelicals > and so on, and so forth. Stereotyping a particular group of people is the first step on the road to bigotry; the obligatory “Us” vs. “Them” mentality.
Sorry, I meant 2,000 year history of monotheism.
Isn’t this really an issue of Bible vs Koran? For isn’t that what any REAL Christian or Muslim will be using as their guide?
Here’s a helpful article:
FUNDAMENTALIST FAITH AND THE PROBLEM OF HOLY WARS
Is it stereotyping to say that Massachusetts is a liberal state?
Hmmm…Tim, you make a good point with your Massachusetts anaology. I guess I would say, though, that when we say “Massachusetts is liberal,” we all know what we mean…that is that the majority is liberal. When we say Islam is a millitant religion, French people are idiots, Democrats are immoral etc. we are saying something different. Sure, the speaker would admit that there are exceptions, because to say otherwise would be foolish, but painting it with a wide brush is still wrong in my opinion. The politics of Mass. deals with voting and a majority, thus the state is labeled as liberal. Islam is not a voting matter, and thus we can not apply the rules of our electoral college system to them.
Now, backtracking a tad, you are right in pointing out that you didn’ call all Muslims militant and violent, only saying that Islam was not a religion of peace. But, I took it to mean that you were implying that Islam (as a whole) was violent. If I inferred incorrectly, it is my mistake, but you could see how one would think you were implying that.
You say that peaceful Muslims have allowed radicals to hijack their religion. This is true in a sense, but I think there are peaceful Muslims speaking out. In addition, the media loves to report on the shocking, militant stuff, but peace is boring, right? i know that is a bit of a cop out blame the media, but I think we can admit that the media does this and that, to some extent, it taints the world’s perception of Islam.
Lastly, Marty, you make a valid point referencing the history of Islam, but again, opponents could say the same thing about Christianity with the killing in the Old Testament, the crusades, the inquisition etc. It may not have a violent origin, but certainly has dealt its share of violence.
Again, my point is this: We need to be very careful when we make blanket statements. It is up to me, the speaker, to be clear about what and who I mean.
I think Augustine was the one that said, “Never judge a philosophy by its abuse”.
With that in mind I guess the real question is whether or not these kind of cases represent the philosophy in question (Islam) or an abuse of it.
Of course, we will find Muslims that will say “it’s an abuse” and others will say “that’s Islam” thus we seem to be back at square one.
There is something to be said for the sensitivities of religious folks when their views are challenged or insulted (perceived or otherwise).
It’s fair to say that both Christians and Muslims don’t like it when their faiths are insulted yet I don’t think I’m going out on a limb in saying that Muslims tend to react in more overt ways, even violence.
For a reminder please consider the bumper crop of so-called atheists (we know the names). Their attacks tend to be focused on the faith of their parent culture (Christianity), not to say that they don’t critique faith in a broader sense but the thrust of their blasphemy is aimed at Christianity.
Contrast the reaction of the Christian community to these guys to the Ayatollah’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie for writing “The Satanic Verses”.
I know I know, Pat Robertson wants Chavez out of the way but is that really the same thing? I would argue that what the Ayatollah did is more comparable had Robertson (for example) called for the heads of Dawkins et al.
Or had Robertson called for the heads of those misguided souls in charge of the so-called “Blasphemy Challenge”.
Roger,
That article brings up another big issue. Christians are quick to grab at a few verses from the Koran that talk about spreading Islam by the sword and others. But, we could easily point to an assortment of Bible passages that endorse slavery or talk about killing anyone who talks back to their mother. We are then correct in our defense of these, that Jesus came with a new message, and that to follow the former laws would certainly be extreme. But, that is the point. The only Muslims that take said Koran verses seriously are the extremists, and that certainly is not all of them.
>Of course, we will find Muslims that will say “it’s an abuse” and others will say “that’s Islam” thus we seem to be back at square one.
What is square one for Christianity and Islam? The Bible and Koran.
“Their (atheists) attacks tend to be focused on the faith of their parent culture (Christianity)”
That’s understandable. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former Muslim turned atheist of a stature on par with Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens but she focuses her criticism on Islam. She’s a very interesting person. She was subjected to a female circumcision, a former member of the dutch parliament and film maker Theo Van Gogh, yes THAT Van Gogh, was murdered and a fatwa against her was pinned to his body. His last words to his murderer were, “Can’t we talk about this?” Anyway, she’s the author of the book “Infidel” that’s just as popular as any of the other atheist literature. Ironically, conservatives love her because she is a former Muslim who is so outspoken against Islam but then they find out she is an atheist.
Here is a picture of Ayaan with Christoper Hitchens at the Atheist Alliance convention.
One could argue that the crusades were the most overdue counter-offensive in history. After Islamic conquest of the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain the crusades were a relatively modest reprisal.
But Biblically the Crusades were without any Biblical support whatsoever.
j razz
I agree with that j razz. They were primarily politically motivated. I just don’t think it’s completely accurate to paint them with the same brush as the centuries of conquest that preceded them.
>But, we could easily point to an assortment of Bible passages that endorse slavery or talk about killing anyone who talks back to their mother.
Where does the Bible endorse slavery? The bible never sugarcoats the reality of history.
For example:
2 Kings 6:28-30
Then he asked, “What’s the matter anyway?”
The woman answered, “Another woman and I were so hungry that we agreed to eat our sons. She said if we ate my son one day, we could eat hers the next day. So yesterday we cooked my son and ate him. But today when I went to her house to eat her son, she had hidden him.”
The king tore off his clothes in sorrow, and since he was on top of the city wall, the people saw that he was wearing sackcloth underneath.
By your logic, the Bible endorses cannibalism. Nope. It just shows us ourselves and what we’re capable of. It’s not a pretty picture. The severity of the OT law was to show us that the punishment of sin is death, pointing to Christ’s death on the cross. So, if we dismiss the OT law, we diminish the reason Jesus had to come.
Roger, you are completely missing the point. We are not arguing the Bible verses the Koran. the issue is that it would be fairly easy to paint the Bible with a wide brush based on a few veses out of context. But, it would be incorrect representation of the whole of Christianity. See, you got a chance to talk about the verses in question and explain why we do or do not follow them etc. I’m sure peaceful Muslims would like a chance to explain their take on these troublesome verses as well, and show how the whole of Islam does not subscribe to this violence.
I’m sure peaceful Muslims would like a chance to explain their take on these troublesome verses as well, and show how the whole of Islam does not subscribe to this violence.
And that’s my point, Nick. Maybe this is happening, and if so, I’d like to know about it — because maybe it will change my opinion. But from what I’ve seen, with a few notable exceptions, there’s a deafening silence from the “peaceful Muslims” when it comes to condemning the actions of their violent brothers.
This only serves to perpetuate the notion of Islam as a whole being violent. If that’s a misconception that they don’t like, they need to do something about it, instead of keeping silent. If more of the “peaceful Muslims” would take action, perhaps there would not be as many violent Muslims as there are.
“But from what I’ve seen, with a few notable exceptions, there’s a deafening silence from the “peaceful Muslims” when it comes to condemning the actions of their violent brothers.”
Tim, ask and you shall receive. Wafa Sultan on Islam What an amazing interview!
>We are not arguing the Bible verses the Koran.
My point is that we should be. The root of this discussion is truth. And that involves the objective reality of the words in their scriptures, outside of any subjective view. If we believe that written words can be perspicuous (and you obviously do, or you wouldn’t be typing comments) - then that’s where we start.
For example:
However, if we’re to take the Bible very seriously, we also need to realize that its claims conflict with other works that many people deem to be inspired as well. For example the Upanishads which are part of the Hindu scriptures teach that the world is God, of course the Bible says exactly the opposite. Also, while the Tripitaka, the sacred writings of Buddhism prescribes morality, meditation, and wisdom as solutions to suffering, the Bible points to Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross as the only real answer to mans deepest problems including suffering. And while the Bible centers on Christ’s death on the cross and resurrection, the Koran for example Islam’s holy book denies Christ’s crucifixion.
Tim, again, your point is very valid. I would argue, though, that peaceful Muslims are speaking out. This is a good article about that very thing.
Roger, I would say that the issue is not truth. the issue is making blanket statements that are false. Just because we feel we have the truth, even if we know we have it, does not give us the right to make blanket statements about other religions and their practices that are not accurate. People have free will and have the right to disagree with us, and they deserve respect when they do. If you want to say “All other religions are wrong and I am right”, fine, but you cant say “all Muslims are black” or “all Mormons are blonde” and it be true even though your religion is true.
In additon, argueing your case for the bible being better than the Koran has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We understand that Christianity is exclusive of all other religions and they cannot be harmonized. We get it. I agree with you and believe that as well. But, that is a seperate issue.
Nick, what do you think of the Wafa Sultan video? Do you agree with her? I think it’s exactly what Tim asked for. Personally, I think she has a lot of guts.
>We understand that Christianity is exclusive of all other religions and they cannot be harmonized. We get it.
Is that a blanket statement?
See how easy it is to do?
I just didn’t want to take it for granted that everyone on here understood the exclusive nature of truth.
Cineaste, I don’t know where, but I’ve seen that video before. And Nick, thanks for the link.
I’m glad to see these things, but I’m afraid these are more of the “notable exceptions” that they are the rule.
Roger, the we was not a blanket statement, but a figure of speech that was including myself and anyone else on here who may agree. It is not the same at all, actually.
Cineaste, I watched it and she certainly has guts. she is really giving it to those men! She is not technically a Muslim, though, right? Is she an ex-Muslim?
“I’m glad to see these things, but I’m afraid these are more of the “notable exceptions” that they are the rule.”
Well, if people speaking out against religion was the rule and not simply “notable exceptions” then secular humanism would be the rule in both the United States and in the Middle East.
She’s a Muslim turned Atheist I think because she said she doesn’t believe in the supernatural.
Well, if people speaking out against religion was the rule and not simply “notable exceptions” then secular humanism would be the rule in both the United States and in the Middle East.
I’m not talking about speaking out against religion. I’m talking about peaceful Muslims speaking out against violent Muslims. And technically, she doesn’t even fit in that category because she’s not a Muslim.
Not that I don’t appreciate what she’s doing, I should add.
Tim, sorry for not including this in my earlier post but I’d guess the best way to frame the “notable exception” dilemma is to ask yourself if a Christians started denouncing Christianity as barbaric and backward, would you still consider that person a Christian or a heretic/infidel? I don’t think it’s possible to have Muslims denouncing Islam as a rule just as it’s not possible to have Christians denounce Christianity as a rule. Those who speak out against their religion are immediately castigated. So, they are forced to “free” themselves from their respective religion by becoming secular.
So, essentially, you’re saying that there’s no such thing as a peaceful Muslim, correct? Because a peaceful Muslim can’t denounce a violent Muslim and still remain a Muslim.
Am I understanding you correctly?
I see your point Cineaste, but I’m not sure it applies in this case. I think there are Muslims who are still Muslims who speak against it, like the article i referenced. though you make an interesting point.
“I’m talking about peaceful Muslims speaking out against violent Muslims.”
That’s a good point. My guess is that any Muslim speaking out against the Muslim violence is seen as being against Islam by the radical fundamentalist Islamic leadership. The Islamic fundamentalist hold all the political power. If the United States became a theocracy like some countries in the Middle East, I too would fear for my life when speaking out against anything.
My guess is that any Muslim speaking out against the Muslim violence is seen as being against Islam by the radical fundamentalist Islamic leadership. The Islamic fundamentalist hold all the political power. If the United States became a theocracy like some countries in the Middle East, I too would fear for my life when speaking out against anything.
Agreed. I’m sure that’s why a lot of peaceful Muslims don’t speak out, for fear of reprisal. But if that’s the case, if that’s their choice, then they don’t have much to complain about when people label Islam as violent. Wouldn’t you agree?
“So, essentially, you’re saying that there’s no such thing as a peaceful Muslim, correct?”
No, I’m saying that I think the voices of moderate Muslims are drowned out by the extremist Muslims who hold political power.
“But if that’s the case, if that’s their choice, then they don’t have much to complain about when people label Islam as violent. Wouldn’t you agree?”
I wouldn’t. I don’t think moderate Muslims really have a choice. Remember how the Taliban would throw acid in the faces of women who didn’t cover their faces, or how it’s their fault if they get raped. I think these Muslim women would like to speak out against these practices but when it’s a choice between silence and execution by torture then going to Hell for eternity, well that’s no choice at all.
Nick, I understand your last point.
I still don’t understand your original post.
>The truth is, that some Muslims are increadibly violent, as are some Christians, Buddhists, atheists etc. Some Muslims are peace loving, devoted followers of Allah. We cannot let ourselvs sterotype like this. I cringe anytime we as Christian start throwing stones, because we are certainly guilty of doing horrible things in the name of God and his church as well.
Tim’s original statement appears to point out the hopelessness of the religions of men in light of absolute truth - and not the stereotyping that you mentioned.
How do you define a true Muslim given the errors of the Koran? See the problem?
This started with Tim’s statement on Islam as a religion of peace. I’ve probably said this before here but it’s worth saying again. Islam is a religion where you send your son to die for God. Christianity is a religion where God sent His son to die for you.
I still say that if Islam is not a violent religion, and if there are hordes of peaceful Muslims who oppose the actions of a radical few, then those peaceful Muslims need to condemn those actions that they oppose.
I understand that it’s not possible in every situation. But there are plenty of Muslims in Western countries who don’t have to fear torture and execution, and we’re not hearing a lot from them, either. Some, yes. Not much.
Until we do, I’ll continue to believe that Islam is a violent religion — because those who can show that it is a religion of peace are giving no reason to believe it to be so.
“Until we do, I’ll continue to believe that Islam is a violent religion — because those who can show that it is a religion of peace are giving no reason to believe it to be so.”
I can’t bring myself to say that Islam is a violent religion because by extension, I’d have to say that Christianity is also a violent religion. They both have had their bad moments through history but I won’t judge the “peacefulness” or “violence” of a religion solely on those incidents. As you know, I treat all supernatural beliefs with and equal amount of… skepticism.
Tim’s original statement appears to point out the hopelessness of the religions of men in light of absolute truth - and not the stereotyping that you mentioned.
Roger, I don’t see him saying that at all, and he and I’s conversation this whole time has not dealt with that issue, only with the stereotyping issue. I took this statement below as a stereotype.
Yeah, Islam is a religion of peace. What a joke
If his statement had been merely pointing out the hopelessness of other religions, I would have taken no issue with it, but I don’t see that that is what he was saying.
You’re right, Nick. I was saying exactly what I said — that the idea of Islam being a religion of peace is a joke. You and I dispute that it’s a stereotype, and my comments all along have tried to show that it’s not a stereotype, but an accurate representation of the religion as a whole.
Nick,
The way to resolve this is to prove from the Koran that Islam is a religion of peace.
Roger,
Point well taken. I would say, though, that it is not my place to read and interpret the Koran. i will leave that to the muslims. And, actually, they do a bit of defending the peace side in the article that I linked to above, refering to moderation. What is my place, though, is to defend the peaceful Muslims that I know about here in the US (and worldwide) from being lumped in with the militants.
Hi Tim,
I don’t want to beat a dead horse, and if you want to be done with this discussion, I understand, but I wanted to examine the point that you are arguing: that Islam is a violent religion. To paraphrase, I think you would say that though there are peaceful Muslims, that the majority of the adherents and the religion as a whole can be accurately described as violent.
My tendency was to disagree with that, but until now I, i didn’t have any support for the idea that the majority of Muslims were peaceful, and that it is the radicals, the militant extremists that get all the press and therefore seem to be the norm. There are at least two scholars who would agree with that and give support to my idea.
Tony Campolo says this in his book “Letters to a Young Evangelical”
Given the ongoing war on terrorism, it is often difficult to know just what to do and think. On the one hand, you must know that most Muslims are good, peace-loving people who are just as upset by terrorism as the rest of us. But that doesn’t curtail our growing fear of Muslim people. The horrendous actions of a few have created problems for many. pg 174
Next, and perhaps more important, Lawrence Davidson, history professor at West Chester University is somewhat of an expert on this issue, authoring several books in the field, including “Islamic Fundamentalism” and “A Concise History of the Middle East.” He says:
The vast majority [of Muslims] are not violent, bomb throwing people. They are much like your average, very religious Catholics or Protestants.
In addition, the reason that Bill Hybels invited a Muslim to interview during the service at Willow Creek the week after the 9/11 tragedy was to show this very point: that most muslims are not of the extremists, miltant variety.
Anyway, if I come across anymore evidence I will pass it along. I may do some writing on this in the future at my blog.
Thanks!
To paraphrase, I think you would say that though there are peaceful Muslims, that the majority of the adherents and the religion as a whole can be accurately described as violent.
No. I fully recognize that the majority of Muslims are not the violent type — at least not individually. But what good does that do if most of them don’t condemn the violence from their extremist comrades? In a sense, even if they’re not violent themselves, their lack of condemnation is an endorsement.
Thus, you have a majority of Muslims who are either violent themselves or endorsing violence by their silence. Ergo, you have a violent religion.
Here is a bit more:
When most people think about Muslims, they immediately think of the Middle East or North Africa, but in fact most of them live in other countries. the largest Muslim country is Indonesia, with 196 million Muslims. Bangladesh has 104 million and Pakistan another 125 million. India has about 133 million Muslims. “Fast Facts on False Teachings” by Ron Carlson, pg 102
(*note that these stats are from 2002, so they could be a bit inaccurate now)
What does this show? That our picture of the radical militant Muslim in Iran is perhaps not the norm among Muslims.
Thus, you have a majority of Muslims who are either violent themselves or endorsing violence by their silence. Ergo, you have a violent religion.
I think that saying they endorse it by their silence, and are thus violent is a mistake.
I guess I would compare it to the quote by Jerry Fallwell that I started out this thread with, accusing gays, lesbians etc. for 9/11. If a person sitting in Africa somewhere said that because Christians remain silent about Fallwells comments that they endorse them, we would quickly point out that it is false.
In fact, many Christians have spoken up against that statement and countless others by Fallwell and Pat Robertson, but the truth is that disagreement with that point is not nearly as newsworthy as the comment itself, so many never hear the Christians condemning them. In the same way, a terrorist attack or a militant statement makes its rounds in the news much easier than a peaceful retort or condemnation.
In addition, I bet there are millions of Christians who disagreed with Fallwell’s statement, but have never spoken up about it for whatever reason. Perhaps it didn’t concern them, or they are not an outspoken Christian or whatever. Silence doesn’t necessarily mean endorsement.
I think both your assumption of silence and your assumption that silence equals endorsement are mistaken.
Good conversation! Thanks Tim.
I think there were probably far more Christian leaders who condemned Falwell than there were Muslim leaders who denounced 9/11. I can’t quantify that, of course, but am just going by an impression.
We’ll have to disagree. I stand by my description of Islam as a violent religion. It’s proving itself to fit that description more and more all the time.
“In a sense, even if they’re not violent themselves, their lack of condemnation is an endorsement.”
Hmmmm, lets try see how this line of reasoning applies to mundane topics…
If someone doesn’t agree with the The Wetzel playoff plan, but they don’t actually condemn it, does that mean they actually endorse it?
I don’t think one can ever assume silence is an endorsement. Like I said before, I think moderate Muslims are repressed, both politically and spiritually, by the Muslim fundamentalists who hold all the political power.
If someone doesn’t agree with the The Wetzel playoff plan, but they don’t actually condemn it, does that mean they actually endorse it?
Of course not. But we’re talking about an issue of morality here, and not something inconsequential. If several of my close friends decided to start molesting children and I knew about it but decided to say nothing, am I not in a sense endorsing their actions?
I understand the oppression issue, but again, that’s not the case for a large number of Muslims.
That’s all I’ve got to say about that. Over and out for me on this topic. Thanks to all for the conversation.
“If several of my close friends decided to start molesting children and I knew about it but decided to say nothing, am I not in a sense endorsing their actions?”
Good point. God stands by and lets child molestation and a myriad of other “evils” happen all the time. But, no Christian would imply God endorses child molesters by remaining silent and not intervening. This begs the question…
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
- Epicurus
This is better known as the problem of evil. Does God endorse evil by remaining silent and taking no action?
That is a whole other blog topic, cineaste. I would refer you to my recent post here.
Nick’s right. I would also refer you here, where it’s obvious that atheists are the ones who don’t have an explanation for evil.
And God has not remained silent about child molesters, nor any of the other myriad evils in the world. He addresses the matter quite specifically in the Bible.
Cine,
If you are truly interested in a treatise on the “problem of evil” I’d refer you to CS Lewis’ “Problem of Pain”.
This statement is based on the assumption that there will be no final judgment.
Your statement has merit if things remain the same after the consummation of all things, but as long as we are mired in time it is nothing but a shortsighted stab at reality.
“I would also refer you here, where it’s obvious that atheists are the ones who don’t have an explanation for evil.”
Apparently the atheist on that thread answered the question, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?” with “The question is irrelevant, since I don’t believe in God.”
Doesn’t the Koran teach that followers have 2 ways to get to Heaven (eternal life):
1) Live a life where your good works outweigh your bad - which means you can never be sure, as you’ll find out when your works are put on the scale after you die. These would be the peaceful Muslims.
or
2) You’re guaranteed Heaven if you choose to be a martyr. These would be the radical Muslims.
And as a BreakPoint Commentary pointed out a while back:
In her article, “The Believers,” which appears in the latest issue of the New Republic, Griswold compares and contrasts the Christian and Islamic use of the word “martyr.” While in both cases, the word is derived from a word meaning “witness,” the similarity ends there.
For Muslims, “martyr” indicates “a willingness to kill.” For Christians, it means a “willingness to die,” — a big difference
So, the issue goes back to the Koran. The Radicals are just acting on what they understand to be a certain way to Heaven.
Again we see the critical need for Truth and how worldviews matter.
New story out today about this matter:
Thousands in Sudan call for British teddy bear teacher’s execution:
Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, rallied Friday in a central square and demanded the execution of a British teacher convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her students to name a teddy bear “Muhammad.”
The protesters streamed out of mosques after Friday sermons, as pickup trucks with loudspeakers blared messages against Gillian Gibbons, the teacher who was sentenced Thursday to 15 days in prison and deportation. She avoided the more serious punishment of 40 lashes.
It certainly doesn’t do much to promote the idea that Islam is a religion of peace.
Okay, we could grab these stories by the hand full and report on them. They do happen quite often. But, it does not follow that all Muslims (or Islam as a whole) are violent. These stories do not surprise me. I expect more of this kind of thing because there are many radical, militant Muslims who make themselves heard.
Everyday Christians say and do stupid stuff. A podcast I listens to has a segment called “Christians doing stupid stuff.” It doesn’t follow, though, that Christainity is a religion of stupidity.
>It doesn’t follow, though, that Christanity is a religion of
How do we know what true Christianity is? We go to the scriptures. I know I’m repeating myself, but …
>I would say, though, that it is not my place to read and interpret the Koran.
…there seems to be some resistance to looking at the scriptures to determine what the truth is. Either the Bible is true and trustworthy or not. Either the Koran is true and trustworthy or it isn’t. They do not harmonize. They both can’t be true.
Either the Bible is true and trustworthy or not. Either the Koran is true and trustworthy or it isn’t.
I appreciate your attempt, roger, but I dont think this discussion is about truth, at least not about capital “T” absolute truth. It is about the social implications of lumping people into groups.
>I appreciate your attempt, roger, but I dont think this discussion is about truth, at least not about capital “T” absolute truth. It is about the social implications of lumping people into groups.
So, peaceful Muslims are followers of the truth? It’s a given that their welfare is a concern - yet why is the church more concerned about social implications than spiritual ones?
So, peaceful Muslims are followers of the truth?
Nope. I never said that or anything close to it.
It’s a given that their welfare is a concern
Good! I’m glad you agree, and that is why i have been speaking out about this.
yet why is the church more concerned about social implications than spiritual ones?
Social implications are certainly not more important than spiritual ones. Actually, i think the problem is the opposite, that for decades the church has focused on spiritual concerns only, to the detriment of the social concerns. that is certainly not true across the board, because many local bodies have been exemplary in the social action arena, but in a general sense, imbalance in this area has been a problem.
Roger, you were just continuing to focus on the spiritual issues. You are correct in what you say (at least I agree with you), but spiritual truth was not the issue at hand. The issue was the social, not the spiritual (in an general sense, I suppose everything is spiritual on some level, but you get my point).
>It is about the social implications of lumping people into groups.
When we stand up for truth, you’ll find the world often saying that we’re doing exactly that!
Scripture says our speech should full of grace and truth. There’s a fine line there that requires the Spirit’s guidance.
Scripture says our speech should full of grace and truth. There’s a fine line there that requires the Spirit’s guidance.
True, Roger, and that is what I’m trying to do, as I’m sure you are as well.