texag_89 said:

---

And sir, if you do not think that the beat back of the takeover was of Divine Providence, then I shall pray for your clarity and understanding as well.

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/our-lady-of-the-rosary-and-the-battle-of-lepanto/1220/

---

Look, if a small ragtag armada managed to defeat the Ottoman Navy in a battle that echoed David & Goliath, I think your claim of divine providence would have a leg to stand on. Instead, a slightly numerically inferior Christian armada defeated the Ottoman fleet because they possessed far superior firepower.

Think I'm wrong? Look up the order of battle on wikipedia.
Ships and manpower? Slight advantage to the Ottoman Turks.
Guns? Over 2:1 in favor of the Christians.

Firepower.

Retired is right and it pains me to agree with this (presumably smelly) hippy: considering how patronizing you have been even as you present factually incorrect and insupportable arguments, stating you'll pray for me in that manner reeks of condescension.

Quote:

---

Why are the Muslims that treat people/animals like excrement etc... considered authentic, or the most devout?

---

They're not. They're just normal Muslims. And I never said excrement. I just said look at how they treat them. You must have read that into it.

Just to summarize my responses to post since I have been gone:

1. Their founder and their holy text say convert or die and to kill the infidel.

2 And, that is the Muslim belief, otherwise we would not be discussing this issue here.

3. And, when you think about it, the solutions comes down to who has or where the Authority lies.

Unlike Retired or Solo, I don't have to leave the solution up to my flawed and feeble interpretation of Scripture in order to realize a Solution. And, if I did it would surely be different than the other "poster down the board" who has his own interpretation based on his reading of Scripture....

Some say, lets be like Stephen and allow our Faith to be wiped out and slaughtered... some say let the US Military take care of it.... Some say that defending yourself is hatred.

Sure would be nice if Christ would not have left us Orphans and would have left behind a structure of Authority.... one that started the moment the veil of the Temple was rent into.... One that he promised that the Gates of Hell would not Prevail against.... One that is by His own words, "The Pillar and Bulwark of Truth".... One where He choose one to "feed His Sheep"..... One that the Holy Ghost would lead until the end of Ages.... One that is UNIVERAL, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC!!!!

Oh but He did and I will defer to Her and how she once handled and defeated the Nephilim spawn known as muhammadism where she employed such Mercy and Example of Christ until it was determined that the Hoards where not able to recognize the beauty and goodwill of Christendom and, in order to avoid extinction, She called for a Holy response and evacuation of the Evil one's minions known as Islam ------- When She comes out of Her Modernism funk soon, She will convert the world again and vanquish the Muslims by Word and by Deed

Again, it always boils down to Authority.

Quote:

---

Look, if a small ragtag armada managed to defeat the Ottoman Navy in a battle that echoed David & Goliath, I think your claim of divine providence would have a leg to stand on. Instead, a slightly numerically inferior Christian armada defeated the Ottoman fleet because they possessed far superior firepower.

Think I'm wrong? Look up the order of battle on wikipedia.
Ships and manpower? Slight advantage to the Ottoman Turks.
Guns? Over 2:1 in favor of the Christians.

---

Wow, just looked this up.

Strength:
Holy League
212 ships

• 6 galleasses

• 206 galleys

28,500 soldiers
40,000 sailors and oarsmen
1,815 guns

Ottoman Empire
251 ships

• 206 galleys
• 45 galliots

31,490 soldiers
50,000 sailors and oarsmen
750 guns

1,815 guns vs 750 guns, and it's "divine providence" that the 1,815 guns won? Also, from a minor amount of research, it appears that the galleasses were typically at least twice as large as the galliot, so while the Ottoman's had an advantage in sheer # of vessels, the combat effectiveness of those vessels seems to be, at best, equal to that of the "Holy" League.

Quote:

---

Unlike Retired or Solo, I don't have to leave the solution up to my flawed and feeble interpretation of Scripture in order to realize a Solution. And, if I did it would surely be different than the other "poster down the board" who has his own interpretation based on his reading of Scripture....

---

There you go again w/ the sanctimonious nonsense. We disagree w/ you so clearly it's the result of our "flawed and feeble interpretation of Scripture".

Quote:

---

Some say, lets be like Stephen and allow our Faith to be wiped out and slaughtered... some say let the US Military take care of it.... Some say that defending yourself is hatred.

---

Who said this? Do you honestly think that a nonviolent, self-sacrificial faith that testifies to Christ will be wiped out and slaughtered? Did the early church get wiped out before getting in bed with Constantine and the state? No. Did the church get wiped out in the NT period after Stephen was murdered? No. In fact, his martyrdom HELPED the spread of the gospel, not hindered it.

Quote:

---

Sure would be nice if Christ would not have left us Orphans and would have left behind a structure of Authority.... one that started the moment the veil of the Temple was rent into.... One that he promised that the Gates of Hell would not Prevail against.... One that is by His own words, "The Pillar and Bulwark of Truth".... One where He choose one to "feed His Sheep"..... One that the Holy Ghost would lead until the end of Ages.... One that is UNIVERAL, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC!!!!

---

Yes, we get it. You seem to have an idolatrous view of your institutional church. So much to the point that you're willing to even hint at another anti-Christ Crusade against Muslims.

Quote:

---

Oh but He did and I will defer to Her and how she once handled and defeated the Nephilim spawn known as muhammadism where she employed such Mercy and Example of Christ until it was determined that the Hoards where not able to recognize the beauty and goodwill of Christendom and, in order to avoid extinction, She called for a Holy response and evacuation of the Evil one's minions known as Islam ------- When She comes out of Her Modernism funk soon, She will convert the world again and vanquish the Muslims by Word and by Deed

---

Just because the RCC sanctioned it doesn't make it consistent with Christ. I hope you know that. The Crusades were not of Christ. They looked nothing like Christ.

Yes, that was very History Channel of Solo.

Christ and His Church are Good (true and beautiful as a well) and Islam is an Evil heresy at best.

Divine Providence played a big hand in its defeat no matter the numbers and at Lepanto, it was aided and abetted by Our Lady's intercession of near ubiquitous prayer.

Would be nice to live in an Era where a universal call to prayer was answered in Unity... that was Christendom.

Again, History and Providence prove that the Holy Roman Church must lead the fight - spiritual and perhaps otherwise - against Islam.

It is a battle of dominions and principalities.

Quote:

---

Yes, that was very History Channel of Solo.

---

What was? Posting actual facts about the event you claim as "divine providence"?

Quote:

---

Christ and His Church are Good (true and beautiful as a well) and Islam is an Evil heresy at best.

---

Agree. Unlike what we saw throughout the history of the RCC though, I don't believe murdering heretics looks remotely like the nonviolent, self-sacrificial love of Christ we are called to imitate.

Quote:

---

Divine Providence played a big hand in its defeat no matter the numbers and at Lepanto, it was aided and abetted by Our Lady's intercession of near ubiquitous prayer.

---

You have absolutely no way of supporting this claim though. You're basically saying "it's divine providence because I say it is". They had a 2.5-to-1 gun advantage, and the minuscule disadvantage in # of vessels was mitigated by having larger ships w/ more guns.

The "Holy" League absolutely should have won the battle, as they had the advantage.

Quote:

---

Would be nice to live in an Era where a universal call to prayer was answered in Unity... that was Christendom.

---

If you are talking about "Christendom" as the conflation of church and state, I'm glad we are coming upon a post-Christendom world. No greater damage has been done to the church than the sanctification of state violence in the name of God.

Quote:

---

Again, History and Providence prove that the Holy Roman Church must lead the fight - spiritual and perhaps otherwise - against Islam.

---

Well, apparently we can just call anything we want "divine providence", so that seems like a silly claim. If you are talking about a physical, murderous fight though, then Satan thanks you and your church. If you are talking about fighting our enemy (Satan) using weapons that aren't "flesh and blood", such as Paul discusses in Ephesians, then the church (not just the RCC) absolutely must lead the way. But, we have to see the real enemy (it's not Muslims) and put on the armor of God (none of them have anything to do w/ physical warfare) and fight evil as Christ displayed for us....nonviolent, self-sacrificial love of enemies.


**Note: please do not take my comments above as anti-Catholicism. There are many things I love about Catholicism, but there are some that appear to have an idolatrous view of the RCC, which leads to justifying all sorts of evil. That's not something we only see in the RCC though. I grew up in a similar mindset with regards to that, albeit in a different denomination.

Quote:

---

Yes, that was very History Channel of Solo.

---

Well, I did major in history...

Quote:

---

Christ and His Church are Good (true and beautiful as a well) and Islam is an Evil heresy at best.

---

Your churches history is just a bloodstained as Islam, but somehow it is different. Though we are in agreement about Islam.

Quote:

---

Divine Providence played a big hand in its defeat no matter the numbers and at Lepanto, it was aided and abetted by Our Lady's intercession of near ubiquitous prayer.

---

Suppose someone had an upcoming examination that is known to be difficult. They deligently prepared for the test - they read, they studied, and the review. Would you credit them acing the test to providence, or to the work that they did in preparation? Even the bible talks about prudence and preparation:

"Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. Without having any chief, officer, or ruler, she prepares her bread in summer and gathers her food in harvest." Proverbs 6:6-8

And

The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it.

And

"The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but the victory belongs to the Lord." Proverbs 21:31

Glory to God that the Christians won, but they won because they prepared for battle by having superior firepower.

texag_89 said:

---

Just to summarize my responses to post since I have been gone:

1. Their founder and their holy text say convert or die and to kill the infidel.

2 And, that is the Muslim belief, otherwise we would not be discussing this issue here.

3. And, when you think about it, the solutions comes down to who has or where the Authority lies.

Unlike Retired or Solo, I don't have to leave the solution up to my flawed and feeble interpretation of Scripture in order to realize a Solution. And, if I did it would surely be different than the other "poster down the board" who has his own interpretation based on his reading of Scripture....

---

Your solutions sounds a lot like your churches historical treatment of Jews... I'd even go so far as to call it a Final Solution.

Quote:

---

Some say, lets be like Stephen and allow our Faith to be wiped out and slaughtered... some say let the US Military take care of it.... Some say that defending yourself is hatred.

---

Eh... I'm not a pacifist. I have no issue with killing someone who threatens me and my family. What I take issue with is your willingness to eliminate all of them, including those who simply want to live their lives in peace. You may claim the mantle of Christian, but your behavior and attitude reveals you to be exactly what you want to exterminate.

But I would gladly stand between demoniacs like yourself and the peaceful ones you intend to do harm to. And maybe by my example, they will come to know Christ.

Quote:

---

Sure would be nice if Christ would not have left us Orphans and would have left behind a structure of Authority.... one that started the moment the veil of the Temple was rent into.... One that he promised that the Gates of Hell would not Prevail against.... One that is by His own words, "The Pillar and Bulwark of Truth".... One where He choose one to "feed His Sheep"..... One that the Holy Ghost would lead until the end of Ages.... One that is UNIVERAL, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC!!!!

Oh but He did and I will defer to Her and how she once handled and defeated the Nephilim spawn known as muhammadism where she employed such Mercy and Example of Christ until it was determined that the Hoards where not able to recognize the beauty and goodwill of Christendom and, in order to avoid extinction, She called for a Holy response and evacuation of the Evil one's minions known as Islam ------- When She comes out of Her Modernism funk soon, She will convert the world again and vanquish the Muslims by Word and by Deed

Again, it always boils down to Authority.

---

Uh, ok.

From your churches many, many misdeeds through out the past two thousand years, it definitely looks as if the gates of hell not only prevailed against it but have long since taken over management.

Anodyne said:

---

The Holy Roman Catholic Church hasn't existed since Vatican 2. What you have now is an egalitarian, ecumenical, relativist religion.

---

No.

Sheesh. I know this is the R&P board, but come on.

Firstly, the Catholics were not always so nice. Maybe ask Jewish people about things done to them in the name of Christianity.

Muslim's are not one massive homogenous group, just as Christians aren't either. That doesn't mean that the religion doesn't need reforming and modernizing because it most definitely does, but to paint them all with the same brush is silly. I'm presuming you have heard of Ahmadi Muslims? I believe they generally are pretty peaceful.

Isis and groups like them are very good at what is basically brainwashing - a bit like a cult brainwashes people.
I'm not saying we do nothing, but what they are trying to do is to drive this wedge between Muslim's and everyone else. We're playing right into their hands, but believe me, I do understand the anger and frustration. My city of London was bombed on 7/7, we had Lee Rigby killed near military barracks a few years back, and now innocent children and young adults were slaughtered in Manchester.

The religion without a doubt needs modernizing. We also need to step away from countries like Saudi Arabia. We talk a big talk and then go and sign an arms deal with them and cozy up to them (successive governments - both Brits and American's have done this).

I'll end on this, there are a number of problems within Islam, but don't condemn every single Muslim as an enemy.

texag_89 said:

---

1. Their founder and their holy text say convert or die and to kill the infidel.

---

Also, reading OP's responses on here, this seems like a relevant contribution to this thread:
WHY FACTS DON'T CHANGE OUR MINDS

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

texag_89 said:

---

1. Their founder and their holy text say convert or die and to kill the infidel.

---

---

So the Koran and Hadith don't directly instruct Muslims in the way of violence against unbelievers?

I'm not saying it does or doesn't, he is just making very strong statement without providing any evidence to back it up. I am just asking him to support his position. Never made a claim he was right or wrong.

Are you saying the Koran and Hadith do "directly instruct Muslims in the way of violence against unbelievers"? if so would you care to provide evidence to support your statement? and when you say Hadith, to which Hadith are your referring?

americathegreat1492 said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

texag_89 said:

---

1. Their founder and their holy text say convert or die and to kill the infidel.

---

---

So the Koran and Hadith don't directly instruct Muslims in the way of violence against unbelievers?

---

I'm not familiar w/ the Koran, but I would imagine it's one of those things that's very similar to the OT depictions of the people believing God commanded them to commit genocide and infanticide. There's probably a wide variance on how to interpret those texts, whether in Islam, Christianity or Judaism. Canadiaggie had a great thread on Islam, and it really does highlight the folly of looking at Muslims as some monolithic group that carries the same interpretation for these texts.

RetiredAg said:

---

americathegreat1492 said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

texag_89 said:

---

1. Their founder and their holy text say convert or die and to kill the infidel.

---

---

So the Koran and Hadith don't directly instruct Muslims in the way of violence against unbelievers?

---

I'm not familiar w/ the Koran, but I would imagine it's one of those things that's very similar to the OT depictions of the people believing God commanded them to commit genocide and infanticide. There's probably a wide variance on how to interpret those texts, whether in Islam, Christianity or Judaism. Canadiaggie had a great thread on Islam, and it really does highlight the folly of looking at Muslims as some monolithic group that carries the same interpretation for these texts.

---

oh c'mon, you weren't supposed to answer for him, i'm trying to draw out that he likely doesn't know what he is talking about, as I have done a bit of study on the koran and hadith.

Quote:

---

The religion without a doubt needs modernizing

---

What does this mean? How do you "modernize" a religion? Do you simply mean conform it to your secular values? If so good luck. That is exactly what they are fighting against.

texag_89 said:

---

1. Their founder and their holy text say convert or die and to kill the infidel.

---

Bolded a few points in a covenant written by Mohammed should the following be TLDR.
The Ashtiname of Muhammad, translated by Anton F. Haddad:

Quote:

---

This is a letter which was issued by Mohammed, Ibn Abdullah, the Messenger, the Prophet, the Faithful, who is sent to all the people as a trust on the part of God to all His creatures, that they may have no plea against God hereafter. Verily God is Omnipotent, the Wise. This letter is directed to the embracers of Islam, as a covenant given to the followers of Jesus the Nazarene in the East and West, the far and near, the Arabs and foreigners, the known and the unknown.

This letter contains the oath given unto them, and he who disobeys that which is therein will be considered a disbeliever and a transgressor to that whereunto he is commanded. He will be regarded as one who has corrupted the oath of God, disbelieved His Testament, rejected His Authority, despised His Religion, and made himself deserving of His Curse, whether he is a Sultan or any other believer of Islam. Whenever Christian monks, devotees and pilgrims gather together, whether in a mountain or valley, or den, or frequented place, or plain, or church, or in houses of worship, verily we are [at the] back of them and shall protect them, and their properties and their morals, by Myself, by My Friends and by My Assistants, for they are of My Subjects and under My Protection.

I shall exempt them from that which may disturb them; of the burdens which are paid by others as an oath of allegiance. They must not give anything of their income but that which pleases themthey must not be offended, or disturbed, or coerced or compelled. Their judges should not be changed or prevented from accomplishing their offices, nor the monks disturbed in exercising their religious order, or the people of seclusion be stopped from dwelling in their cells.

No one is allowed to plunder these Christians, or destroy or spoil any of their churches, or houses of worship, or take any of the things contained within these houses and bring it to the houses of Islam. And he who takes away anything therefrom, will be one who has corrupted the oath of God, and, in truth, disobeyed His Messenger.

Jizya should not be put upon their judges, monks, and those whose occupation is the worship of God; nor is any other thing to be taken from them, whether it be a fine, a tax or any unjust right. Verily I shall keep their compact, wherever they may be, in the sea or on the land, in the East or West, in the North or South, for they are under My Protection and the testament of My Safety, against all things which they abhor.

No taxes or tithes should be received from those who devote themselves to the worship of God in the mountains, or from those who cultivate the Holy Lands. No one has the right to interfere with their affairs, or bring any action against them. Verily this is for aught else and not for them; rather, in the seasons of crops, they should be given a Kadah for each Ardab of wheat (about five bushels and a half) as provision for them, and no one has the right to say to them 'this is too much', or ask them to pay any tax.

As to those who possess properties, the wealthy and merchants, the poll-tax to be taken from them must not exceed twelve drachmas a head per year
.
They shall not be imposed upon by anyone to undertake a journey, or to be forced to go to wars or to carry arms; for the Muslims have to fight for them. Do no dispute or argue with them, but deal according to the verse recorded in the Quran, to wit: 'Do not dispute or argue with the People of the Book but in that which is best' [29:46]. Thus they will live favored and protected from everything which may offend them by the Callers to religion (Islam), wherever they may be and in any place they may dwell.

Should any Christian woman be married to a Muslim, such marriage must not take place except after her consent, and she must not be prevented from going to her church for prayer. Their churches must be honored and they must not be withheld from building churches or repairing convents.

They must not be forced to carry arms or stones; but the Muslims must protect them and defend them against others. It is positively incumbent upon every one of the follower of Islam not to contradict or disobey this oath until the Day of Resurrection and the end of the world.

---

I suggest you read it before rendering judgement or making guesses. Islam is a pre-modern religion and the purest practice of it found in the ME is exemplary of that. Why look both ways before crossing the street in Cairo? If allah wants you to live, you will. It's fascinating to see, to say the least. But I digress. Read it and see what Mohammed did in his life. Then ask yourself which followers come closest to it between the groups.

Edit: I almost forgot the catch. You have to read it in the original language, otherwise it's a mistranslation or you misunderstand the text. I wish I could say that tongue in cheek but I have heard it enough that I think you'll find it to be a serious response.

RetiredAg said:

---

I'm not familiar w/ the Koran, but I would imagine it's one of those things that's very similar to the OT depictions of the people believing God commanded them to commit genocide and infanticide. There's probably a wide variance on how to interpret those texts, whether in Islam, Christianity or Judaism. Canadiaggie had a great thread on Islam, and it really does highlight the folly of looking at Muslims as some monolithic group that carries the same interpretation for these texts.

---

I don't know where I've ever said Muslims should be viewed monolithically. Individual Muslim beliefs vary just as widely as any other group. It is important to distinguish between Muslims and Islam. We have to be able to criticize Islam, just as Christianity has been criticized for the contents of it's religious writings. My point is this. You can interpret and reject whatever you want in any religion, but you have to acknowledge the connection between the religion and how it's followers arrive at interpretations. In this case, Islam is connected to not only violent extremism (a minority), but the reprehensible views on various social issues you see all over the world. There is a lot more nuance to the discussion of radical Islamic terrorism than I see either the apologetics or the islamaphobes are willing to allow.

americathegreat1492 said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

I'm not familiar w/ the Koran, but I would imagine it's one of those things that's very similar to the OT depictions of the people believing God commanded them to commit genocide and infanticide. There's probably a wide variance on how to interpret those texts, whether in Islam, Christianity or Judaism. Canadiaggie had a great thread on Islam, and it really does highlight the folly of looking at Muslims as some monolithic group that carries the same interpretation for these texts.

---

I don't know where I've ever said Muslims should be viewed monolithically. Individual Muslim beliefs vary just as widely as any other group. It is important to distinguish between Muslims and Islam. We have to be able to criticize Islam, just as Christianity has been criticized for the contents of it's religious writings. My point is this. You can interpret and reject whatever you want in any religion, but you have to acknowledge the connection between the religion and how it's followers arrive at interpretations. In this case, Islam is connected to not only violent extremism (a minority), but the reprehensible views on various social issues you see all over the world. There is a lot more nuance to the discussion of radical Islamic terrorism than I see either the apologetics or the islamaphobes are willing to allow.

---

If I were you I'd suggest a comparison between the two. Christ as the central figure to Christianity and the measure of what Christians should do. Mohammed as the central figure to Islam and a measure of how Muslims can or should live. It starts with reading the Quran though.

Quote:

---

Edit: I almost forgot the catch. You have to read it in the original language, otherwise it's a mistranslation or you misunderstand the text. I wish I could say that tongue in cheek but I have heard it enough that I think you'll find it to be a serious response.

---

Eh, that's true for Christianity as well. There are numerous examples of a word that can have multiple meanings in the text, but when it is translated we use an english word that may only cover one or two of the original meanings. Sometimes the original word (in the greek, hebrew, whatever) may have been chosen because they wanted to convey each of the meanings of the word. One of the lessons I've taken away from reading history is the that the writers of antiquity were very careful in their word choice for that very reason - they could use one word and say express multiple complementary ideas.

It's one of the things I actually appreciate about Islam (and Judaism as well): the lay people taught to read the text in it's original language as part of their education. I worked with a muslim woman who was, other than wearing a Hijab, was as Americanized as you or me (in fact a flaming liberal), but she could read and speak Arabic fluently despite never having left the US or Texas for that matter.

Have a read, with links to the full text. For completeness, I'm not arguing that you can't interpret/context/rationalize a way out of these verses (in fact I believe Islam has to for the good of the world). My argument is that if YEC can be viewed as a literal reading of Genesis, then radical Islam can be viewed as a literal reading of the Koran and various Hadiths, particularly the Sunni Hadith.


http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html


http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/5/index.htm#33

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Quote:

---

Edit: I almost forgot the catch. You have to read it in the original language, otherwise it's a mistranslation or you misunderstand the text. I wish I could say that tongue in cheek but I have heard it enough that I think you'll find it to be a serious response.

---

Eh, that's true for Christianity as well. There are numerous examples of a word that can have multiple meanings in the text, but when it is translated we use an english word that may only cover one or two of the original meanings. Sometimes the original word (in the greek, hebrew, whatever) may have been chosen because they wanted to convey each of the meanings of the word. One of the lessons I've taken away from reading history is the that the writers of antiquity were very careful in their word choice for that very reason - they could use one word and say express multiple complementary ideas.

It's one of the things I actually appreciate about Islam (and Judaism as well): the lay people taught to read the text in it's original language as part of their education. I worked with a muslim woman who was, other than wearing a Hijab, was as Americanized as you or me (in fact a flaming liberal), but she could read and speak Arabic fluently despite never having left the US or Texas for that matter.

---

If you've told non-Christians that they don't understand a verse in the Bible because they haven't read it in the original Hebrew or Greek, you may be the only person I've met that said that.

americathegreat1492 said:

---

Have a read, with links to the full text. For completeness, I'm not arguing that you can't interpret/context/rationalize a way out of these verses (in fact I believe Islam has to for the good of the world). My argument is that if YEC can be viewed as a literal reading of Genesis, then radical Islam can be viewed as a literal reading of the Koran and various Hadiths, particularly the Sunni Hadith.


http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html


http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/5/index.htm#33

---

I'm not arguing that there are not clear calls of violence, particularly to unbelievers in the Koran, and I actually tend to fall on the side of interpreting the Koran to be pointing towards approving of spreading Islam by the sword. But for arguments sake I wanted to point out that making a simple statement that Islam is a religion of violence because "Their founder and their holy text say convert or die and to kill the infidel" and anyone who doesn't agree isn't a "real Muslim" is at best ignorant or intellectually lazy, or at worst flat out deceitful.

Also as just a minor point of contention, "the Sunni Hadith" is not actually a Hadith. There are specific Hadiths that Sunni rely upon, and view as canonical but technically speaking they are still 6 individual Hadiths.

Of course, from my Christian perspective this whole exercise ends up being silly on an intellectual level because we are arguing over which lie is the true lie...

AGC said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Quote:

---

Edit: I almost forgot the catch. You have to read it in the original language, otherwise it's a mistranslation or you misunderstand the text. I wish I could say that tongue in cheek but I have heard it enough that I think you'll find it to be a serious response.

---

Eh, that's true for Christianity as well. There are numerous examples of a word that can have multiple meanings in the text, but when it is translated we use an english word that may only cover one or two of the original meanings. Sometimes the original word (in the greek, hebrew, whatever) may have been chosen because they wanted to convey each of the meanings of the word. One of the lessons I've taken away from reading history is the that the writers of antiquity were very careful in their word choice for that very reason - they could use one word and say express multiple complementary ideas.

It's one of the things I actually appreciate about Islam (and Judaism as well): the lay people taught to read the text in it's original language as part of their education. I worked with a muslim woman who was, other than wearing a Hijab, was as Americanized as you or me (in fact a flaming liberal), but she could read and speak Arabic fluently despite never having left the US or Texas for that matter.

---

If you've told non-Christians that they don't understand a verse in the Bible because they haven't read it in the original Hebrew or Greek, you may be the only person I've met that said that.

---

That's not what I intended. I'm saying that there is something lost when you translate anything from one language to another. An expression in Spanish may not have a direct counterpart in English - do we translate as is (which may not make sense), use the closest English substitute (something will be lost) or try to capture the essence of the colloquiums in english? Whichever way we choose, something is lost, whether it is the wordplay or meaning.

For this reason I have several different translations of the Bible on my bookshelf and I'll pull them out when I come across something that either troubles me or I want to break down further. Even then I know that it still is not a 1:1 translation.

Sure. I think it's perfectly acceptable to talk about how there are doctrines within Islam that are violent and that there are doctrines within Islam that are non-violent. The discussion needs to be had. Yes, I'm aware there are 6 canonical Sunni Hadith. I don't know what the proper plural is for the word. These sayings I find particularly abhorrent:

Sunan of Abu-Dawud

If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.


If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

AGC said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Quote:

---

Edit: I almost forgot the catch. You have to read it in the original language, otherwise it's a mistranslation or you misunderstand the text. I wish I could say that tongue in cheek but I have heard it enough that I think you'll find it to be a serious response.

---

Eh, that's true for Christianity as well. There are numerous examples of a word that can have multiple meanings in the text, but when it is translated we use an english word that may only cover one or two of the original meanings. Sometimes the original word (in the greek, hebrew, whatever) may have been chosen because they wanted to convey each of the meanings of the word. One of the lessons I've taken away from reading history is the that the writers of antiquity were very careful in their word choice for that very reason - they could use one word and say express multiple complementary ideas.

It's one of the things I actually appreciate about Islam (and Judaism as well): the lay people taught to read the text in it's original language as part of their education. I worked with a muslim woman who was, other than wearing a Hijab, was as Americanized as you or me (in fact a flaming liberal), but she could read and speak Arabic fluently despite never having left the US or Texas for that matter.

---

If you've told non-Christians that they don't understand a verse in the Bible because they haven't read it in the original Hebrew or Greek, you may be the only person I've met that said that.

---

That's not what I intended. I'm saying that there is something lost when you translate anything from one language to another. An expression in Spanish may not have a direct counterpart in English - do we translate as is (which may not make sense), use the closest English substitute (something will be lost) or try to capture the essence of the colloquiums in english? Whichever way we choose, something is lost, whether it is the wordplay or meaning.

For this reason I have several different translations of the Bible on my bookshelf and I'll pull them out when I come across something that either troubles me or I want to break down further. Even then I know that it still is not a 1:1 translation.

---

The difference here is in some schools of Islamic theology, the Koran in any other language than the original Arabic is no longer the Koran. Valuable, but not the Koran. that is why a number of Muslims around the world can recite the Koran in Arabic even though they don't speak Arabic. This then forces them to rely upon Imams to tell them the meaning. Which now that I type that sounds an awful lot like the days of the Bible only being available in Latin...

But I agree with the basic premise, which is why I keep a Greek interlinear out when studying the new testament and don't just completely trust one translation.

Glad you know that, I just default to questioning because so many speak without having any knowledge of what they are talking about. and according to dictionary.com the plural of hadith is hadiths (had to look that one up as i typed my last post)

out of curiosity, why do you find those specific sayings particularly abhorrent?

Which is understandable, but unfortunately not what I was talking about. At what point would you ever tell someone they were wrong because they can't read Greek?

I yo se. A veces yo no tengo ni puta idea como traducir cosas.

BlackGold hit it on the head two posts up. Read that post, it has a great summary.