Is Islam compatible within Western Society?

[Arthur Brain]

You don't love them because you continually spread lies about them. Would you think someone is loving you if they did that to you?

:thumb:

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, since He made you. Do you actually know what hell is?

Do tell what is so scary about being given exactly what one wants? (To be eternally separated from Him)

Do you? Do please explain what "hell" actually is and why your understanding of it takes precedence over a myriad other beliefs on the topic? It's a common concept that "hell" is simply the grave.

While you're at it can you please also explain how everyone who doesn't have a "saving" belief such as yours is 'choosing' your version of "hell" lest you sound completely arrogant and callous?

 

[Krsto]

The question was sucide bombings.....not war on terrorism... How dishonest of you

I was comparing/contrasting suicide bombings with bombings on behalf of the so-called war on terrorism. Both include killing innocent people. All who don't condemn either are justifying it. You are justifying collateral damage because it's part of a war on terror. Both activities are designed to get someone else to stop doing something. Killing non-combatants to effect political change. Both are technically terrorism. You support terrorism just like you accuse Muslims of doing. Congratulations.

 

[Town Heretic]

...My agrument is that if we take that very general statement as fact then we can also make the claim that the Christian God himself says convert or die.

That's not really Christ's message and the two faiths are fairly different on both the nature of man and what must be done about it. Islam more closely resembles the OT than it does the church of Christ and even then there are important differences.

Basically, both God and Allah want to torture you in the afterlife

Leaving off speaking for Islam, you'd have a pretty hard time reasonably selling that notion in relation to Christ, who didn't hang on a cross so that men could suffer, but suffered so that men could be delivered from the just consequence of their willful acts and natures, so that we could be new creatures with life and a hope in us that is more than a shadow of desire.

 

[shagster01]

That's not really Christ's message and the two faiths are fairly different on both the nature of man and what must be done about it. Islam more closely resembles the OT than it does the church of Christ and even then there are important differences.


Leaving off speaking for Islam, you'd have a pretty hard time reasonably selling that notion in relation to Christ, who didn't hang on a cross so that men could suffer, but suffered so that men could be delivered from the consequence of their moral acts.

The point here isn't about the actual theology of it though, what Jesus did or didn't do or intend to do in scripture. I'm not speaking for your personal belief. I'm speaking for the common attitudes of the involved members of each religion within our society that overwhelmingly preach convert or burn and how that fits or doesn't fit in with our society.

The fact is that Christians are complaining that Muslims will want to pass Islamic laws, but when it comes down to it, that is what Christians are doing or trying to do with Biblical law when it comes to homosexuality and the like too. Most Muslims and Christians are good people, and that's what I was saying. And extremists on both sides are very similar in ideals as well, though vary on the details.

Both fit into society largely, and both have groups that don't.

Quite simply when it comes to law and politics, Christians don't want the competition.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I was comparing/contrasting suicide bombings with bombings on behalf of the so-called war on terrorism. Both include killing innocent people. All who don't condemn either are justifying it. You are justifying collateral damage because it's part of a war on terror. Both activities are designed to get someone else to stop doing something. Killing non-combatants to effect political change. Both are technically terrorism. You support terrorism just like you accuse Muslims of doing. Congratulations.

You are changing the subject sly one. The point stands that Christians do not support suicide bombings much less 74% of them. Go ahead and knock yourself out justifying the Muslim eagerness to see jihad upon the infidels with side by side comparisons of a totally different topic.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's not really Christ's message and the two faiths are fairly different on both the nature of man and what must be done about it. Islam more closely resembles the OT than it does the church of Christ and even then there are important differences.


Leaving off speaking for Islam, you'd have a pretty hard time reasonably selling that notion in relation to Christ, who didn't hang on a cross so that men could suffer, but suffered so that men could be delivered from the just consequence of their willful acts and natures, so that we could be new creatures with life and a hope in us that is more than a shadow of desire.

What do you believe are the 'just consequences' of human nature exactly? Where did you get those notions from?

 

[ClimateSanity]

I was comparing/contrasting suicide bombings with bombings on behalf of the so-called war on terrorism. Both include killing innocent people. All who don't condemn either are justifying it. You are justifying collateral damage because it's part of a war on terror. Both activities are designed to get someone else to stop doing something. Killing non-combatants to effect political change. Both are technically terrorism. You support terrorism just like you accuse Muslims of doing. Congratulations.

I do not support terrorism. War is not terrorism. Collateral damage occurs in all wars. We would all be living under the third Reich if we refrained from bombing Germany out of fear of collateral damage.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Kristoff....terrorism deliberately sets up to kill as many innocent people as.possible in surprise attacks. War sets out to kill the terrorists and accidentally kills innocents who were put in harm's way by the terrorists themselves.

But getting back to the point of the OP....What are Western nations in danger of??? Terrorism is the answer. Western nations are not in danger of being bombed....not yet anyway unless your kind further weaken us. Your war rabbit trail was off topic and doesnt do a thing to refute a thing in the OP.

 

[Town Heretic]

The point here isn't about the actual theology of it though,

Well, you respresented the Christian theological context as a simplified, "Convert or die" so it's a thin complaint to say on the heels of that you're not interested in theology when I note the cross is a fairly strong argument against your perception/advance on the point.

what Jesus did or didn't do or intend to do in scripture. I'm not speaking for your personal belief.

You're speaking about the attitudes and practices of Christendom which are derived from our beliefs. My personal beliefs being almost entirely orthodox within the Body, you're absolutely speaking to what I and my brothers and sisters believe.

I'm speaking for the common attitudes of the involved members of each religion within our society that overwhelmingly preach convert or burn and how that fits or doesn't fit in with our society.

I don't think you can sustain the notion that most of Christendom is using that approach though some doubtless do and there have been periods in history when it was a strong part of the alter call, those sinners in the hands of an angry God.

The fact is that Christians are complaining that Muslims will want to pass Islamic laws,

Some, certainly. I wouldn't say most and I'm not sure how much of that is religion, politics, or just the old ethnocentric principle in play. That said, a large section of Islam does want that, though as I've set out in threads addressing it, among those who do it's Sharia for Muslims only and mostly about civil and not criminal penalty. So it's a bit more complicated and less alarming than some would have it.

but when it comes down to it, that is what Christians are doing or trying to do with Biblical law when it comes to homosexuality and the like too.

Mostly not. According to the latest Pew data the larger part of Christians are in favor of allowing homosexuals to marry. So no stoning and little call from Christendom to intrude presently on the matters of individual conscience removed from denying right.

Most Muslims and Christians are good people, and that's what I was saying. And extremists on both sides are very similar in ideals as well, though vary on the details.

I believe most people want the same essential thing, to live in peace with their neighbor.

Quite simply when it comes to law and politics, Christians don't want the competition.

Most people who believe they're right (and that would be most people of any stripe) want their notions to prevail in service to their notion of the good. In our country, largely founded by and sustained by Christians, we've struggled toward a perfection of the idea I noted above, that every man is entitled to his own conscience and choice so long as those choices don't deny someone else the exercise of their own. I don't believe Islam, as misunderstood as it sometimes willfully is, compares favorably with Christendom in practice. Certainly not in our present respective states.

 

[Town Heretic]

What do you believe are the 'just consequences' of human nature exactly?

What God has ordained as just, judgment and what flows from it absent grace.

Where did you get those notions from?

The same place as most of Christendom, in orthodoxy, from the founding of the church forward.

 

[Krsto]

Kristoff....terrorism deliberately sets up to kill as many innocent people as.possible in surprise attacks. War sets out to kill the terrorists and accidentally kills innocents who were put in harm's way by the terrorists themselves.

But getting back to the point of the OP....What are Western nations in danger of??? Terrorism is the answer. Western nations are not in danger of being bombed....not yet anyway unless your kind further weaken us. Your war rabbit trail was off topic and doesnt do a thing to refute a thing in the OP.

Way to avoid what actually happens with regard to rules of engagement. It's like this: Pilot in mission briefing - "But these targets are in populated areas and will cause collateral damage." Mission commander - "Yes, we know. Bomb them anyhow. Our ROE (rules of engagement) do not prevent us from causing collateral damage." Pilot - "So purposefully kill innocent civilians?" Commander - "Yes, we must kill the enemy soldier, even if they are in cities, and innocent Iraqis happen to be nearby." Pilot - "Well, that will sure give these ragheads a reason to not mess with the USA." Commander - "Exactly."

If you support this you support terrorism.

 

[Arthur Brain]

What God has ordained as just, judgment and what flows from it absent grace.


The same place as most of Christendom, in orthodoxy, from the founding of the church forward.

Which is what though, exactly? Be specific. If you're going to argue 'orthodoxy' then there's no absolute template even among the more 'modern traditional' belief let alone the earlier ones...

 

[Krsto]

I do not support terrorism. War is not terrorism. Collateral damage occurs in all wars. We would all be living under the third Reich if we refrained from bombing Germany out of fear of collateral damage.

Comparisons to WW2 don't work because ISIS is not a nation (caliphate notwithstanding) and won't surrender. Our killing innocents only aggravates the situation, creating MORE terrorists. ISIS actually wants us to kill innocents because it makes their job of recruiting all the more easier. Your position is making America more vulnerable, not safer. Nice going.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Way to avoid what actually happens with regard to rules of engagement. It's like this: Pilot in mission briefing - "But these targets are in populated areas and will cause collateral damage." Mission commander - "Yes, we know. Bomb them anyhow. Our ROE (rules of engagement) do not prevent us from causing collateral damage." Pilot - "So purposefully kill innocent civilians?" Commander - "Yes, we must kill the enemy soldier, even if they are in cities, and innocent Iraqis happen to be nearby." Pilot - "Well, that will sure give these ragheads a reason to not mess with the USA." Commander - "Exactly."

If you support this you support terrorism.

Blah blah blah..... Off topic

 

[Arthur Brain]

Comparisons to WW2 don't work because ISIS is not a nation (caliphate notwithstanding) and won't surrender. Our killing innocents only aggravates the situation, creating MORE terrorists. ISIS actually wants us to kill innocents because it makes their job of recruiting all the more easier. Your position is making America more vulnerable, not safer. Nice going.

Exactly, like the idea of nuking the middle East would somehow eradicate Islam or some such.

MADness...

 

[ClimateSanity]

Comparisons to WW2 don't work because ISIS is not a nation (caliphate notwithstanding) and won't surrender. Our killing innocents only aggravates the situation, creating MORE terrorists. ISIS actually wants us to kill innocents because it makes their job of recruiting all the more easier. Your position is making America more vulnerable, not safer. Nice going.

Stick to the OP or be ignored.

 

[Krsto]

Stick to the OP or be ignored.

I rarely stick to the OP's - and I'm really hard to ignore.

Don't say stupid things and I won't have a need to refute you.

 

[jgarden]

Is Islam compatible within Western Society?

- Odds of dying from a terrorist attack in America: 1 in 25,000,000

- Drowning in a Bathtub: 1 in 685,000 (14 times more likely than a terrorist attack)

- Fatally Slipping during a Shower: 1 in 812,232 (11 times more likely than in a terrorist attack)

- Being Struck by Lightning: 1 in 576,000 (16 times more likely than in a terrorist attack)

- Dying from intentional Self-harm: 1 in 9,380

- Dying from Forces of Nature (earthquake, heat, cold, lightning, flood): 1 in 225,107

- Dying from Choking on Food: 1 in 370,035

- Dying in a Fireworks Accident: 1 in 1,000,000

- Dying from a Dog Bite: 1 in 700,000

- Dying from Falling off a Ladder: 1 in 2,300,000

- Dying from Bee, Snake Venomous Sting: 1 in 100,000

- Dying from a Falling Coconut: 1 in 250,000,000

- Dying from a Shark Attack: 1 in 300,000,000

- Dying of a Snake Bite: 1 in 3,500,000

- Odds of being an astronaut: 1 in 13,200,000

- Odds of winning an Olympic Gold Medal: 1 in 662,000

- Odds of becoming a President: 1 in 10,000,000

- Odds of sighting a UFO today: 1 in 3,000,000

- Odds of dating a Supermodel: 1 in 88,000

http://www.techjuice.pk/a-data-scientist-explains-odds-of-dying-in-a-terrorist-attack/

 

[shagster01]

Well, you respresented the Christian theological context as a simplified, "Convert or die" so it's a thin complaint to say on the heels of that you're not interested in theology when I note the cross is a fairly strong argument against your perception/advance on the point.


You're speaking about the attitudes and practices of Christendom which are derived from our beliefs. My personal beliefs being almost entirely orthodox within the Body, you're absolutely speaking to what I and my brothers and sisters believe.

I've purposely continued to use the word "general" views of believers. My perception of what happened on the cross doesn't matter. We are talking about the general belief among Christians that if you don't believe like them God sends you to Hell.

Do you dispute that is the GENERAL belief among American Christians as seen on the famous bumper sticker, "if you are living like there is no God, you better be right," accompanied by pictures of flames?

I don't think you can sustain the notion that most of Christendom is using that approach though some doubtless do and there have been periods in history when it was a strong part of the alter call, those sinners in the hands of an angry God.

I hold my view that most Christians are Christians because they don't want to go to Hell. That might not be you, but it's nearly every Christian I've ever known.

Some, certainly. I wouldn't say most and I'm not sure how much of that is religion, politics, or just the old ethnocentric principle in play. That said, a large section of Islam does want that, though as I've set out in threads addressing it, among those who do it's Sharia for Muslims only and mostly about civil and not criminal penalty. So it's a bit more complicated and less alarming than some would have it.

The Religious Right Wing is a large demographic. And they aren't pushing for secular laws.

Mostly not. According to the latest Pew data the larger part of Christians are in favor of allowing homosexuals to marry. So no stoning and little call from Christendom to intrude presently on the matters of individual conscience removed from denying right.

Sure the attitude is shifting, but that is only recent. Is your argument that Christians were not fit for this society until recently?

I believe most people want the same essential thing, to live in peace with their neighbor.

Most people who believe they're right (and that would be most people of any stripe) want their notions to prevail in service to their notion of the good. In our country, largely founded by and sustained by Christians, we've struggled toward a perfection of the idea I noted above, that every man is entitled to his own conscience and choice so long as those choices don't deny someone else the exercise of their own. I don't believe Islam, as misunderstood as it sometimes willfully is, compares favorably with Christendom in practice. Certainly not in our present respective states.

I don't know of any Muslims campaigning for more Sharia Law where I live, and I live in a city with a very large Muslim Somali refugee population.