Can the West defeat the Islamist threat? Here are ten reasons why not

[Kartikeya-OD]

I found this to be a very interesting read, espically coming from a Oxford professor.

By David Selbourne, professor Oxford

link to times priting of this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2349195,00.html)

LET US SUPPOSE, for the sake of argument, that the war declared by al-Qaeda and other Islamists is under way. Let us further suppose that thousands of “terrorist” attacks carried out in Islam’s name during the past decades form part of this war; and that conflicts that have spread to 50 countries and more, taking the lives of millions — including in inter-Muslim blood-shedding — are the outcome of what Osama bin Laden has called “conducting jihad for the sake of Allah”.

If such war is under way, there are ten good reasons why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated in it.

*
1) The first is the extent of political division in the non-Muslim world about what is afoot. Some reject outright that there is a war at all; others agree with the assertion by the US President that “the war we fight is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century”. Divided counsels have also dictated everything from “dialogue” to the use of nuclear weapons, and from reliance on “public diplomacy” to “taking out Islamic sites”, Mecca included. Adding to this incoherence has been the gulf between those bristling to take the fight to the “terrorist” and those who would impede such a fight, whether from domestic civil libertarian concerns or from rivalrous geopolitical calculation.

2) The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated is that the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood. It is neither a “religion of peace” nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”. Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values” with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself.

Islam is not even a religion in the conventional sense of the term. It is a transnational political and ethical movement that believes that it holds the solution to mankind’s problems. It therefore holds that it is in mankind’s own interests to be subdued under Islam’s rule. Such belief therefore makes an absurdity of the project to “democratise” Muslim nations in the West’s interests, an inversion that Islam cannot accept and, in its own terms, rightly so. It renders naive, too, the distinction between the military and political wings of Islamic movements; and makes Donald Rumsfeld’s assertion in June 2005 that the insurgents in Iraq “don’t have vision, they’re losers” merely foolish. In this war, if there is a war, the boot is on the other foot.

3) Indeed, the third reason why Islam will not be defeated, as things stand, is the low level of Western leadership, in particular in the United States. During the half-century of the Islamic revival, it has shown itself at sixes and sevens both diplomatically and militarily. It has been without a sense of strategic direction, and been unable to settle upon coherent war plans. It has even lacked the gifts of language to make its purposes plain. Or, as Burke put it in March, 1775, “a great empire and little minds go ill together”. In this war with Islam, if it is a war, the combination bodes defeat.

4) Next is the contribution to the disarray of Western policy-making being made by the egotistical competitiveness, and in some cases hysterics, of “experts” and commentators on Islam. They include hyperventilating Islamophobes as well as academic apologists for the worst that is being done in Islam’s name. On this battleground, with its personalised blogsites to assist self-promotion, many seem to think that their opinions are more important than the issues upon which they are passing judgment; and amid the babel of advisory voices, policy has become increasingly inconsistent.

5) The fifth disablement is to be found in the confusion of “progressives” about the Islamic advance. With their political and moral bearings lost since the defeat of the “socialist project”, many on the Left have only the fag-end of anti-colonial positions on which to take their stand. To attribute the West’s problems to our colonial past contains some truth. But it is again to misunderstand the inner strength of Islam’s revival, which is owed not to victimhood but to advancing confidence in its own belief system.

Moreover, to Islam’s further advantage, it has led most of today’s “progressives” to say little, or even to keep silent, about what would once have been regarded as the reactionary aspects of Islam: its oppressive hostility to dissent, its maltreatment of women, its supremacist hatred of selected out-groups such as Jews and gays, and its readiness to incite and to use extremes of violence against them. Mein Kampf circulates in Arab countries under the title Jihadi.

6) The sixth reason for Islam’s growing strength is the vicarious satisfaction felt by many non-Muslims at America’s reverses. Those who feel such satisfaction could be regarded as Trojan horses, a cavalry whose number is legion and which is growing. For some, their principle — or anti-principle — is that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Others believe their refusal of support for the war with Islam, if there is such a war, is a righteous one. But the consequences are the same: Islam’s advance is being borne along by Muslims and non-Muslims together.

7) The seventh reason lies in the moral poverty of the West’s, and especially America’s, own value system. Doctrines of market freedom, free choice and competition — or “freedom ’n’ liberty” — are no match for the ethics of Islam and Sharia, like them or not. Yet in the “battle for hearts and minds” the US First Cavalry Division saw fit to set up “Operation Adam Smith” in Iraq to teach marketing skills, among other things, to local entrepreneurs. There can be no victory here. Or, as Sheikh Mohammed al-Tabatabi told thousands of worshippers in Baghdad in May 2003: “The West calls for freedom and liberty. Islam rejects such liberty. True liberty is obedience to Allah.”

8) The next indication that Islam’s advance will continue lies in the skilful use being made of the media and of the world wide web in the service both of the “electronic jihad” and the bamboozling of Western opinion by Muslim spokesmen. It is also a political enterprise in which Muslims and non-Muslims can now be found acting together in furthering the reach of Islam’s world view; the help being given by Western producers and broadcasters to al-Jazeera is the most notable instance of it.

9) The ninth factor guaranteeing Islam’s onward march is the West’s dependency on the material resources of Arab and Muslim countries. In April 1917, Woodrow Wilson, recommending to the US Congress an American declaration of war against Germany, could say that “we have no selfish ends to serve”. American levels of consumption make no such statement possible now. The US is, so to speak, over a barrel. It will remain so.

10) Finally, the West is convinced that its notions of technology-driven modernity and market-driven prog- ress are innately superior to the ideals of “backward” Islam. This is an old delusion. In 1899, Winston Churchill asserted that there was “no stronger retrograde force in the world” than Islam. More than a century later, it is fondly believed that sophisticated hardware and Star Wars defences will ensure Western mastery in this war, if it is a war.

But as the Saudi “scholar” Suleiman al-Omar declared in June 2004: “Islam is advancing according to a steady plan. America will be destroyed.” As things stand, given the ten factors set out here, he is more likely to be proved right than wrong.

[Zogo]

how can you defeat an idea or belief? there's really no way of removing it short of annihilation of all adherents.

[MidnightStalker]

I agree with Zogo here. Why would you even want to defeat a religion? This is further proof that we growing more and more intolerant, especially if you're calling, or at least alluding to, the annihilation of a religion you disagree with.

People fail to take into respect the millions of 'legitimate' Muslim in favor of only concentrating their views on Islam from terroristic and extremist people who follow the Qurʾan and preform violent neologistic jihads in its name.

[Kartikeya-OD]

MidnightStalker, the article isn't about defeating an entire religion. Hence the word choice in the articles title 'Islamic threat' more commonly known as the jihadist, or radical Islam.

Also people have recognized the millions of 'legitimate' Muslim. The only problem is they have little or no power. Consequently you have the third paragraph of the article.

[stas]

I agree with Zogo here. Why would you even want to defeat a religion? This is further proof that we growing more and more intolerant, especially if you're calling, or at least alluding to, the annihilation of a religion you disagree with.

People fail to take into respect the millions of 'legitimate' Muslim in favor of only concentrating their views on Islam from terroristic and extremist people who follow the Qurʾan and preform violent neologistic jihads in its name.

are you muslim?

[MidnightStalker]

MidnightStalker, the article isn't about defeating an entire religion. Hence the word choice in the articles title 'Islamic threat' more commonly known as the jihadist, or radical Islam.

Also people have recognized the millions of 'legitimate' Muslim. The only problem is they have little or no power. Consequently you have the third paragraph of the article.
That's funny, because throughout the entirety of the artilce, save the one refrence in the title, the author uses Islam and only Islam in describing what is to be defeated.

The third paragraph of the article doesn't say anything about legitimate Muslims lacking power, from my assessment.

stas, no.

In fact, I come from a religion that teaches similar teachings that Islam does. I come from a religion that teaches that there is a God, and one God only. One that teaches of a phrophet who is the Messenger of His word. One that teaches that if you believe in this, you will be rewarded. One that teaches that if you do not, you will suffer. Not surprisingly, I'm speaking of Christianity.

[Kartikeya-OD]

Again, because where are your millions of 'legitimate' muslins. Oh yeah, no where, at least not in power. You really should start asking yourself why they are not in power. His second point pretty much sends it home.

[Repair Man]

There's some very valid points made, but his 2nd arguement isn't very convincing. He talks of Islam's "intransigence" as if it's unbreakable. Prior to WW2 the Japanese were very similar to modern day Muslim extremists, both in their belief of philosphical/natural supremacy and their hatred towards Western culture. They were defeated in half a decade in an effort that was largely our own, despite a weakened Pacific Navy, an unevenly divided military force, a highly trained and determined enemy (suicide bombers anyone?) with home-field advantage, and thousands of miles of open water in an age where jet fighters and long-distance bombers were still on the drawing-board.

[MidnightStalker]

Lets take a look at his second point then, shall we.

The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated is that the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood.
His second point talks about Muslims being underestimated, and Islam religion being misunderstood. That's probably a big reason why Islam will not be defeated.

It is neither a “religion of peace” nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”.
Arguable. I'm sure most Muslim would disagree (either because they don't believe the few extremist influence their religion as a whole (even though they greatly sway the mind of the average American in to thinking they are the norm) or because it's an unfair assessment to assume Muslims condone these actions).

Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values” with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself.
Similar to how the Bible justifies the refusal to “share a common set of values” whith non-believers. I don't see what this has to do with Muslims lacking power.

Islam is not even a religion in the conventional sense of the term. It is a transnational political and ethical movement that believes that it holds the solution to mankind’s problems. It therefore holds that it is in mankind’s own interests to be subdued under Islam’s rule.
In a sense, he just described what a religion might be in a conventinal sense, not unsimilar to many religions today. I still am not seeing the main point.

Such belief therefore makes an absurdity of the project to “democratise” Muslim nations in the West’s interests, an inversion that Islam cannot accept and, in its own terms, rightly so.I agree, because I do not agree with forcing of (any) religion upon others. It is an absurdity. Obviously this "democratizing" of Islam will fail in the West, and if they cannot accept that, then so be it. I'm still missing the point, however.

It renders naive, too, the distinction between the military and political wings of Islamic movements
Maybe so. I do not know for myself.

[Obscure]

There are plenty of differences within all of Islam to prevent them from uniting. The differences between Sunni and Shi'a for example. And Islam has not been transcendent enough in the past to overcome certain ethnic/racial rivalries either. Turks, Arabs, Persians, Kurds, etc have barely been able to agree on anything.

[shaggy]

stas, no.

In fact, I come from a religion that teaches similar teachings that Islam does. I come from a religion that teaches that there is a God, and one God only. One that teaches of a phrophet who is the Messenger of His word. One that teaches that if you believe in this, you will be rewarded. One that teaches that if you do not, you will suffer. Not surprisingly, I'm speaking of Christianity.

Hahaha this cracks me up. Tell me does your bible have scriptures explicitly telling you to kill nonbelievers? Does your bible talk of rewards for killing nonbelievers? If not, then there is a HUGE difference between Christianity and Islam. I'd also like to point out that in Christianity, it's not a prophet that is the original messenger of god's word. Unless you consider Jesus a phrophet, in which case you are not a christian at all. Anyways, please do not put islam and christianity in the same boat just b/c they are both monotheistic religions.

[Tone-Loc]

I think from my earlier post it's pretty clear which side of this argument I am on, but in regards to the last comment...

I'd also like to point out that in Christianity, it's not a prophet that is the original messenger of god's word.

uhhh.... I'll take "Prophets" for $1,000, Alex.

"He delivered not only the Jews out of bondage, but also delivered God's Laws on stone tablets."

Who was Moses, Alex?

"Correct, and you have control of the board..."

[Sutterkane]

how can you defeat an idea or belief? there's really no way of removing it short of annihilation of all adherents.

I know. There's still all those people who believe in Zeus/Jupiter.

and while I actually agree with you on this, it's a good thing that we all understand it.

How do we go about getting them to understand the same ideal that they aren't going to wipe us out?

[shaggy]

I think from my earlier post it's pretty clear which side of this argument I am on, but in regards to the last comment...



uhhh.... I'll take "Prophets" for $1,000, Alex.

"He delivered not only the Jews out of bondage, but also delivered God's Laws on stone tablets."

Who was Moses, Alex?

"Correct, and you have control of the board..."


We are talking about the first teachings of Christianity right? Well who was the first teacher of Christianity??? Oh that would be jesus. Yes the first teachings of Judaism would of been a prophet, but we are not talking about Judaism.

[Tone-Loc]

Shags,

C'mon man, Jesus was Jewish. There is no Christianity, without the foundation of Judaism.... hence the term "Judaeo-Christian" in regards to the shared values between the original tenets of Judaism and those of Chrisitanity that do not conflict, or overty override them.

And from what I know, Jesus did not overturn any of the Ten Commandments, which were the "Original Message" from God, delivered to and adhered by, Jews and future Chrisitans alike.

[shaggy]

Shags,

C'mon man, Jesus was Jewish. There is no Christianity, without the foundation of Judaism.... hence the term "Judaeo-Christian" in regards to the shared values between the original tenets of Judaism and those of Chrisitanity that do not conflict, or overty override them.

And from what I know, Jesus did not overturn any of the Ten Commandments, which were the "Original Message" from God, delivered to and adhered by, Jews and future Chrisitans alike.

Ok first this is a silly argument that doesn't have really any relavents to the argument of this thread. This is just arguing for argument's sake. Anyways, name me one old testiment prophet that spoke of Jesus, and his teachings. Do that and I will agree with you. The fact is there never were Christian prophets. You don't need a prophet(a person that speaks in the behalf of a god) when you have God in the flesh speaking for himself. That's why Christians have disciples(someone who believes and helps to spread the doctrine of another). Plus there are drastic differences in teachings from the Old testiment to the new. You'll find the Old is much harsher while the New's main philosphy is forgiveness. Anyways, back to topic :P

[Clank]

9) The ninth factor guaranteeing Islam’s onward march is the West’s dependency on the material resources of Arab and Muslim countries. In April 1917, Woodrow Wilson, recommending to the US Congress an American declaration of war against Germany, could say that “we have no selfish ends to serve”. American levels of consumption make no such statement possible now. The US is, so to speak, over a barrel. It will remain so.

This guy needs to read up on where we actually get our POL from.
90+% of it comes from South America. Not Southwest Asia.

I think the whole concept of "defeating islam" is dumb.
The US would never try to defeat it, maybe a few out of control extremists, and dictators. But come on, the entire religion?

[MidnightStalker]

Well, I don't think he ever specifically stated that we get most of our oil from the middle east (because we don't). He stated the West has a dependency on its oil, which is partially true. Fossil fuels are limited in number. If we were deprived of the oil coming from the middle east, gas prices would sky rocket. This of course doesn't mean we'd be out of oil or that we depend 100% on middle eastern oil, which I don't think he was trying to imply.

[MV8]

Well, I don't think he ever specifically stated that we get most of our oil from the middle east (because we don't). He stated the West has a dependency on its oil, which is partially true. Fossil fuels are limited in number. If we were deprived of the oil coming from the middle east, gas prices would sky rocket. This of course doesn't mean we'd be out of oil or that we depend 100% middle eastern oil, which I don't think he was trying to imply.

China would still be there to buy their oil. The cost would go up, but the middle east MUST sell it's oil to survive. Iran is one of the largest importers of gasoline. If the straits of hormuz were to be shut down, Iran would suffer far more economic damage than the west would. We have alternative sources for our oil needs, Iran is dependent on the importation of gas and diesel to fuel its military.

However, if the USA simply stopped sending the millions of tons of wheat and other foods to Islamic nations who have declared an intention to kill us, they would be hungry far sooner than we would run out of gas...

[Zogo]

Tell me does your bible have scriptures explicitly telling you to kill nonbelievers?

didn't we already deal with this in the last thread? some muslims follow sections of the text that other muslims don't..just like some christians used to cite the OT explicitly..

and PS what kind of denomination are you from? most consider jesus to be a prophet, priest and king and more.

I know. There's still all those people who believe in Zeus/Jupiter.

people still do worship those things..it just sounds funny because those mythologies have entered popular culture.

[shaggy]

and PS what kind of denomination are you from? most consider jesus to be a prophet, priest and king and more.


Woah, ummm to be blunt, I'm questioning if you know what a christian is lol. All Christians believe Jesus is one of the three entities of God, part of the trinity. And soo saying jesus is a prophet, priest and king is like saying God is those things, which is obsurd. ANyways to answer your question, I'm a non-denominational Christian. I was raised Southern baptist and I now attend Catholic church b/c my wife is a devoted catholic...but I am non-denominational.

[MidnightStalker]

"...they glorified God, saying, 'That a great prophet has risen up among us;...'" (Lk 7:16).

We are told that Jesus "...was a prophet..." (Lk 24:19).

Most people think of Jesus as a Savior, King, Babe, Messiah, Lamb, Priest, Lion, or some other such descriptive term. But, how many think of him as a Prophet? Probably not many! For most, there would be little reason for this notion to arise. The rigors and cares of daily life predominate. But the gospel of Luke reveals Jesus was a prophet. Luke said:
"...Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:.." (Lk 24:19).

Moses predicted that a special prophet was predestined to arise in the future. The first of two prophecies states:
"The Lord your God will raise up unto you a Prophet from the midst of you, of your brethren, like unto me; unto him shall you hear" (Dt 18:15).

...the Lord said..."I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto you, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him" (Dt 18:18).

[stas]

geez, not a big derail. lets just settle it at this. every prophet in the bible is a man (and wholly man). Jesus is not. the way christians view (or should view) Jesus is different than the way muslims/jews/christians view prophets. its a poor word to use, even if you can find it in the bible. id start checking context of your quotes too instead of just throwing them up there.

anyways, /thread derail.

[Zogo]

Woah, ummm to be blunt, I'm questioning if you know what a christian is lol. All Christians believe Jesus is one of the three entities of God, part of the trinity. And soo saying jesus is a prophet, priest and king is like saying God is those things, which is obsurd. ANyways to answer your question, I'm a non-denominational Christian. I was raised Southern baptist and I now attend Catholic church b/c my wife is a devoted catholic...but I am non-denominational.

I think you're showing that you have some strange beliefs..some explicit verses have already been pointed out above. jesus has about 1,000 different names in the bible.

its a poor word to use, even if you can find it in the bible. id start checking context of your quotes too instead of just throwing them up there.

poor word? what should be used in place of the word "prophet" where it's used IN the bible?

many hymns also use that phraseology

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/p/h/phimphim.htm

[rabidkevin]

more evidence the world needs to turn 100% non religious, all these beleifs are a bunch of shinanagans

who is right?? fucking nobody. all delusional.

[SithDrummer]

more evidence the world needs to turn 100% non religious, all these beleifs are a bunch of shinanagans

who is right?? fucking nobody. all delusional.
well, if this doesn't make you cool i don't know what does. glad you've figured it out for the rest of us peons.
->thanks!<- (http://forums.thecatacombs.net/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=11438)

[rabidkevin]

nobody is trying to be cool, everyone just worries about too much shit.

in the end, does any of it matter?

[FireWall]

in the end, does any of it matter?

Yes.

[leg]

more evidence the world needs to turn 100% non religious, all these beleifs are a bunch of shinanagans

who is right?? fucking nobody. all delusional.

I bet you that somebody or group of people are more right than others. Ofcourse the problem is that no one can seem to prove it. Besides, whose to say you are right in that we should all become non religioius?

[rabidkevin]

spirituality and organized religion are 2 totally different things. neither islams or the 'west' are wrong, everyone is right and we should respect those boundries.

[leg]

Maybe it's just me, but I agree with that statement alot more than your previous one.

[Zogo]

I bet you that somebody or group of people are more right than others. Ofcourse the problem is that no one can seem to prove it. Besides, whose to say you are right in that we should all become non religioius?

I think he's saying it's impossible to be certain that you have the correct ideas and interpretation of the bible..and that all the denominations/sects/cults believe that they do..so it's kind of futile.

[mistaman]

http://www.ldolphin.org/islam.shtml

"He is also just, merciful, majestic, sovereign, and has endowed every creation with a definite and defined nature which allows the myriad of creation to function as a whole."

"According to the Qur'an, the being who became Satan had previously occupied a high station but fell from grace by refusing to honor Adam when ordered by Allah to do so. Since then, Satan's work has been to beguile man into error and sin. Satan is a contemporary of man, and his act of disobedience is construed to be the sin of pride. Satan's machinations will cease on the Last Day."

"In Islamic doctrine, on the Last Day when the world will come to an end, the dead will be resurrected and judgment will be pronounced on every person in accordance with his deeds."

This is just a few excerpts from this website.

Let me ask you this. How could a just god let anyone into heaven? God created man and said he was good. Then the man sinned and became separated from god, and everyone born from thereafter was born a sinner separated from god. The penalty for sin is death. So Muslims think a sinful human can stand before a perfect and righteous god and say "I'm such a nice person, look at all the nice things I did." And god would reward someone for that? Wouldn't a just god think of that as receiving a bloody tampon?

How can anything imperfect be acceptable to a perfect god? Here is the answer.

Only by god becoming a fully human man, to live a sinless life, to live as we do to identify with us, to die on the cross for our sins as a substitute to justify us as perfect beings once again to god the father, and to be risen back to life to conquer Satan sin and death.

There needs to be justice/atonement for our sins, Christ dying on the cross is that justice. God the father’s wrath was taken out on him instead of us. So we are not justified by works, but by grace. It was a gift freely given so we can be reconciled to god.

Muslims are just “good people.” They do good things, but they are sinners, they were born that way, everyone is. And even if Muslims are able to completely stop sinning, they still have to account for all the sins of their past.

Would god say “love your enemies” or “kill your enemies”? Would god want to have his word given to a human “Mohammad” by an angel, or give it himself “Jesus”?

I leave you now with a the viewpoint of scripture believing Christians.

1 Peter 4:12-19

(Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something stranage were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And,

“If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner? Prov 11:31”

So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good.)

No one could have made up the Gospel, no one would die and suffer as Paul and Peter and so many others did for a big lie, this is the truth and the only truth, I pray that you all come to know Christ.

[Zogo]

Would god say “love your enemies” or “kill your enemies”?

both

Would god want to have his word given to a human “Mohammad” by an angel, or give it himself “Jesus”?

both

No one could have made up the Gospel, no one would die and suffer as Paul and Peter and so many others did for a big lie, this is the truth and the only truth, I pray that you all come to know Christ.

you'll find that people have been tricked into things to the point of death many times before then and since then.

[Terminotaur]

They were defeated in half a decade in an effort that was largely our own, despite a weakened Pacific Navy, an unevenly divided military force, a highly trained and determined enemy (suicide bombers anyone?) with home-field advantage, and thousands of miles of open water in an age where jet fighters and long-distance bombers were still on the drawing-board.
I take issue with the way you phrased this. When the attack on pearl harbor didn't completely destroy our Pacific Fleet, most analysts of the time and since then would agree that if America had the will to attack Japan, it would only be a matter of time before America defeated Japan due to the sheer difference in industrial capacity and resources.

Muslim extremists are much more different than wartime Japan. Muslim extremists do not all claim one nationality or place of origin, have no one leader, and are very decentralized. Almost all shintoists were Japanese and pledged allegiance to the country. The failure of their leader, country, and belief in being a superior race was a crushing blow to their religion. You can't deliver the same blow to Muslim extremists unless you eliminate virtually all of them or remove their reason for fighting. You can't invade a single country in order to control Muslim extremism.

No one could have made up the Gospel, no one would die and suffer as Paul and Peter and so many others did for a big lie, this is the truth and the only truth, I pray that you all come to know Christ.
Do you agree that this argument is very flawed and could be made for any religion that had a martyr or has large religious texts? One does not have to be lying to die for what they believe to be "the truth and the only truth."

How can anything imperfect be acceptable to a perfect god? Here is the answer.
A better answer would be the moment the 'perfect' god created 'imperfect' things. How can a perfect god create imperfect things unless this god accepts them?

[shaggy]

I think you're showing that you have some strange beliefs..some explicit verses have already been pointed out above. jesus has about 1,000 different names in the bible.



poor word? what should be used in place of the word "prophet" where it's used IN the bible?

many hymns also use that phraseology

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/p/h/phimphim.htm

LOL, no my beliefs follow the core beliefs of all Christians. Christians believe Jesus is God born of flesh. So to Christians Jesus is God, which makes since b/c why would the only way to get to heaven be through a human. Anyways, if Jesus is God, then how can he be also a prophet?

Prophet: 1. a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration.

Jesus is not speaking for God...he is God.

[MidnightStalker]

I speak for myself.

[stas]

Do you agree that this argument is very flawed and could be made for any religion that had a martyr or has large religious texts? One does not have to be lying to die for what they believe to be "the truth and the only truth."

no. its quite different. these are not people who were raised in completely religious families/environments or manipulated into doing such things (like the common martyr now). these are men from many different types of lives that lived with, walked with, and talked with Jesus. they knew Him, saw what He did, and told about it. how many martyrs now can say that? not to mention, youre saying that these guys would have decided 2000 years ago "hey lets play a joke on the future, lets say this guy did all this crap and have some fun getting tortured for believing in this made up guy and spreading news about him." i think not, even you must find that to be farfetched.

[mistaman]

This guy "Paul." He started out arresting and killing Christians. He was a Jewish Pharisee, they were the ones that killed Jesus. He was on the way to arrest more Christians when Jesus came to him, and said "Why are you persecuting me?" And Paul ended up writing most of the new testament.

This change of heart by Paul is as extravagant as Usama Bin Laden coming out of the cave he's in and saying that Jesus Christ has saved me and now I want to plant churches in Afghanistan and all over the middle east so that the gospel can be shared and people will be saved.

And you know damn well that good ol' Bin Laden wouldn't do that unless it was a message from Jesus himself.

[Terminotaur]

these are men from many different types of lives that lived with, walked with, and talked with Jesus. they knew Him, saw what He did, and told about it. how many martyrs now can say that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumayyah_bint_Khabbab
Sumayyah binte Khabbab was a companion of Muhammed, one of the first Muslims, and the first martyr of Islam. She was persecuted by various factions and would later be killed for her beliefs by one of the leaders of an anti-Islam faction of Mecca. She refused to surrender her beliefs despite persecution. By your logic, Islam is just as true as Christianity.

not to mention, youre saying that these guys would have decided 2000 years ago "hey lets play a joke on the future, lets say this guy did all this crap and have some fun getting tortured for believing in this made up guy and spreading news about him." i think not, even you must find that to be farfetched.
This is a strawman. I agree that it is farfetched. I noted that one can be deceived and still die for what one believes in. There are many instances throughout history where people have died because of false convictions.

[Zogo]

LOL, no my beliefs follow the core beliefs of all Christians. Christians believe Jesus is God born of flesh.

core beliefs? which are you following..the baptist or catholic route?

Anyways, if Jesus is God, then how can he be also a prophet?

Prophet: 1. a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration.

god and prophet are not mutually exclusive..that's like asking how can jesus be god and savior at the same time..or god and kinsman redeemer simultaneously.

PS are you going to ignore the verses that were already laid out?

[Zogo]

no. its quite different. these are not people who were raised in completely religious families/environments or manipulated into doing such things (like the common martyr now). these are men from many different types of lives that lived with, walked with, and talked with Jesus. they knew Him, saw what He did, and told about it. how many martyrs now can say that? not to mention, youre saying that these guys would have decided 2000 years ago "hey lets play a joke on the future, lets say this guy did all this crap and have some fun getting tortured for believing in this made up guy and spreading news about him." i think not, even you must find that to be farfetched.

people also believed that joseph smith had magical golden plates.

no, they weren't playing a joke on the future they just believed it. they believed that golden plates existed..they believed in the chocolate seer stone..

people believe in being raped by aliens in UFO's..people believe in hunting bigfeet.."people" will believe anything.

And you know damn well that good ol' Bin Laden wouldn't do that unless it was a message from Jesus himself.

kind of like cat stevens changing his name to yusef islam and renouncing his worldly music.

[stas]

people also believed that joseph smith had magical golden plates.

no, they weren't playing a joke on the future they just believed it. they believed that golden plates existed..they believed in the chocolate seer stone..

people believe in being raped by aliens in UFO's..people believe in hunting bigfeet.."people" will believe anything.

how nice of you to ignore the point.

[shaggy]

core beliefs? which are you following..the baptist or catholic route?



god and prophet are not mutually exclusive..that's like asking how can jesus be god and savior at the same time..or god and kinsman redeemer simultaneously.

PS are you going to ignore the verses that were already laid out?


All Christians have the same core belief, Jesus is God born of flesh and died on the cross for our salvation. It's what defines us as Christians. Now about the ticky tack stuff that separates one denomination from another, who really cares. But to answer your question, I lean towards the Baptist side.

And about the prophet issue, I believe stas nailed it right on the nose. It's just a poorly used word. Prophet is defined as a person speaking for a god. Jesus is not a person, but god himself. It'd be the same thing if God talked to Moses and Moses replied, "thank you prophet". That of course is wrong. The only reason people use prophet for Jesus is b/c he looked like man and he spoke for god. Therefore fitting perfectly into the definition of prophet. But since he is not a true person, it's a pour choice of words to describe Jesus.

[Repair Man]

I take issue with the way you phrased this. When the attack on pearl harbor didn't completely destroy our Pacific Fleet, most analysts of the time and since then would agree that if America had the will to attack Japan, it would only be a matter of time before America defeated Japan due to the sheer difference in industrial capacity and resources.

I'm not speaking strictly of military defeat. While we definetely had the advantage in the war as far as resources and industrial capacity goes, I don't think anyone could have ever predicted the degree of which the US would alter the fundamental beliefs of the entire Japanese culture. You're right, muslim extremists are decentralized, but I firmly believe that if we were able to get Hiro Hito on Japanese television to denounce his own divinity, we can do much the same with muslim extremism, even if it has to be done one group at a time.

Also, I'm not saying that this could be accomplished with our current limited number of active soldiers. If it were to happen, it would have to be done at large scale and with a good deal of help, which would basically mean World War 3 (God forbid).

This isn't something I'm hoping for by any means, nor is it something that I ever believe will happen. I'm simply saying that with the proper strategy and use of force, I believe any extremist group can be defeated, regardless of numbers and dedication.

[Terminotaur]

I don't think anyone could have ever predicted the degree of which the US would alter the fundamental beliefs of the entire Japanese culture.
Japan was increasingly moving towards Westernization ever since the late 19th century which allowed them to develop such Pacific military dominance and even technology dominance in certain areas over other Western nations. The shattering of an almost unyielding belief in their supremacy should come as no surprise when they are supremely defeated. I am unsure of what exactly changed in their culture besides the shattering of Shintoism that hadn't already been initiated. Perhaps simply an increase in acceleration toward Western culture?

[Zogo]

how nice of you to ignore the point.

I just smashed your point into little pieces. or is there an area you still want me to address?

All Christians have the same core belief, Jesus is God born of flesh and died on the cross for our salvation. It's what defines us as Christians. Now about the ticky tack stuff that separates one denomination from another, who really cares. But to answer your question, I lean towards the Baptist side.

that's one belief yes..but there's hundreds of other beliefs that they also differ on too. ticky tack stuff? you can try and call it that but these "ticky tack" issues have caused plenty of wars and strife in the past.

ou do realize that there are many denominations that believe you must do certain things or follow a certain way in order to be saved right?

And about the prophet issue, I believe stas nailed it right on the nose. It's just a poorly used word. Prophet is defined as a person speaking for a god. Jesus is not a person, but god himself. It'd be the same thing if God talked to Moses and Moses replied, "thank you prophet". That of course is wrong. The only reason people use prophet for Jesus is b/c he looked like man and he spoke for god. Therefore fitting perfectly into the definition of prophet. But since he is not a true person, it's a pour choice of words to describe Jesus.

nailed it? he (nor anyone else) has answered some basic questions of mine..

[stas]

I just smashed your point into little pieces. or is there an area you still want me to address?

term did a much better job, as in he actually addressed the situation/scenario. you just said "whoa whoa whoa i could make people believe chocolate milk comes from chocolate cows if i yelled loud enough". i guess if you ignore everything else i said, you did in fact smash my point to pieces. bravo.

[stas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumayyah_bint_Khabbab
Sumayyah binte Khabbab was a companion of Muhammed, one of the first Muslims, and the first martyr of Islam. She was persecuted by various factions and would later be killed for her beliefs by one of the leaders of an anti-Islam faction of Mecca. She refused to surrender her beliefs despite persecution. By your logic, Islam is just as true as Christianity.

This is a strawman. I agree that it is farfetched. I noted that one can be deceived and still die for what one believes in. There are many instances throughout history where people have died because of false convictions.

i know exactly how i want to respond but phrasing it in a way that you would actually understand/care about is rather difficult because of your skepticism of all systesm of belief.

[Terminotaur]

i know exactly how i want to respond but phrasing it in a way that you would actually understand/care about is rather difficult because of your skepticism of all systesm of belief.

I am skeptical of all religions in the same way you are skeptical of all religions that aren't christian. You should respond instead of making a copout considering you know exactly how you wish to respond. I'd actually be interested in how you could possibly and logically use Christian martyrs as justification for the existence of a religion but completely ignore all other martyrs.

[stas]

I am skeptical of all religions in the same way you are skeptical of all religions that aren't christian. You should respond instead of making a copout considering you know exactly how you wish to respond. I'd actually be interested in how you could possibly and logically use Christian martyrs as justification for the existence of a religion but completely ignore all other martyrs.

i see quite a difference in his death, resurrection, and appearance to them. without that, i see it as no different, just a man saying follow me and people believing him.

[Terminotaur]

Are you saying if someone was a martyr to a religion and professed to have seen supernatural deeds attributed to the deity of said religion, that religion must be true?

[Zogo]

term did a much better job, as in he actually addressed the situation/scenario. you just said "whoa whoa whoa i could make people believe chocolate milk comes from chocolate cows if i yelled loud enough". i guess if you ignore everything else i said, you did in fact smash my point to pieces. bravo.

which addressed one of your points..if I "ignored" something it was because I didn't need to add anything else.

[stas]

Are you saying if someone was a martyr to a religion and professed to have seen supernatural deeds attributed to the deity of said religion, that religion must be true?

exactly the reason i didnt want to go into it. while you think you responded to my post, i would disagree. without such death, he would have been another man saying follow me and claiming miracles and martyrs. how can i not argue that the actual events of His life set Him apart?

[stas]

which addressed one of your points..if I "ignored" something it was because I didn't need to add anything else.

as it were, i put these ideas into a paragraph so that they would be weighed as a whole, not individually. thats usually what people do.

[Terminotaur]

exactly the reason i didnt want to go into it. while you think you responded to my post, i would disagree. without such death, he would have been another man saying follow me and claiming miracles and martyrs. how can i not argue that the actual events of His life set Him apart?
I'll assume you are referring to the resurrection. Why would the resurrection not be a claimed miracle like any other claimed miracle? If a martyr of a non-Christian religion died due to persecution, refused to give up his or her beliefs, and believed that a human was resurrected due to their deity, will it make that religion right?

You seem to be arguing the following:
The supernatural events of Christianity occurred, and witnesses and martyrs claimed it was true. Therefore Christianity is true. If witnesses or martyrs of another religion claim supernatural events, their claims are false simply because they are of another religion and their supernatural claims are false. This definitely makes sense if you assume Christianity to be true. However, remember that your prior claim was that martyrs proved the truth of a religion, and that you claimed it would be absurd for someone to be persecuted and die for a false belief. If you make an exception for any non-Christian martyr, then you'll have to agree that your prior claim is false.

Do you now agree that martyrs that were contemporary with the times of the founding of a religion do not prove the truth of a religion just by the virtue of there being martyrs and persecution?

I would agree with you that if supernatural events did indeed occur and there were martyrs, the religion would be substantiated. Whether supernatural events did indeed occur is another topic.

[TkMasTaH]

The people that are manipulated by the clerics of Islam in countries such as Iran and Iraq are able to be manipulated because they are uneducated for the most part. Once these people become educated, they will realize the stupidity of their actions and their clerics. They will read the books of Islam for themselves and realize that Islam in no way condones what they are currently doing. However, for the time being, their lack of education enables the clerics to tell them what to believe and to do. THIS is what must be overcome for the problem to resolve itself.

[Zogo]

exactly the reason i didnt want to go into it. while you think you responded to my post, i would disagree. without such death, he would have been another man saying follow me and claiming miracles and martyrs. how can i not argue that the actual events of His life set Him apart?

each deity has some events that "set them apart." the followers can hold onto them as evidence of the truth as they are unique.

as it were, i put these ideas into a paragraph so that they would be weighed as a whole, not individually. thats usually what people do.

as a whole? what didn't I cover?

[CR0C0DILE]

Its obvious the only solution then is to kill or convert every Muslim.
That is if we are going to be willing to take any action necessary to assure the continuance of our way of life, after we are gone, because it will last as long as any of us are alive so there is no worry there.
There is a more subtle approach to it though and that is to wait as long as were are comfortable waiting, and another solution will likely present itself.
This is like OK youve lost your job, you only have 1 month's pay saved up, you know youll be broke in one month, what do you do? Go rob a bank, then youll get enough money to keep living. Or do you wait for a new opportunity that isn't here yet to present itself? Odds are something will, so that is how you play it!

[Zogo]

Its obvious the only solution then is to kill or convert every Muslim.

heh..that won't work.