Islam is not a religion of peace .

Are there any religions of peace, is a reasonable question only if we distinguish whether we mean the words of their holy texts frozen in time or the actions of their followers moving in time, as the two differ radically. Without this distinction there is no answer and no real question.

As an American on a practical level I must ask myself what I want and what I expect, and try to balance my actions between the two, for what I expect may not be what I want at all, and I must decide how much effort to invest in fighting against what I expect.

If it makes little sense to fight against what one fully expects, then of course why fight for something one fully expects, since that adds needless effort to what seems already fated as the former action fights against fate? Fortunately, such philosophical quandaries do not prevent us from compromising and acting.

What I want is reasonable religion. And of course I (you) define what is reasonable. Well, (I pulled...) could anyone else do that for me, or for you? Since I (collectively) am the host, I will determine what is reasonable and peaceful, not the other way around.

Historically and socially all religions are like dogs to me. All dogs are peaceful until something disturbs them, but I still want dogs. Trained dogs are peaceful dogs all the time in their own kennel. We are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic. We are house-trained dogs, not wild dogs. Now it is time for any wild Moslem mongrels to be trained rather than bark and snarl for their own rules in the kennel.

Don't worry, the training is easy. It only consists of syncretism, where little by little you are secularized and rationalized just as all the other religions have been, hypnotized by prosperity, all the while enjoying a freedom of lifestyle and opportunity not available in the repressive garbage pits of moslemia you fled, if you can only stand it.

It is a one way syncretism, in this case, I am afraid. Moslemia has nothing America needs to make itself better, no amendments to offer to our laws or principles or education or our way of life which would improve them. Come here drunk on religion and we will sober you up, or you will make a poor American. We do not drink hard religion anymore. Our religion is soda pop, and yours will be, too. We have a real war on any religious drunkenness which disturbs our peace.

It is hard to trust dogs who are currently behaving but that you know have not been house trained. A Moslem that has not been house trained is worse than an untrained Buddhist, yes, or a Hindu, because the Moslem comes out of a more stubborn and defiant religious tradition whose most revered text encourages some extreme violence and resistance to the ways of infidels. The Bible encourages all kinds of violence, too, but no one takes those ancient prescriptions seriously anymore in the Christian world, and that is the big difference between being house trained or wild. In moslemia, such precriptions are still taken as divine commands by a too large fringe of backward kooks.

The race is on to house train the whole of Moslemia before it tears up the house. The house is democracy, rather democratic republic. It is a big job, and I would not have taken it.

Stray dogs breed more dogs, but not necessarily more bad dogs, so there is still hope. The progeny of backward moslems and the young of moslemia in general have more time with fresh eyes under democracy to figure out just how goofy some of their elders are, and to submit to voluntary house training. Someone who is twenty-three is an elder to someone who is ten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Most of the New Testament was not written for several decades after Jesus' death. So for the Bible to be "fundamental" to Christian faith, we must conclude that Peter, Paul, and all of the disciples were not Christians (since they had no Bible). Clearly, Jesus' life, death, and rebirth are the foundation of the faith, not the Bible.

---

Throw in "nor Mother Church" and we've got a deal--on a personal level. But you're argument is flawed by the fact that many books of the New Testament were written by Paul; though most of the others (including certain of the supposedly Epistles) are only attributions, the Gospels use the witness of contemporaries among their sources. Thus "all the disciples" -- or at least many first-generation Christians -- contributed to the texts we have. That throws a monkey wrench into your argument: "So for the Bible to be 'fundamental' to Christian faith, we must conclude that Peter, Paul, and all of the disciples were not Christians (since they had no Bible)." They didn't need a Bible because in a sense the were the (Christian) Bible. And of course, they already had the Hebrew Bible.

Those things being said, my personal conviction is that that the foundation of the Christian faith is the interface of the Christ of God and the heart of the sinful (that is to say, all). The Bible can have a fundamental role in that relationship (as can prayer, discernment, and other things) or it can be part of a world of sin in itself--much to the delight of certain Internet atheists.

As far as Mother Church goes, I actually do have an Ecclesiology: we are all in church all the time whether we like it or not (Clopin, zianizinou, Red Terror, everyone). But please don't mistake that--as one poor character once did here--with some kind of airy-fairy, crypto-Pagan "environmental Christianity." It's more like a scene from the motion picture (and not the insufferable television program) M*A*S*H, in which a doctor motions for a badly shot up soldier to be wheeled into an OR, but a nurse objects, saying "Doctor, that man is a prisoner of war." To which the doctor replies, "So are you, sweetheart, you just don't know it." Heh heh. I contend that this view is truly catholic (small-case c-- meaning universal). For me, that makes the issue of formal church attendance rather beside the point. We're already in Ecclesia-Sangha-Ummah. Deal with it.

Living in Malaysia I know a number of Muslims who are progressive, accepting and open minded while still being deeply faithful to their religion. Although, I often hear the more liberal Malays complain of the Arabification of Islam in South East Asia (Islam was brought to the region 500 years ago by Indian traders), a country where just 50 years ago Muslims considered beer to be halal but now have conservative states in the rural north trying to implement Sharia Law for criminal offenses. Every year the country becomes more radical and the moderates lose more ground to the easy answers of the extremists. Islam is a massive religion and I haven't studied it at all to really understand it. Even more problematic here is the fact that religion is racialized. The Malays are required by law to be Muslim, while the Indian and Chinese minorities have freedom of religion. When my Chinese students speak of religious festivals they call Ramadan the Malay fasting month, they haven't yet learned what Islam is but they already associate it with race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

What if they're gay?

---

Well, as you know homosexuals go against the natural disposition which god has created in mankind and also in animals whereby the male is inclined towards the female, and vice versa. Whoever goes against that goes against the natural disposition of mankind and natural instinct.

People become homosexuals because of their environments,the homosexuality it is a deviant behavior and it is a sinful act in Islam , It also causes the breakup of the family and leads people to give up their work and study because they are preoccupied with these perversions ,also has caused ( AIDS) which attacks the immune system in humans. that it does not mean that we hate the homosexual person but we should help those persons as much as we can to get out of this evil,We should not leave them to the temptations of the Satan.

I’ll be conservative: There is a lot of misinformation about Islam in the media,islam does approve the killing of people who engage in homosexual relations,also he does not mandate the death penalty for homosexuals, and who engage in homosexual acts ,Islam just forbids any sexual relationship other than in a marriage between a man and a woman.

The Qur'an describes that everything has been created in pairs which complement one another. Pairing of male and female is thus part of human nature and the natural order. Marriage and family is the accepted way in Islam for a person's emotional, psychological, and physical needs to be met.

So we must resist those with all our might. If one feels a tendency to do something that God prohibits, we should seek help from a community of loving, caring believers help them overcome it. A common ploy of the devil is to convince people that they cannot avoid sin.
. One should not use his or her body contrary to the user guide provided by its Maker.

So what would your ideal punishment be?

Quote:

---

The Sahaabah were unanimously agreed on the execution of homosexuals, but they differed as to how they were to be executed. Some of them were of the view that they should be burned with fire, which was the view of ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) and also of Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him), as we shall see below. And some of them thought that they should be thrown down from a high place then have stones thrown at them. This was the view of Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him).*

Some of them thought that they should be stoned to death, which was narrated from both ‘Ali and Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with them).*

After the Sahaabah, the fuqaha’ differed concerning the matter. Some of them said that the homosexual should be executed no matter what his situation, whether he is married or not.*

Some of them said that he should be punished in the same way as an adulterer, so he should be stoned if he is married and flogged if he is not married.*

Some of them said that a severe punishment should be carried out on him, as the judge sees fit.*

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah be pleased with him) discussed this issue at length, and he mentioned the evidence and arguments of the fuqaha’, but he supported the first view. This is explained in his book al-Jawaab al-Kaafi’ li man sa’ala ‘an al-Dawa’ al-Shaafi, which he wrote to deal with this immoral action. We will quote some of what he said:*

Because the evil consequences of homosexuality are among the worst of evil consequences, so its punishment is one of the most severe of punishments in this world and in the Hereafter.*

---

Quote:

---

Homosexuals are beheaded, hanged and stoned in modern Saudi Arabia and Iran, where Muhammad's laws are applied most strictly.* Five other Muslim countries also have the death penalty on their books for homosexual behavior.* In the past, gays were burned.*

As one cleric recently put it, the only point of theological debate is not whether the homosexual should be killed, but how it should be done.*

In 2016, an educated imam in Tunisia explained that while it may seem harsh, there is not ambiguity about this in Islam:
God is very straightforward about this — not we Muslims, not subjective, the Sharia is very clear about it, the punishment for homosexuality, bestiality or anything like that is death. We don’t make any excuses about that, it’s not our law — it's the Quran

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

Throw in "nor Mother Church" and we've got a deal--on a personal level. But you're argument is flawed by the fact that many books of the New Testament were written by Paul; though most of the others (including certain of the supposedly Epistles) are only attributions, the Gospels use the witness of contemporaries among their sources. Thus "all the disciples" -- or at least many first-generation Christians -- contributed to the texts we have. That throws a monkey wrench into your argument: "So for the Bible to be 'fundamental' to Christian faith, we must conclude that Peter, Paul, and all of the disciples were not Christians (since they had no Bible)." They didn't need a Bible because in a sense the were the (Christian) Bible. And of course, they already had the Hebrew Bible.
.

---

Well, I suppose Mohamed wouldn't need the Quran, since he was the one Gabriel dictated it to. Nonetheless, I stand by my point that the Quran is (seems to me) more fundamental to Islam than the Bible is to Christianity. Both report the word of God (the Gospels exist mainly to quote Jesus), but the Bible is further removed from the Word than is the Quran. In addition, Islam was founded on the notion of the Quran; when Jesus taught, there were no gospels, and probably no notion that there ever would be.

Since the letters of Paul predate the Gospels, in one sense Christian theology predates Christian myth. One wonders whether the myth is to some extent based on the theology, whereas in most religions it seems the theology is based on the myths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Nonetheless, I stand by my point that the Quran is (seems to me) more fundamental to Islam than the Bible is to Christianity.

---

I've never read the Koran, so I can't address that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

(the Gospels exist mainly to quote Jesus)

---

I dunno. I mean, each Gospel has its own theological agenda. But in a way you're right: the Evangelists arrange the sayings and stories they have into contexts that support their theological contentions. But many Christians would tell you that the Gospels' purpose is to convy the Passion Narrative and the good news of the empty tomb. In that respect, those texts at least may be seen as fundamental to the Christian cultus as it eventually emerged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

when Jesus taught, there were no gospels, and probably no notion that there ever would be.

---

This is an excellent point. In the synoptic Gospels, Jesus's message is one of imminent Apocalypse ("the Kingdom of God is at hand"). A written Gospel--or a Christian religion at all--would not have been seen as necessary by his disciples. But that doesn't mean that the Gospel message was not foundational to the religion that eventually formed. I will resolve your chicken and egg problem below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Since the letters of Paul predate the Gospels, in one sense Christian theology predates Christian myth. One wonders whether the myth is to some extent based on the theology, whereas in most religions it seems the theology is based on the myths.

---

Wonder no further. A little over a decade after the Crucifixion, Paul already knows a version of the story; he writes: "This Gospel I have received" (that is from others). The comment is usually taken to indicate oral transmission of an essential narrative--though not the written Gospels. (There was probably also an independent Passion Narrative circulating at this time, and a Sayings Source recording the quotations you mention). Pauline theology, moreover, is not represented in all the canonical Gospels, and there is some evidence that Paul himself may have become alienated from Peter's group and gone his own way fairly early.

The historical sequence is most likely to have been: historical events (including Jesus' teachings and Crucifixion; oral and some lost written accounts supporting an emerging cultus with missionary activities; Paul's break from Peter and his mission west (featuring his all-important written communications to the communities he had founded); the writing of the canonical Gospels and probably the Gospel of Thomas (possibly the Sayings Source rewritten for an alternative theology--or is it a surviving record of Jesus original theology?); the Neronian persecution, possibly featuring the martyrdom of both Peter and Paul; the eventual petering out (no pun intended) of all non-Pauline churches; liturgical and theological use of Paul's letters (including new fake ones); the inclusion of other Christian writings such as Gospels, various other fake letters, and the Apocalypse of John; the eventual inclusion or exclusion of early Christian writings into an orthodox Canon; the establishment of an Orthodox Creed that had precious little to do with anything Jesus ever said but made essential distinctions between orthodoxy any alternative theologies ("heresies"); and the eventual violent persecution of heretics.

Or to simplify: events/teachings--stories/mythos--theologies/orthodoxy--perversion/killing. So no, it worked like most other religions. But hey, people are basically good, right?

Your discussion of the relationship of event to myth to theology (to ritual) seems reasonable regarding Christianity. But Islam (as I understand it in a limited way) is different. The Bible is (among other things) the written version of the Christian myth (I am not using the word "myth" pejoratively). The Quran (which, like Pompey, I have never read except in small doses) is a set of laws or rules by which Moslem faithful should live. It has little in common with myth, except for the origin story which gives it its divine mandate. Myth resembles history; the Gospels read like a biography, although, through the quoted teachings of Jesus, they also resemble the Quran.

In addition, to my horror, according to MacCulloch Martin Luther did not say, "Here I stand; I can do no other." Don't tell me! I don't want to know! The myth, sometimes, trumps the history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

In addition, to my horror, according to MacCulloch Martin Luther did not say, "Here I stand; I can do no other." Don't tell me! I don't want to know! The myth, sometimes, trumps the history.

---

Those kind of anecdotes need to be preserved and understood. When was the story first told that way and why? My working hypothesis would be that the Lutheran Church (eventually) so subverted Luther's ideas that the distortion became possible and even desirable (to them). But I'd have to look into it more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Living in Malaysia I know a number of Muslims who are progressive, accepting and open minded while still being deeply faithful to their religion. Although, I often hear the more liberal Malays complain of the Arabification of Islam in South East Asia (Islam was brought to the region 500 years ago by Indian traders), a country where just 50 years ago Muslims considered beer to be halal but now have conservative states in the rural north trying to implement Sharia Law for criminal offenses. Every year the country becomes more radical and the moderates lose more ground to the easy answers of the extremists. Islam is a massive religion and I haven't studied it at all to really understand it. Even more problematic here is the fact that religion is racialized. The Malays are required by law to be Muslim, while the Indian and Chinese minorities have freedom of religion. When my Chinese students speak of religious festivals they call Ramadan the Malay fasting month, they haven't yet learned what Islam is but they already associate it with race.

---

Shariah law isn't "radical", nor is banning alcohol. It's simply what Islam requires.

I don't know how you can say with a straight face that homosexuality is evil and must be stopped, yet still claim it is a religion of peace.

When a group advertises that they are for "peace" or "love" or "reason", I assume they are not. What they are doing is trying to create a distinction between their group and other groups with the intent of gaining new members or at least encouraging others to tolerate them. They want to increase the market share of their brand. The act of using peace, love and reason in such contexts is an example of not being peaceful and not being loving and not being rational.

This is a good example of "showing" versus "telling". The rule for missionaries (both theistic and atheistic) should be to show peace, don't talk about it. Show love, don't tell me you love which assumes that someone else doesn't. Speak rationally, don't preach chains of reasoning justifying the existence of whatever one has believed already exists.

The problem is that Christians and atheists can see that when Muslims talk about peace, it is just a propaganda tactic. However, they are deluded when they think that when they talk about peace they have somehow transcended to a higher ground where they can justify their groups with the very same propaganda.

So, what is one to do? This is what I do: I reject any proselytizing claim to a superior higher ground by any religious group whether they are Muslim, Christian or atheist. I make sure I include the atheists in that rejection, because they think they don't belong in the same category. The only way to escape that skeptical scrutiny is not to belong to a group, but it is hard not to belong to some group, or herd. We are all members of many herds and so I have to point that skeptical scrutiny against myself as well.

Regarding homosexuality I think it is has been established that this is a natural way to be a human being using new brain scanning technology originating in the late 20th century. To claim that such people are sinners whom one has to "love" to death is moronic given such information. To say that such people need to be socially constructed into something else is only a left-wing version of the same out-dated idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0hD...ature=youtu.be

Religion of peace lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0hD...ature=youtu.be

Religion of peace lol

---

The video suggests that some Muslims are using forced sex as an act of proselytizing to their religion and the European police are not able to stop it. If that is the case, it makes sense to stop the migration and start deporting them.

Here are a couple of quotes from the video I liked.

About 6:06: "Basically the US is providing these flows for us. You make war and we get the refugees."

About 10:26: "The best way for them is to get the banks off the backs of their countries so they can live in peace in their countries and Europeans can live in peace in ours."

The dream of world harmony and multi-culturalism is something that would appeal to people if there is "positive" social mood. I don't think positive social mood is better than negative social mood. It is a shallow happiness that comes from seeing one's stock portfolio increase in value or seeing an increase in one's paycheck. It also depends on big brother policing things properly.

I am not a devotee of Quigley. But there is the globalist who pulled all the threads together. He launched the whole conspiracy industry but was not anti round table himself.

Fifty-nine million legal immigrants in fifty-two years. Why would they want to do that? Are they just fine spirits, our leaders?

Well, they do not drop the immigrants off at the statue of liberty and tell them to go find a city to live in. They settle them all together so they can load the voting precincts to their favor. This is quite favorable when you can redraw a few voting districts in conjunction with it.

Fifty-nine million does not sound like a number that makes me think only one party has been playing this game with America for votes. That is one of their dirty games. They have been busy as beavers stuffing America with people who were not successful elsewhere but were almost guaranteed to love the party that took them in. Some politicians would like to continue this practice. They can always read Quigley, pee down their own legs and think of themselves as advanced humanitarians.