Who REALLY uses human shields: Hamas or Israel?

[BuffedGuy]

Who uses human shields? Hamas or Israel?

Israel Defense Forces using human shields

Israel using human shields

Israeli Commando uses two kids as human shields to guard military jeep

[BuffedGuy]

These scumbag terrorist towel-heads, why can't they just die already? Why do they get so angry when we invade their countries? After all, everything we do is part of defense!!! NOTHING we do is offensive, because by definition, we are always defending ourselves! Plus, we are "investigating the issue"!

[*RAGE*]

I dont think you should want people to die bro after reading all you have wrote this is not like you....

[BuffedGuy]

I dont think you should want people to die bro after reading all you have wrote this is not like you....

It was sarcasm.

[*RAGE*]

It was sarcasm.

Sorry did see that part...

[Dinosaur]

that was some interesting video's to watch. althought i new that the israeli army uses some dirty tactics while invading palastinians land including the domolition of houses, breaking olive trees and so forth. i hope that people will wake up one day and realize that the truth comes within r selves not waiting for for it to show up or nuck on sombody's door.

[JiGGaMaN]

Just to take one comparison, consider the recent wars waged by Russia against Chechnya. In these wars Russian troops have killed tens of thousands of Chechnyan civilians, some of them willfully, at close range and in cold blood. Yet those radical academics who scream bloody murder against Israel (particularly in England) have never called for war crime tribunals to be convened against Russia. Nor have they called for war crime charges to be filed against any other of the many countries that routinely kill civilians, not in an effort to stop enemy terrorists, but just because it is part of their policy.

[JiGGaMaN]

Nor did we see the Nuremburg-type rallies that were directed against Israel when hundreds of thousands of civilians were being murdered in Rwanda, in Darfur and in other parts of the world. These bigoted hate-fests are reserved for Israel.

The accusation of war crimes is nothing more than a tactic selectively invoked by Israel's enemies. Those who cry "war crime" against Israel don't generally care about war crimes, as such, indeed they often support them when engaged in by countries they like. What these people care about, and all they seem to care about, is Israel. Whatever Israel does is wrong regardless of the fact that so many other countries do worse.

[JiGGaMaN]

What if Israel defended its citizens the way the British, the French, the Americans and the Russians did? When German rockets hit British cities during the World War II, Prime Minister Winston Churchill retaliated by bombing German cities, killing thousands of German civilians, and promised to continue until Germany's unconditional surrender. The United States did the same following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The French did much worse in Algeria and the Russians showed no concern for civilian life in Chechnya or Georgia.

The IDF, on the other hand, has gone to extraordinary lengths to minimize civilian casualties, despite the reality that Hamas deliberately fires its rockets from densely populated civilian areas and hides its rocket launchers in schools, hospitals and mosques.

Every Hamas rocket attack against Israeli civilians - and there have been more than 6,500 of them since Israel ended its occupation of Gaza - is an armed attack against Israel under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which authorizes member nations to respond militarily to armed attacks against it.

Under international law, Israel is entitled to do whatever it takes militarily to stop Hamas rockets from targeting its civilians. Every Hamas rocket has the potential to kill dozens of Israeli civilians. Recently one hit a school just hours after the principal dismissed the students, fearing such an attack. If the rocket had hit and killed hundreds of schoolchildren, would those who protest Israeli actions acknowledge that Israel would then have the right to respond? No country needs allow terrorists to play Russian roulette with the lives of its children.

In fact, under international law, Israel has the right to declare all-out war against the Hamas-controlled government of Gaza. In an all-out war, there would be no obligation to provide humanitarian assistance, electricity or any other services to an enemy who had started the war by an armed attack.

No one condemned Great Britain and the United States for the collateral damage it caused while trying to defeat those who attacked it during the second world war. Moreover, Germany did not deny the right of Great Britain or the United States to exist. The Hamas Charter not only denies Israel's right to exist, it calls for the complete destruction of the Jewish state. Surely Israel has as much right to defend its citizens as did the United States and Great Britain.

Why then is Israel singled out for such ferocious criticism?

Indeed, the only reason Israel has not won overwhelming military victories in Lebanon in 2006 and in Gaza now, is that Israel has decided to engage in only limited and proportional military actions designed simply to stop the rocket attacks. Yet it is being condemned both for not winning a decisive victory and for killing too many civilians.

Hamas has learned how to manipulate the media's coverage of Israeli military actions. They deliberately fire their rockets from behind civilian shields in order to provoke Israel to respond and kill civilians. They are then ready to bring out the cameras to record and transmit every civilian death around the world.

Well, not quite every civilian death. The day before Israel launched its air attack against Hamas, Hamas fired a rocket in the general direction of Sderot. The rocket fell short of its mark and landed in Gaza - killing two young Palestinian girls. Hamas, which imposes total censorship in Gaza, refused to allow cameras to record or transmit pictures of these dead Palestinian girls, because they were killed not by Israeli rockets, but rather by Palestinian rockets.

The Hamas tactic is encouraged by selective condemnation of Israel. Such condemnation creates a win-win situation for Hamas terrorism. Every time they kill an Israeli civilian, they win; every time Israel kills a Palestinian civilian, Hamas also wins.

The only way to defeat this cynical tactic is for the international community to place the blame squarely on Hamas for engaging in the double war crime of targeting Israeli civilians and using Palestinian civilians as human shields.

[gst528i]

what if israel defended its citizens the way the british, the french, the americans and the russians did? When german rockets hit british cities during the world war ii, prime minister winston churchill retaliated by bombing german cities, killing thousands of german civilians, and promised to continue until germany's unconditional surrender. The united states did the same following the japanese attack on pearl harbor. The french did much worse in algeria and the russians showed no concern for civilian life in chechnya or georgia.

The idf, on the other hand, has gone to extraordinary lengths to minimize civilian casualties, despite the reality that hamas deliberately fires its rockets from densely populated civilian areas and hides its rocket launchers in schools, hospitals and mosques.

Every hamas rocket attack against israeli civilians - and there have been more than 6,500 of them since israel ended its occupation of gaza - is an armed attack against israel under article 51 of the united nations charter, which authorizes member nations to respond militarily to armed attacks against it.

Under international law, israel is entitled to do whatever it takes militarily to stop hamas rockets from targeting its civilians. Every hamas rocket has the potential to kill dozens of israeli civilians. Recently one hit a school just hours after the principal dismissed the students, fearing such an attack. If the rocket had hit and killed hundreds of schoolchildren, would those who protest israeli actions acknowledge that israel would then have the right to respond? No country needs allow terrorists to play russian roulette with the lives of its children.

In fact, under international law, israel has the right to declare all-out war against the hamas-controlled government of gaza. In an all-out war, there would be no obligation to provide humanitarian assistance, electricity or any other services to an enemy who had started the war by an armed attack.

No one condemned great britain and the united states for the collateral damage it caused while trying to defeat those who attacked it during the second world war. Moreover, germany did not deny the right of great britain or the united states to exist. The hamas charter not only denies israel's right to exist, it calls for the complete destruction of the jewish state. Surely israel has as much right to defend its citizens as did the united states and great britain.

Why then is israel singled out for such ferocious criticism?

Indeed, the only reason israel has not won overwhelming military victories in lebanon in 2006 and in gaza now, is that israel has decided to engage in only limited and proportional military actions designed simply to stop the rocket attacks. Yet it is being condemned both for not winning a decisive victory and for killing too many civilians.

Hamas has learned how to manipulate the media's coverage of israeli military actions. They deliberately fire their rockets from behind civilian shields in order to provoke israel to respond and kill civilians. They are then ready to bring out the cameras to record and transmit every civilian death around the world.

well, not quite every civilian death. The day before israel launched its air attack against hamas, hamas fired a rocket in the general direction of sderot. The rocket fell short of its mark and landed in gaza - killing two young palestinian girls. Hamas, which imposes total censorship in gaza, refused to allow cameras to record or transmit pictures of these dead palestinian girls, because they were killed not by israeli rockets, but rather by palestinian rockets.

the hamas tactic is encouraged by selective condemnation of israel. Such condemnation creates a win-win situation for hamas terrorism. Every time they kill an israeli civilian, they win; every time israel kills a palestinian civilian, hamas also wins.

the only way to defeat this cynical tactic is for the international community to place the blame squarely on hamas for engaging in the double war crime of targeting israeli civilians and using palestinian civilians as human shields.

note to self: Do not get into argument with jigga

[BuffedGuy]

note to self: Do not get into argument with jigga

Jigga didn't bring up any worthy points. Let me refute all his arguments one by one, God-Willing:

1. Argument #1: Other countries do worse stuff.

Response:

That's not a justification at all. Maybe when China commits some human rights violation, it can say "well, Pol Pot was worse!"

2. Argument #2: The IDF went to incredible lengths to save civilian lives.

Response:

Bull crap. Let me put this in a way that you can understand the gravity of the IDF's crimes: one in four refugees in the world are Palestinians. 25% of ALL the world's refugees are Palestinians. Over EIGHT MILLION refugees created by the IDF. So if you would like to compare situations, then let us do that. How many other occupation forces can you name that have created so many refugees?

3. Argument #3: Israel was justified in the Gaza incursion in order to stop the rocket attacks.

Response:

This is the main argument he puts forward. It is easily refuted by the fact that ZERO Hamas rockets were fired during the ceasefire. Hence, if Israel had just wanted to stop rockets, then they would have simply stuck to the ceasefire. So this cannot be used as a justification for the invasion. Simple as that.

4. Argument #4: Hamas charter rejects the right of Israel to exist.

Response:

The Likud party charter says the same thing about a Palestinian state, as I've already posted before.

5. Argument #5: Hamas just wants to destroy Israel, so what can Israel do?

Response:

False. Hamas has said that it is willing to live in peace side-by-side with Israel, and even trade with them!

Hamas has repeatedly said that it is willing to agree to a permanent ceasefire and even go back to the 1967 borders. Israel refuses to do so. And *then* Hamas says what it says about waging war against Israel. Hamas's stance is completely understandable: they say that they will continue to wage war on Israel so long as it does not give such peace terms. Every occupied peoples in the world have a right to fight the occupier. If Russia occupied America, Americans would have a right to fight for their freedom.

Here is what an Israeli newspaper says [the article is from 2008]:

The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders...He said the Hamas government had agreed to accept a Palestinian state that followed the 1967 borders and to offer Israel a long-term hudna, or truce, if Israel recognized the Palestinians' national rights...

Haniyeh said: "We don't have a state, neither in Gaza nor in the West Bank. Gaza is under siege and the West Bank is occupied. What we have in the Gaza Strip is not a state, but rather a regime of an elected government. A Palestinian state will not be created at this time except in the territories of 1967."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035414.html

Here is what the top Hamas leader and co-founder, Khalid Meshal, said in a 2006 interview:

KM: Let me say that the Hamas movement will only establish a Palestinian state within the borders of 1967; that includes East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Up till now, Israel does not recognize this right for us. All the Palestinians are demanding is this right. But Israel keeps violating Palestinian rights, and the West is unwilling to force Israel to recognize the Palestinian rights.

Even when President Bush talked about a Palestinian state, it was not clear cut. And Ariel Sharon and recently Ehud Olmert have made a lot of reservations about Bush's proposal. They are rejecting the idea of an Israeli state within its 1967 borders. They want an Israeli state, which includes parts of the West Bank. Actually, President Bush had even agreed to Sharon's proposal for Israel to keep all of Jerusalem. And he agreed with Sharon to choose the right Palestinian leader who would accept all this.

RR [the interviewer]: Have I understood you correctly that you would be prepared to negotiate with Israel and accept it within its borders of 1967, before it started its wars of aggression, stealing Palestinian land?

KM: Good, that has been made clear.

RR: In the West, Hamas is generally depicted as being absolutely against talks with Israel and [it's believed] that Hamas only wants to drive the Israeli Jews into the sea.

KM: This is not correct. Killing Jews is not our aim. For centuries we have lived in Palestine peacefully with Jews and Christians of all kinds. We are fighting Israel because it occupies our land and oppresses our people. We are fighting Israel to finish this occupation. We want to live freely on our land just as other nations. We want to have our own country just like other people. But the Zionist movement came from all over the world to occupy our land. And the real owner of the land has been kicked out. This is the root of the problem.

Because of many factors, we now accept to build a Palestinian state within the borders of 1967. But that doesn't mean that we recognize Israel. But we are prepared to make a long-term truce with Israel. Accepting the status of Israel without recognizing it.

RR: But no recognition? Doesn't that mean continued tensions and war?

KM: No. There are plenty of examples where no recognition does not mean war. China and Taiwan, for example, have not recognized each other, but they trade and cooperate with each other. By withholding a formal recognition, we just don't want to give Israel the legitimacy for having taken our land in the first place.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/rupp.php?articleid=10195

But Israel rejects to even give the 1967 borders. So not only did they immediately steal land and renege on the 1947 borders, but they stole more land (the 1967 borders), but they even refuse to go back to the 1967 lands. Even the most extreme of Palestinians are willing to go back to 1967 lands, whereas Israel is not. So who is the "partner for peace"? All Israel wants is for Palestinians to roll over and die.

All your arguments have been refuted.

[Tock]

It's hard to cheer for a bunch who follow a religion that executes infidels:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/11/2...sexual-conduct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Executio...rs_controversy

. . . so you'll no doubt understand why I can't get too excited in either side when both are guilty of religious excess.

Who uses human shields? Hamas or Israel?

Israel Defense Forces using human shields

Israel using human shields

Israeli Commando uses two kids as human shields to guard military jeep

[BuffedGuy]

It's hard to cheer for a bunch who follow a religion that executes infidels:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/11/2...sexual-conduct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Executio...rs_controversy

. . . so you'll no doubt understand why I can't get too excited in either side when both are guilty of religious excess.

Peace be unto you, Tock.

The links are about executing those who commit homosexual acts, not infidels. All three of the Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--have the punishment of death for homosexual acts. Therefore it is not fair to target Islam alone for this. The Bible says:

Leviticus 20:13

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

However, I have posted in the Ask a Muslim thread about the Islamic view towards homosexuals. Hold on, let me find it...

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[BuffedGuy]

Tock, please read this post here to see what the Islamic view is towards homosexuality:

The Unofficial "Ask a Muslim" Thread.

[Tock]

Peace be unto you, Tock.

The links are about executing those who commit homosexual acts, not infidels. All three of the Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--have the punishment of death for homosexual acts. Therefore it is not fair to target Islam alone for this.

I don't give any slack to any religion that won't mind its own business. Murdering gays, whether they're members of your own religion or not, is flatly inexcusable. Some christians want to send practicing gays to jail where, oddly enough, they'll get unlimited opportunity to engage in gay sex, but that's for another rant). Which ones? Not the liberal ones, for sure. But as a for instance, Conservative Christians own and operate the Texas Republican Party, and their party platform for the past 20 years has demanded that the government do to gays what the Nazis did to Jews in the 1930's. And, it might interest you to know, that these are the people who elected George Bush as Texas Governor, and then put him up for election as US President.

Anyway.

The Bible says:

Leviticus 20:13

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

However, I have posted in the Ask a Muslim thread about the Islamic view towards homosexuals. Hold on, let me find it...

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

Not that I really care what the Bible says, but nobody seems to know exactly who wrote this part.
But, I'll have to continue this later, I gotta make like a nose in winter and run . . .

[D7M]

Peace be unto you, Tock.

The links are about executing those who commit homosexual acts, not infidels. All three of the Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--have the punishment of death for homosexual acts. Therefore it is not fair to target Islam alone for this. The Bible says:

Leviticus 20:13

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

However, I have posted in the Ask a Muslim thread about the Islamic view towards homosexuals. Hold on, let me find it...

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

I try to stay out of these kind of threads, but I'll jump in here, because this is simply mis-information.

Christianity does not hold the death penalty for homosexual acts.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

I try to stay out of these kind of threads, but I'll jump in here, because this is simply mis-information.

Christianity does not hold the death penalty for homosexual acts.

There are many ways to respond to this. First, the Christian Church *did* execute homosexuals historically. In the year 390 A.D., Christian Rome formally prescribed the penalty of death for homosexuality. Second, there are still Christian groups today--such as the Christian Reconstructionists, the Christian Identity movement, etc--that still believe that this should be the proper punishment.

I would, however, agree with you that most Christians do not feel this way. Yet, the fact is that even if we say that the Old Testament Laws were abolished--despite Jesus [as] saying:

Matthew 5:17-20

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

But even if we say that the Old Testament laws were abolished by the sacrifice of Jesus [as]--in opposition to his own words above--what we can say is that at one point in time God *did* himself advocate the death penalty for homosexuals, and the Children of Israel *did* use this punishment against homosexuals, and what they did was in accordance to what God commanded. Therefore, for a Christian to criticize executing homosexuals as evil is to call God's Laws evil, and to call God evil. For hundreds of years before Christ appeared, men were following the Law, as prescribed by God Himself. And according to Christianity, Jesus is God--they are one and the same. Therefore, according to Christianity, for hundreds and hundreds of years, Jesus [as] called for the killing of homosexuals.

Nonetheless, perhaps I should have reworded what I said, and merely said that the religious books of all three religions--of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--call for the execution of those who commit homosexual acts. As for the Islamic view towards homosexuality, I have clarified in the post I linked to. The Islamic punishments (hadood) are specific to Muslims, not to Non-Muslims, who are allowed to live under their own laws as they please.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[D7M]

Peace be unto you, Derek.



There are many ways to respond to this. First, the Christian Church *did* execute homosexuals historically. In the year 390 A.D., Christian Rome formally prescribed the penalty of death for homosexuality. Second, there are still Christian groups today--such as the Christian Reconstructionists, the Christian Identity movement, etc--that still believe that this should be the proper punishment.

I would, however, agree with you that most Christians do not feel this way. Yet, the fact is that even if we say that the Old Testament Laws were abolished--despite Jesus [as] saying:

Matthew 5:17-20

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

But even if we say that the Old Testament laws were abolished by the sacrifice of Jesus [as]--in opposition to his own words above--what we can say is that at one point in time God *did* himself advocate the death penalty for homosexuals, and the Children of Israel *did* use this punishment against homosexuals, and what they did was in accordance to what God commanded. Therefore, for a Christian to criticize executing homosexuals as evil is to call God's Laws evil, and to call God evil. For hundreds of years before Christ appeared, men were following the Law, as prescribed by God Himself. And according to Christianity, Jesus is God--they are one and the same. Therefore, according to Christianity, for hundreds and hundreds of years, Jesus [as] called for the killing of homosexuals.

Nonetheless, perhaps I should have reworded what I said, and merely said that the religious books of all three religions--of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--call for the execution of those who commit homosexual acts. As for the Islamic view towards homosexuality, I have clarified in the post I linked to. The Islamic punishments (hadood) are specific to Muslims, not to Non-Muslims, who are allowed to live under their own laws as they please.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

I should have been more precise: contemporary, main-stream Christianity does not hold the death penalty for homosexuality.

As for Christ's words that you quoted (Matt 5), and the abolition of the Mosaic law: It's easy to pull out a single verse from a pericope, and provide any kind of exegesis one wants. That doesn't really mean anything to me. Also, Christian's don't follow all of the law, obviously. Some call it super-sessionism. The "first" council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

I don't know if Christians would call executing homosexuals evil. But, if a Christian did say that such an act was contrary to God's law, he would be completed justified, and would not be implying that God's law is evil. Christians do not need to be circumcised (to enter the Church), but that doesn't mean they think circumcision is evil. Again, Acts 15, dude. You seem to use good logic, but as they say, "ex falso sequitor quodbilet"

And I have no idea what you mean by this: "Therefore, according to Christianity, for hundreds and hundreds of years, Jesus [as] called for the killing of homosexuals."

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

I should have been more precise: contemporary, main-stream Christianity does not hold the death penalty for homosexuality.

I'll agree with that.

As for Christ's words that you quoted (Matt 5), and the abolition of the Mosaic law: It's easy to pull out a single verse from a pericope, and provide any kind of exegesis one wants. That doesn't really mean anything to me. Also, Christian's don't follow all of the law, obviously. Some call it super-sessionism. The "first" council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

You said that Christians don't follow all of the law, but Jesus [as] says in that verse that "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law." So how would you explain this?

I don't know if Christians would call executing homosexuals evil. But, if a Christian did say that such an act was contrary to God's law, he would be completed justified, and would not be implying that God's law is evil.

I'd be OK with the way you worded this. My only complaint is/was this: I have seen many practicing Christians criticize Islam for the punishment of stoning--or the execution of homosexuals--as being wicked, evil, barbaric, etc. And I am saying that this is not appropriate, because even from a Christian belief, this would logically mean that God enacted an evil punishment for so many hundreds of years to the Children of Israel. Calling a divine law to be barbaric is surely tantamount to blasphemy and disbelief.

Christians do not need to be circumcised (to enter the Church), but that doesn't mean they think circumcision is evil.

Understood. And I'm not disagreeing with you on this. What I *am* saying is that it would be absurd for a practicing Christian to say that Jews circumcising themselves is barbaric, since they (the Christians) believe that their own God ordained that.

And I have no idea what you mean by this: "Therefore, according to Christianity, for hundreds and hundreds of years, Jesus [as] called for the killing of homosexuals."

The God in the Old Testament ordained the execution of homosexuals. Christians believe that Jesus and God are the same entity, i.e. Jesus is God. Ipso facto, Jesus is the one who ordained the execution of homosexuals, and therefore it is not right for Christians to criticize Prophet Muhammad [s] for ordaining the exact same punishment. Furthermore, Moses [as] himself followed this same law, and Prophet Muhammad [s] simply upheld and affirmed it.

To put this bluntly: oftentimes Christians criticize Islam for certain things, and they are completely oblivious to the fact that we got it from you guys to begin with, since our religion affirms the revelations that came before us.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[BuffedGuy]

Dear Tock, peace be unto you.

I totally understand that this issue is a huge sticking point for many non-believers (I am using this term to refer to those who are neither Jewish, Christian, or Muslim). I did not mean to sound offensive or obnoxious. Forgive me for any offense. I earlier wanted to avoid any discussion on this matter at all. All I can say is that the Islamic Law is pertinent to only Muslims, because Islamic Law allows Non-Muslims to rule themselves as they please. Furthermore, the Islamic Law turns a blind eye to that which goes on in secret, and only penalizes that which is done in the public setting and openly. I know that this still doesn't make it right for you, and I understand your grievances. The truth is that the way Islamic Law is applied in some Muslim countries today is atrocious, and is totally not in accordance to what Islam dictates.

This is always a very sensitive topic, and I always hate it how it cuts all lines of communication. I hope it does not on this forum; let's agree to disagree, God-Willing.

May God unite us upon the truth.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[D7M]

As far as Christians not following the whole law: I'm not saying I agree with it, but Christians would explain it this way: That when Christ said, "I came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it" (from your Matt 5 quote), that meant the fulfillment of the law in the Christian religion. Some practices of the law were no longer applicable (hence me saying above about super-sessionism and the reference to Acts 15).

I see what you're saying about the Christian critics of "barbaric" Islamic practices. Its unfounded and unintelligent, I agree. Their claim would be that such practices are no longer under divine law, since we are under grace and not under the law....you know, all that Pauline stuff from Galatians.

you say: "To put this bluntly: oftentimes Christians criticize Islam for certain things, and they are completely oblivious to the fact that we got it from you guys to begin with, since our religion affirms the revelations that came before us."

Ok, I see what you're saying, and I agree. As I said above, its really simplistic and unintelligent understanding of historical facts.

But to be clear, I find it difficult to identify myself as Christian anymore. I lost my faith years ago. But, I have PhD in Theology, so that's how I make my living. It just happens to be what I know.

[BuffedGuy]

But to be clear, I find it difficult to identify myself as Christian anymore. I lost my faith years ago. But, I have PhD in Theology, so that's how I make my living. It just happens to be what I know.

Whoa, that's really cool. (The underlined part, not the losing faith part lol.) You have a PhD from a religious Christian school? I could learn a lot from you. I don't know much about Christian scholarship--so I mean, what do people who have PhD's in theology normally do? I mean, if you were still Christian.

[D7M]

Whoa, that's really cool. (The underlined part, not the losing faith part lol.) You have a PhD from a religious Christian school? I could learn a lot from you. I don't know much about Christian scholarship--so I mean, what do people who have PhD's in theology normally do? I mean, if you were still Christian.

I really wasn't trying to brag or be arrogant.

Yah, it's from pretty recognized University. I'll pm you with details.

I guess the same thing I do: teach at a University. That's your best bet with that degree.....which doesn't really matter whether you have your faith or not, just what stupid initials are after your name, what you've published, blah blah blah...

[BuffedGuy]

I really wasn't trying to brag or be arrogant.

Yah, it's from pretty recognized University. I'll pm you with details.

I guess the same thing I do: teach at a University. That's your best bet with that degree.....which doesn't really matter whether you have your faith or not, just what stupid initials are after your name, what you've published, blah blah blah...

It's ok. I don't mind bragging, haha. That's really cool. I also plan on studying Islamic theology one day, God-Willing. But yeah, PM me the details.

[Tock]

Dear Tock, peace be unto you.

And also to you.

I totally understand that this issue is a huge sticking point for many non-believers (I am using this term to refer to those who are neither Jewish, Christian, or Muslim). I did not mean to sound offensive or obnoxious. Forgive me for any offense.

None taken.

I earlier wanted to avoid any discussion on this matter at all.

A wise man once said, "It is better to discuss an issue without settling it than to settle an issue without discussin it.

All I can say is that the Islamic Law is pertinent to only Muslims, because Islamic Law allows Non-Muslims to rule themselves as they please.

I don't have a problem with that.
Once a person is old enough and educated enough to make informed choices about important issues (choice of religion, male/female circumcision, polygamy, various punishments), if someone volunteers to be punished (even executed) for the sake of their Islamic faith, they should be free to do so.

However . . .

When Christians try to punish non-christians for violating Christian rules, that's when the Secular government should step in and protect them from having someone else's religion forced on them.
But on the other hand, if a gay member of a Christian group like
www.godhatesfags.com has to submit to endure abuse to remain a member, then that should be his choice. I can't imagine there would be many takers for that sort of thing, but hey, ya never really know.

I suspect you agree with me on this issue, in which case we'd probably get along famously as neighbors. IMHO, a person should not be required to obey any religion he does not want to. And, churches should be free to make their own rules for membership.

Reference this news story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090126/...nesia_yoga_ban
I have no problems with religious leaders making rules such as this for their members. But if people decide to change religions, they shouldn't be tracked down by the "church police" and punished.


JAKARTA, Indonesia – Muslims in Indonesia are banned from practicing yoga that contains Hindu rituals like chanting, the country's top Islamic body said Monday, echoing concerns by some religious groups elsewhere about its effect on their faith.
Though not legally binding, most devout Muslims will likely adhere to the ruling because ignoring a fatwa, or religious decree, is considered a sin.
The decision in the world's most populous Muslim state follows similar edicts in Malaysia and Egypt as the ancient Indian exercise gained popularity worldwide in recent years.

I know that this still doesn't make it right for you, and I understand your grievances. The truth is that the way Islamic Law is applied in some Muslim countries today is atrocious, and is totally not in accordance to what Islam dictates.

The issue hinges on whether or not people who transgress religious rules should be punished for doing so. IMHO, if someone voluntarily accepts punishment, that's ok. But if religious folks force non-religious folks to conform with their rules, that's not ok. We have an awful lot of that here in the USA, but we're gradually overcoming that.

As a bit of trivia, did you know that according to the Texas State Constitution, atheists and unbeleivers cannot assume an elective office, even if they won an election? Here's the rule--oddly enough, it's in what's called the "Bill Of Rights:"

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/txconst/...00-000400.html
The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

This is always a very sensitive topic, and I always hate it how it cuts all lines of communication. I hope it does not on this forum; let's agree to disagree, God-Willing.

May God unite us upon the truth.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

Difference of religious opinion shouldn't be a problem for anyone, other than those who are upset that other people have different opinions. These are the people (usually Fundamentalist) who start and run Inquisitions and Terrorist Organizations. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all guilty of this horror.
But on the other hand, most Christians, Jews and Muslims don't fret over what other people beleive and do. I don't know if I've ever posted this on this forum before, but even though I'm not religious, I tend to like most religious people. From time to time, I even donate $$$ to their charitable projects, like:

http://www.cathedralofhope.com/NetCo...=324&srcid=305

But if anyone has enough money to live well and sees a brother or sister
in need and refuses to help - how can God's love be in that person?
Dear children, let us stop just saying we love each other;
let us really show it by our actions. 1 John 3:17-18

Biloxi | Guadalajara | Honduras| Reynosa

Miracles in Mission is the Cathedral of Hope reaching beyond the city of Dallas. There are four areas in which you may help to make a profound difference showing God’s grace to those in need. You may be interested in all four projects, or you may choose to focus on one or two areas. If you cannot “go,” please pray for those who do.

Biloxi Mission Trip – This is an ongoing work along the Gulf Coast. It is a partnership work with the Back Bay Missions (BBM) of the United Church of Christ. The goal of this work is to rehabilitate homes that were damaged by the hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Volunteers cover the cost of their travel and pay $100 to BBM to cover food and lodging. The Cathedral of Hope project leader for this work is Drew Hayes.
Guadalajara Mexico – There are two mission projects in Guadalajara. The first one is in partnership with West Plano Presbyterian Church (WPPC) in Plano, Texas. CoH and WPPC combine their efforts to assist the children in the Huejotitan Orphanage located in a small village south of Guadalajara in the Mexican stat of Jalisco. The most recent work is with the San Pablo Orphanage located in the same area. The children of San Pablo Orphanage are orphaned as a result of both parents having died from the HIV/AIDS virus.
Honduras - This work is in partnership with Christian Solidarity Programs for Honduras. The work projects are usually located in or around Tegucigalpa, the capital city, located in southern Honduras. The Cathedral of Hope project leader for this work is Sara Bellak.
Reynosa Mission Trip – The Cathedral of Hope has been involved with this project for three years. Many factories in the United States are moving operations to places like Reynosa where the Mexican nationals work for very low wages. Most of the workers cannot afford housing and instead become “squatters” on land near the factories. They use whatever materials they can find to build their homes; shipping pallets become lean-to structures and fences, barrels become bathtubs and water storage containers, outdoor fires and sometimes a discarded grill are used to prepare food. The Cathedral of Hope has built three school buildings for the children in the community of La Calichera.
Those in need are supported by Grace.
Those who respond are God’s enfolding arms and healing hands.


That's about all I have to say about that . . .

[tranquill]

I was surprised to learn that Israel censors military info and even banned international reporters from conflict areas. Here is an underground site called Israeli Uncensored News http://samsonblinded.org/news which runs some very odd reports.

[J.S.N.]

who even gives a shit which side is a bigger group of ****heads?


all i care about is we're basing our foreign policy off an "ally" of 0 strategic importance and are flushing away billions and billions of dollars every year so that they can live comfortably while we have people starving here.

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

Slay The Homeless

[BuffedGuy]

all i care about is we're basing our foreign policy off an "ally" of 0 strategic importance and are flushing away billions and billions of dollars every year so that they can live comfortably while we have people starving here.

Word to big bird.