Le Pen presses France to condemn 'Islamists'

[musiclady]

I'm surprised you would criticize me for using Wikipedia and then follow up with a response from Jihadwatch.org.

EDIT: I think you might have misunderstood part of my post. I was saying that if what we actually know about him is that vague, then what you believe about Muhammad must involve questionable history as well.

I responded in kind.

Your source was pro-Islam.  Mine was opposed to Islam.  Fair comparison.

Two books you should look into:

Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus - Nabeel Qureshi

Answering Islam - Norman L. Geisler, Abdul Saleeb

[musiclady]

Good post and thank you.

truth-seeker conveniently omitted the fact that it was Christians who led the fight against both slavery and the slave trade.

When you read only anti-Christian sources (and don't bother with the pesky details), you come away with a less than accurate picture of history.

That's, of course, what you need in order to maintain your flimsy argument that Islam is just Christianity a few centuries earlier.

[Carling]

truth-seeker conveniently omitted the fact that it was Christians who led the fight against both slavery and the slave trade.

When you read only anti-Christian sources (and don't bother with the pesky details), you come away with a less than accurate picture of history.

That's, of course, what you need in order to maintain your flimsy argument that Islam is just Christianity a few centuries earlier.

I read it as truth-seeker giving examples of how Christianity has evolved in relatively modern times from being entrenched in dogma to where it is as a religious movement today.  As in, the Crusades were a long time ago, and Christians have got past those times, while many Muslims seem to still be stuck in that adversarial era.  It was a compliment to Christians, wasn't it?  That's how I read it, and I'm not religious at all.  I do tend to side with today's Christian ideals, at least compared to the archaic and ancient ideals of Islam's modern form.

[musiclady]

I read it as truth-seeker giving examples of how Christianity has evolved in relatively modern times from being entrenched in dogma to where it is as a religious movement today.  As in, the Crusades were a long time ago, and Christians have got past those times, while many Muslims seem to still be stuck in that adversarial era.  It was a compliment to Christians, wasn't it?

Not really..... when you consider that the Crusades, witch burning and slavery are held up by the atheist or anti-Christian community as quintessentially what Christianity IS.

The fact is that those episodes are clear evidence of sin, and if you look at both the Crusades and slavery, you'll see that political and economic power were tied up into the 'religion' they supposedly believed in.

My point is that those things were never representative of the teachings of Christ, and you need to look back to the beginnings of Christianity, and most importantly to the Scripture itself to see what it really looks like.

Dex and t_s are both ardent secularists, who, if I'm not misstating their beliefs, think that religion is a bad thing, and that the cure for religion is non-religious 'enlightenment.'

They purposefully ignore a balanced view of history and the strong Christian influence on things like abolition, freedom of religion and speech, respect for others, our system of justice, and choose to categorize Christianity as witch burning and killing Muslims.

It's inaccurate, and in a fair discussion of the issue, needs to be corrected.

[Dexter]

I never suggested leveling their cities.

I'm glad you don't feel that way, unlike some others.

There are a lot of Christians in the Middle East?  (I'm playing along).  Where?  Obviously there are SOME because they were there first.  There are Palestinian Christians, but they don't exactly have influence on the system, do they?  There were a number of Christians in Iraq until ISSA wiped them out (good ol' Islam!)

What the influence needs to be is that the tenets of Christ's teachings are felt in the country as a whole.  That obviously can't be quantified.  But as long as you get punished for carrying a Bible, that's not likely to be happening soon.

I actually looked it up and though there are still numbers of them in the millions it is actually dropping rather noticeably. I didn't know that; either way it doesn't matter because I don't agree that Christian influence is necessary for morality to exist.

It's not a matter of what I estimate or underestimate.  Where are there voices?  Where are the Imams marching in the streets against this violence?  The only thing we see is marching against "Islamophobia" and backlash when the Islamist perpetrate unspeakable violence against the innocent.

The idea that things are getting better is, IMO, pie in the sky.

Their voices are out there, and they are growing in number, but it will take time and understanding. There actually have been demonstrations and protestors in the United States and Europe. You would know that if you cared to look.

I need to leave for the rest of the day. Can we agree to disagree or shall I come back later and continue this into infinity?

[Carling]

Not really..... when you consider that the Crusades, witch burning and slavery are held up by the atheist or anti-Christian community as quintessentially what Christianity IS.

You can't change the POV of idiots, or those who won't educate themselves on the difference of modern Islam versus modern Christianity.  Write those people off, because they're just noise in the background of your faith.

The fact is that those episodes are clear evidence of sin, and if you look at both the Crusades and slavery, you'll see that political and economic power were tied up into the 'religion' they supposedly believed in.

None of that matters to me.  Pro-Islamic apologists also say that about Islamic terrorism, in that it's a political and economic movement, and not tied to religious beliefs.

My point is that those things were never representative of the teachings of Christ, and you need to look back to the beginnings of Christianity, and most importantly to the Scripture itself to see what it really looks like.

I think we both agree that religion of all kinds, and in all of history, has been used by mortal men to advance their own interests.  My view is that Christianity has removed a lot of those "leaders" from their structure power, while Islam seems to be recruiting those types to advance their religious views.

Dex and t_s are both ardent secularists, who, if I'm not misstating their beliefs, think that religion is a bad thing, and that the cure for religion is non-religious 'enlightenment.'

If that is the case re: truth-seeker, he basically offered evidence contrary to the beliefs you ascribe to him.  Perhaps he's evolving, if your scenario is accurate?

They purposefully ignore a balanced view of history and the strong Christian influence on things like abolition, freedom of religion and speech, respect for others, our system of justice, and choose to categorize Christianity as witch burning and killing Muslims.

Again, you're never going to change the mind of an idiot, or even someone bigoted against Christianity.

It's inaccurate, and in a fair discussion of the issue, needs to be corrected.

I guess I'm at the point in my life where I'm comfortable in my views on religion, and consider people with the mindset of Dex (at least what I've read from him in this thread) to be a lost cause.  He's exercising his own brand of faith, when the reality to most objective people says otherwise when comparing modern Christianity to modern Islam.   

[musiclady]

I'm glad you don't feel that way, unlike some others.

Problems in logic occur when you lump one person's posts in with another.  It's hard to see the truth that way.

I actually looked it up and though there are still numbers of them in the millions it is actually dropping rather noticeably. I didn't know that; either way it doesn't matter because I don't agree that Christian influence is necessary for morality to exist.

Actually, I never said that there needed to be Christian influence for morality to exist.  Morality exists because God is Sovereign and ALL of us are made in His image.  Any morality any of us has comes from Him.  It's just that where His word is obeyed, morality is wider spread, and human freedom is greater.  Where His word is ignored there is more tyranny and oppression.

That's what's happening in the ME.

Their voices are out there, and they are growing in number, but it will take time and understanding. There actually have been demonstrations and protestors in the United States and Europe. You would know that if you cared to look.

You can't help yourself, can you?  I HAVE looked, Dex, because I CARE.  (stop acting like a jerk!).  There are hardly any protests against the bloodshed in the ME.  Where were there protests against the Christian children crucified for their faith?  There is far more protection of Muslims going on than protests against militant Islam.

I need to leave for the rest of the day. Can we agree to disagree or shall I come back later and continue this into infinity?

I will be happy to agree to disagree.

But we won't continue into infinity because there will be an end to all of this one way or the other........

[musiclady]

You can't change the POV of idiots, or those who won't educate themselves on the difference of modern Islam versus modern Christianity.  Write those people off, because they're just noise in the background of your faith.

None of that matters to me.  Pro-Islamic apologists also say that about Islamic terrorism, in that it's a political and economic movement, and not tied to religious beliefs.

I think we both agree that religion of all kinds, and in all of history, has been used by mortal men to advance their own interests.  My view is that Christianity has removed a lot of those "leaders" from their structure power, while Islam seems to be recruiting those types to advance their religious views.

If that is the case re: truth-seeker, he basically offered evidence contrary to the beliefs you ascribe to him.  Perhaps he's evolving, if your scenario is accurate?

Again, you're never going to change the mind of an idiot, or even someone bigoted against Christianity.

I guess I'm at the point in my life where I'm comfortable in my views on religion, and consider people with the mindset of Dex (at least what I've read from him in this thread) to be a lost cause.  He's exercising his own brand of faith, when the reality to most objective people says otherwise when comparing modern Christianity to modern Islam.   

No problem with any of that.  In fact, I think you're spot on in most of what you've posted here.

(And maybe t_s IS 'evolving!)   

[Carling]

There actually have been demonstrations and protestors in the United States and Europe. You would know that if you cared to look.

People demonstrate and protest to feel better about themselves.  People fight for what they believe.  Islamists are fighting for their warped and pre-modern religious beliefs.

Meanwhile, people of the modern world hold hands and walk down the street holding signs, as if that is going to stop the next Islamic terrorist attack that will come soon enough somewhere in the western world.

[musiclady]

People demonstrate and protest to feel better about themselves.  People fight for what they believe.  Islamists are fighting for their warped and pre-modern religious beliefs.

Meanwhile, the rest of the modern world holds hands and walks down the street holding a sign, as if that is going to stop the next Islamic terrorist attack that will come soon enough somewhere in the western world.

Don't forget the hashtags!  They REALLY make people feel good!

[Carling]

Don't forget the hashtags!  They REALLY make people feel good!

I'm bummed that last night Barry didn't claim #bringbackourgirls stopped Boko Haram dead in its tracks!   

[musiclady]

I'm bummed that last night Barry didn't claim #bringbackourgirls stopped Boko Haram dead in its tracks!   

That would have been a hoot, wouldn't it?

(Well, for a pathological liar with a band of worshippers in the media, maybe he would have gotten away with it......)

[Carling]

That would have been a hoot, wouldn't it?

(Well, for a pathological liar with a band of worshippers in the media, maybe he would have gotten away with it......)

Three months ago, with a straight face, the sociopathic narcissist called Yemen a success story in foreign policy.

Of course, that was 3 months ago ... I wonder if the WH had to scrub any references to Yemen from the SotU speech, considering what was happening while he was spewing his hot air to whoever he was trying to fool this time.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/20/world/yemen-violence/

As an aside, I've noticed that CNN has basically shut down their comment section on most articles related to Obama, or any of Obama's numerous political disasters, boners, and gaffes.

[musiclady]

EDIT: I think you might have misunderstood part of my post. I was saying that if what we actually know about him is that vague, then what you believe about Muhammad must involve questionable history as well.

Responding to your edit....

The burden of proof is on you to prove your source is accurate, not on me to prove it is not.

You made a claim about Mohammed, citing a questionable source.

You need to come up with something more reliable to have any credibility on the subject.

Otherwise your claim that Mohammed preached tolerance of Christianity as a whole (not just one monastery, btw), is empty.

[musiclady]

Three months ago, with a straight face, the sociopathic narcissist called Yemen a success story in foreign policy.

Of course, that was 3 months ago ... I wonder if the WH had to scrub any references to Yemen from the SotU speech, considering what was happening while he was spewing his hot air to whoever he was trying to fool this time.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/20/world/yemen-violence/

As an aside, I've noticed that CNN has basically shut down their comment section on most articles related to Obama, or any of Obama's numerous political disasters, boners, and gaffes.

I'm not that surprised that CNN has silenced Obama's opponents (i.e. those with the facts) in their comment sections.

These leftist lackeys have destroyed their credibility because of their blind obeisance to Obama, and now they're having to live with the results.

[DCPatriot]

MY problem is that I do not suffer fools gladly and have extremely limited patience with them!

IMO, referring to another poster as a "fool" who has to "suffer" reading their posts....may be THE problem.   
 

[Bigun]

IMO, referring to another poster as a "fool" who has to "suffer" reading their posts....may be THE problem.   

Perhaps! Perhaps not!

Thanks for letting us know what you think!

[DCPatriot]

Perhaps! Perhaps not!

Thanks for letting us know what you think!

You're welcome...anytime.   

[aligncare]

There are conservative libertarians, and there are liberal libertarians.

To be honest with you I had never heard this before.  Very intriguing.

After some thought, my take on this is that as a conservative libertarian, I may have some common ground with my friends and neighbors who may happen to be intellectually honest liberal/libertarian. Rare breeds though they are.

One issue I'm guessing we share is government surveillance and other privacy issues. There are plenty of honest liberals who agree with conservatives on this.

[aligncare]

The world is not so black and white that disagreements can mostly end with one person being right and the other being wrong. It is all about your perspective and your values; that is how two intelligent people can have a completely different opinion. Sometimes people have to accept that they just disagree for reasons that cannot be reconciled by conversation; that is called an impasse, and I am good at identifying them and moving on.

An excellent observation! And one that I wholeheartedly agree with. Those of us who follow politics (sometimes too much) would do well to remember an undeniable truth there is a Yin and Yang that governs all of life's follies, including politics.

Being right is not always what it's cracked up to be.

[musiclady]

To be honest with you I had never heard this before.  Very intriguing.

After some thought, my take on this is that as a conservative libertarian, I may have some common ground with my friends and neighbors who may happen to be intellectually honest liberal/libertarian. Rare breeds though they are.

One issue I'm guessing we share is government surveillance and other privacy issues. There are plenty of honest liberals who agree with conservatives on this.

Exceedingly rare, and I would venture to say, almost non-existent on conservative forums.

Forgive my cynicism, but I've been around and observing long enough to say that, if Dex is one, he's the first I've seen in well over a decade.

[musiclady]

An excellent observation! And one that I wholeheartedly agree with. Those of us who follow politics (sometimes too much) would do well to remember an undeniable truth there is a Yin and Yang that governs all of life's follies, including politics.

Being right is not always what it's cracked up to be.

Ah......... but some things are true and some things are not.

For instance, one could say, "Obama is a dishonest man," and there would be no 'gray' area to explore.

There are some black and white issues, and if one lives in a perpetual world of gray, one tends to get lost in the confusion.

That's where a lot of young liberals are today.

Lost.

And confused.

No absolute truth.

About anything.

[aligncare]

either way it doesn't matter because I don't agree that Christian influence is necessary for morality to exist.

 

[truth_seeker]

Dex and t_s are both ardent secularists, who, if I'm not misstating their beliefs, think that religion is a bad thing, and that the cure for religion is non-religious 'enlightenment.'

I just realized that most of your arguments involve "misstating their beliefs" of others.  If it isn't a "rino" accusation, it will be a "liberal" one. Here it is "ardent secularist."

This time you get a twofer--without really knowing, or really much caring--just slur two people who dare to take a position different than yours.

BTW there is nothing whatsoever wrong with being "secularist." America's 1st Amendment is based upon it being "okay" to hold varying views on spirituality, or even none at all.

So how does a society deal with varying faith beliefs? It becomes secularist, that's how. At the time of America's founding, the Christian denominations had been warring.

I know it pains Christian fundamentalists today, to be unable to escape the FACT several of our Founders were non-denominational deists. So what was good enough for them, is good enough for us now, too.

So what to you may seem a sufficient slur to win an argument, I say you win no argument with most right thinking Americans.   
 

[musiclady]

I just realized that most of your arguments involve "misstating their beliefs" of others.  If it isn't a "rino" accusation, it will be a "liberal" one. Here it is "ardent secularist."

This time you get a twofer--without really knowing, or really much caring--just slur two people who dare to take a position different than yours.

BTW there is nothing whatsoever wrong with being "secularist." America's 1st Amendment is based upon it being "okay" to hold varying views on spirituality, or even none at all.

So how does a society deal with varying faith beliefs? It becomes secularist, that's how. At the time of America's founding, the Christian denominations had been warring.

I know it pains Christian fundamentalists today, to be unable to escape the FACT several of our Founders were non-denominational deists. So what was good enough for them, is good enough for us now, too.

So what to you may seem a sufficient slur to win an argument, I say you win no argument with most right thinking Americans.

I didn't intend to slur you at all.  I apologize for doing so. 

I believed I captured the views you have posted by calling you a secularist.  It wasn't intended as a slur, but rather an observation based on your comments.

And I don't think there's anything 'wrong' with being a secularist.  You actually verified that what I have observed in you is correct.

So thanks.......... I guess.   

Oh, btw, I'm not a 'fundamentalist.'  I would take that as a slur if I felt like being overly sensitive, but for the record, it is incorrect.