There is an interesting thread over at NWGamers. It’s not really about Gaming, so I have requested that the fascinating discussion move over here, so I am cross posting my last response here.

Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

Deuteronomy 12:2-3

Um. Loving. Nice. Kill everyone who does not agree? This must be a mistake.

The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

Psalms 58:10

Wait a minute. God, the God of Love expects His followers to rejoice when he ‘washes his feet in the blood of the wicked’? WTH?

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

Matthew 10:34-37

There goes the idea the Jesus is a peaceful guy.

As far as folks using Christianity as a basis for murder:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…. And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people…. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.

That was Hitler. Yup. Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922.

All of this just goes to say that, just about any religion can be used ‘for evil’, or at the very least to rationalize the use of Evil. It has been said that God is the basis for all evil. I do not know if I believe that or not, however ‘His’ writings can certainly be used to justify Evil.

And it’s not just a Muslim thing.

I think that this needs to move to a non-gaming site, as it is not really in the scope of the site. I will cross post this to my Blog, and you can feel free to flame me there.

Thanks! :)

13 thoughts on “Debate!”

  1. IMHO I think we should stop being extra nice and start identifying these cooks for what they are. Treat them exactley the same way we treat other racist. The "moderates" I have a feeling will be stumbling over themselves to get to the banner of tolerancy.

  2. <blockquote>Hey, the Constitution is a 200+ years old and no one can agree on what it means so I guess it all must be false and we are all mislead?</blockquote>

    Um. No. We have the original of the Constitution. We can look at the authentic original of the document and read what actually was written. With most older religious texts, the originals are long, long lost. What we are reading are copies of copies of copies. And, these are not Xerox copies, they were copied by hand, by people with their own opinions and paradigms.

    And that’s not even adding in the translations the document had to go through.

    So, we cannot authenticate that what is written down now is truly what was written down then. If you look into the historical documents that the Koran and Bible (as well as the Buddhist works) are based upon, you can find some very major differences between them. At some point, the scribe doing the copying had to make a choice between the two. And, not having access to the originals, he simply chose what he <b>though</b> was the best, or what would get <strong>his</strong> point across the best.

    <blockquote>In other words, Allah will punish any Muslim that opposes another Muslim from making war on non-believers. </blockquote>

    The problem here is this statement: ‘In other words’. Some one else might read that passage totally differently. It’s all about how you interpret the words. To place universal significance on something that is not laid out in black and white, something which has been copied by hand and translated for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.. Well that just seems silly to me.

    <blockquote>I think right now we are on a path to lose because we don’t even know who we are fighting as a country. Very few Americans fully understand what the threat is.</blockquote>

    So, what is the answer? How do we fight this war for hearts and minds? I have heard you saying "we are not doing the right thing, we are not doing enough", but what would the <em>right thing</em> be? How do we proceed?

    It seems to me, if we espouse rhetoric which states ‘All Muslims are against us, and even if they are not actively trying to kill us, they will not lift a finger to stop it’ will certainly do one thing. It will make all Muslims believe that <strong>we</strong> are against <strong>them</strong>. It will engender a feeling of mistrust towards us, and convince more and more of them to join the ranks of the radicals.

  3. Amazing Tsykoduk, is it just me or this conversation about Islam always returns to Christians? Do you have some pent up anger at Christians or something?

    Hey, the Constitution is a 200+ years old and no one can agree on what it means so I guess it all must be false and we are all mislead? And Penn and Teller are of course the authoritative source on truth…as well as MTV.

    At any rate back to the Topic. As I pointed out to you before (though briefly) why it is the moderates will not "regulate their own" is because they are still Muslim. The Koran says God forbids them to interfere.

    Sura 9:38, 39, 41, 44, 45 "9:38-39,41,44-45 O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For God hath power over all things. … Go ye forth, (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive and struggle, with your goods and your persons, in the cause of God. That is best for you, if ye (but) knew. … Those who believe in God and the Last Day ask thee for no exemption from fighting with their goods and persons. And God knoweth well those who do their duty. Only those ask thee for exemption who believe not in God and the Last Day, and whose hearts are in doubt, so that they are tossed in their doubts to and fro."

    Sura 48:17 "No blame is there on the blind, nor is there blame on the lame, nor on one ill (if he joins not the war): But he that obeys God and his Apostle,- (God) will admit him to Gardens beneath which rivers flow; and he who turns back, (God) will punish him with a grievous Penalty"

    In other words, Allah will punish any Muslim that opposes another Muslim from making war on non-believers. The Islamofascist declared war on America since the early 70’s and we are still waiting for the moderates to check their own and it ain’t going to happen, especially with the radicals in our country right now.

    I think right now we are on a path to lose because we don’t even know who we are fighting as a country. Very few Americans fully understand what the threat is. Heck the Democrats had an Imam lead their prayer for their winter meeting who is a Hezbollah supporter who thinks Americans and Jews should die and in his prayer he states "So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom" and no one…even the talking heads in the news…stopped to ask what does he mean by the right path and the people God "dooms". The right path is obviously Islam and the people who are doomed are everyone else…pretty much everyone attending the DNC winter meeting except maybe Elison if he attended. So the Democrats in the eagerness for tolerance all bowed their heads and prayed for their own destruction or conversion.

    To quote Lincoln (paraphrased) "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

  4. <blockquote>I am not sure how to solve this problem, but I suspect that pointing it out, and trying to get those Muslims who disagree with this violent philosophy to engage the problem within their religion is the best way forward.</blockquote>

    That’s what I said. Heh – we agree on something, Dave. :)

    Honestly, I do believe that the New Testament is a pretty good look at the history of the era. However, to use a book which was written by committee and salespeople as an unquestioning basis for a life, well, that does not make sense to me. Same with the Koran. I do not know as much about it’s history and the lineage of the translations as I do about the bible, however it seems to me anything written over 500 years ago, not to mention thousands, where we do not have the verifiable original writings of the original author are suspect, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

    There was an episode of <a href="">Bullshit</a&gt; by Penn and Teller that covered the bible. I recall a portion of it where they were talking about two different written authorities on Elvis who disagreed with the King’s fried chicken recipe. If we cannot get it right after 30 or 40 years, what happens after 500 or 2500?

    My only point is that to take the bible as the ‘literal, unchanging word of God’ is a little misguided. We know that the bible has changed over the years, and we have the original documents to prove it. This does not mean that Christians are misguided, but rather that Christians should question their holy book, and make sure that it’s at least internally constant.

    I have gotten a lot of flack for stating these (in my mind) obvious things. I still stand by them. We were born with the ability to question, to examine and to make our own choices. If in fact God Did create us, then not using these gifts of his seems to me to be counter productive. There is a lot of the Bible and the Koran which makes for interesting reading. However, I would not want a literal reading of either to be used as the basis for the laws of any land which I lived in.

    To solve our recent problems with the Mid East and the extremist Christians in the West, I think that we need to engage their more moderate brethren in dialog. Open our minds to the fact that not all are as extreme and fanatical as the ones who fight against us. Convince the moderates to stand up to the radicals, and publicly chastise them. If enough of the community speaks out, then we will be left with a war which is winnable. One that is about money and power, no longer hidden behind a facade of religious propaganda.

  5. I agree with Scipio. P.S. I have read the Koran and have read the Bible, the Koran once, the Bible several times. Koran does admonish Jihad in parts. The Bible as used above was totally taken out of context. BUT…if you think that God aka YHWH is only a God of peace then you are grossly mistaken.

  6. Humans are a contentious warlike species. We wage war. Religious people wage war, non-religious people wage war. Monotheists wage war. Pantheists wage war. Atheists wage war. The common element doesn’t seem to me to be belief in any given creed, the common element seems to be that humans are a warlike bunch.

    Many religions try to limit this tendency. Obviously they have limited success, but I think it hard to justify the concept that there would not be war if it was not for religion.

    To talk about the specific problem right now, I think saying that it is only a few Muslims who believe their religion justifies, and perhaps even requires, violence is a mistake. While it may not be an absolute majority of Muslims that think this way, it is certainly a very signifigant minority. Ignoring that fact is engaging in wishful thinking.

    Of course one can believe, as I do, that this violence is not inherent within Islam. If it is, then yes genocide is effectively the only answer. At the same time though, it is quite clear that Islam can be used to justify this violence, and it is equally clear that this is in fact occuring. At nearly every place where Muslims come into conflict with the other, whether we are talking geographic boundaries such as the Sudan, Israel, Thialand or Serbia or culteral boundaries such as Londan, Paris and Brussels, we are seeing violence with Muslims being one of the parties involved.

    This says to me that their is a problem, and pretending it doesn’t exist won’t solve it.

    I am not sure how to solve this problem, but I suspect that pointing it out, and trying to get those Muslims who disagree with this violent philosophy to engage the problem within their religion is the best way forward.

  7. Nope. Not kidding.

    The point is that in a democracy, in a free society, no one has the right to not be offended.

    That’s simply saying that everyone has the right to free speech. Take, for example, the cartoons a few years back. Certain portions of the world population tried to make a point that the cartoonists <strong>did not have the <i>right</i> to offend them</strong>. They believe that their sensibilities are more important then the cartoonist’s rights of free speech.

    This is totally against free societies basic precepts.

    "No one has the right to not be offended"

    I am not missing the point. I acknowledge that there are some crackpots out there. I <strong>refuse</strong> to paint all muslims with the same brush that the crackpots are painted with.

    Doing that only makes the problem worse. It creates a ‘us vs them’ mentality on both sides. We will not be able to change Muslim religion. We need the moderates in the culture to stand up and put the crackpots into place.

    That is all that I have ever said.

    That, and the Muslims do not have a corner on the world market of religious based insanity. We simply have to look to Europe’s history (not to mention the history of the US) to see that Christians are just as capable of justifying horrendous acts in the name of God.

    I honestly believe that it has something to do with the belief in absolute truth. But that’s another story, for another day.


  8. They do not have the right to "not" be offended? Your kidding me right?

    "Moderate" Muslim Leaders preaching hate in Britain.

    According to one Imam in Australia "liberally dressed Australian women are ‘uncovered meat’ who tempt men to rape them"

    Seems to me your missing the point here. These people want un-believers to convert or die (and Jews to just die). I don’t think they are offended…their methodical.

    I’m not saying all muslims are evil. I am saying that this "problem" ain’t 100 guys in a cave. Its mainstream and its much larger then our domestic hate mongers the white and black supremisists combined and as such the solution needs to match the threat.

  9. "I think that the snippets that you provided are not ‘why’ ‘they’ want to kill us, but rather justification used by their leaders to brainwash their followers.

    If we (as the west) decide that all Muslims are evil, as it seems to me is happening, the only thing that we can do is kill all of them. Genocide.

    I cannot believe that genocide is any kind of a solution to the tensions that we are facing.

    We simply have to educate people that they <strong>do not have the right to not be offended</strong>. It’s that simple. Hate the ideas, attack the ideas, respect the person.

    Also, be open minded enough to understand that you yourself might be wrong about some things."

  10. Actually the "snippets" I posted were in context to an Islamis Extremist. In fact thats why I provided you a statement made to the press and compared it to the Koran…I was pointing out were an extremist gets this stuff because the question posed to me in the beggining was "Hey we should understand our enemy…" and this goes to motive (these "snippets" explain why they want to kill us).

    At any rate I find it amusing that hate crime laws were introduced and used with great success against such organizations as KKK, Aryan Nations, etc… and I am wondering why is there reluctance to use the same laws against extremist Islamist? I mean whats on their agenda…they hate Jews and they hate non-believers.

    You can say what you want about free speach but the fact remains that none of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were ever prosecuted nore will they ever serve a day in jail for killing anyone. In fact they will never be treated like criminals.

    So at what point does "free" speach become a threat and should anyone be "free" to make someone else live in fear with those threats? Living in fear is not really free.

  11. I think that the main point here is when you start quoting snippets out of a book, taken out of context, you can use that book to justify just about anything. Add to that the book being thousands of years old, and translated and copied by hand literally hundreds of times since the original – well let’s just say that I could use a Warhammer rule book to justify a peaceful and loving religion.

    One of the issues that we deal with, being citizens of this world, is people who do not agree with our ideas. In the American paradigm they have every right to disagree with us, and to talk about those disagreements. In fact, since every religious text is interpreted, with out the possibility of discussion of dispirit ideas, we would basically be at a stand still. Belief is a dangerous thing, and when presented with notions that do not agree with one’s belief, that which one has build their entire world-view around, one tends to react defensively.

    To have a group of us decide what is considered ‘hate speech’ and to make speech such as that illegal, well, I have a problem with that. If it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the speech in question lead <strong>directly</strong> to the actions, and that the person who carried out the actions was unduly swayed by said speech, let’s prosecute under the existing laws which cover that. We simply do not need to make more things illegal, or write new laws. We already have the ability to take care of the criminal problem. Let’s use what we do have.

    So called political correctness (protecting the feelings of a group by making certain speech) is an anathema to American Values. Values inshrined in our constitution such as free speech. To loose those values to PC laws and fear, well that’s <strong>loosing</strong> the war.

    <blockquote>he idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted is absurd. So too is the notion that people should have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted. A fundamental decision needs to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other’s positions. (But they don’t shoot.)</blockquote>

    –<a href="">Salman Rushdie</a>

    My though is when people <strong>do</strong> shoot, they should be treated like the criminals that they are.

  12. So we change website and topic all in one go. I can’t see how we can debate when this moral equivalancy argument was already presented and both of us agreed it had no relavance but here it is again. And of course I have never said "muslims have a monopoly on using their religion for evil" but I am pointing out that Islam seems to be embroiled in "Jihad" in almost all the current conflicts going on in the world. So I guess your steering the Topic not only off topic but out of the time line…shall we go back to the dawn of ages to find out if christians sinned more and what relevance would that have?

    Of course I’ll bite since the 3 versus you gave from the Bible are out of context. And reading this post would not be entertaining if I didn’t.

    Deuteronomy 12:2-3 , this was a commandment for the Jews as to how they were to take the ‘promise land” and not an outstanding commandment such as Jihad in the Koran. Of course if you read the whole book you realise that Israel did not obey this commandment and fell into idoletry as a result.

    Matthew 10:34-37 , this one is way out of context when you read the chapter. He is talking about how preaching the gospel will get his disciples persecuted because of their relationship with him and by telling others about how they too can have this relationship. Thats why in Matthew 10:21-23 it says ’21"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” Again not a commandment for Jihad

    Psalms 58:10 , of course this is a song (a miktam) talking about the judgment the rulers of the world (as it states in the first verse) and it is also repeated in the Revelation 19. It is talking about a future event when the age of ‘grace” is over and Christ returns to ‘judge” the world. Its not a Jihad commandment.

    Hitlers speech you quoted is built on three lies

    1.Hitler was not a christian. He just said that to let the christians know he could relate to them.
    [quote=”Hitlers Table Talk”]
    "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together….
    "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity….
    "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." [/quote]
    2.Jesus did not die on the cross to ward the world ‘against the Jewish poison”. 1 Chorinthians 15, Hebrews 9:15, 1 Peter 3:18, etc…
    3.Christ did not ‘recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them”

    And of course this is a far cry from

    [quote]"Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfil God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world," he says.

    The militant leader on several occasions in the past had openly admitted crossing over into Afghanistan to fight foreign troops.

    "We will continue our struggle until foreign troops are thrown out. Then we will attack them in the US and Britain until they either accept Islam or agree to pay jazia (a tax in Islam for non-Muslims living in an Islamic state)."[/quote]

    source is here:

    He is basically summerizing this text in the Koran.

    [quote]9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [tribute] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.[/quote]

Leave a Reply