Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (379914)	3/27/2003 12:47:31 AM
From: RON BL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Islam is a tool of oppression and tyranny. You judge the fruit by its taste. When little girls are thrown back into a burning building because they don't have their faces covered then you see what that fruit is. Try judging Islam the way the left has judged Christianity in this country. If you judge Islam in that fashion I would have to say that Islam is the greatest threat to the world because Islam begins to the far far far far far far far far far far far right of Jerry Falwell and you people have already said that he is the greatest threat to the US.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (379914)	3/27/2003 5:53:13 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

So what portions do you disagree with? They are legion. Let it suffice for me to say the site generally lacks sophistication. It treats vastly differing religions, many of which are diametrically opposed to one another and that have only the most superficial of relationships, as groups having significant correlation. It actually treats the KKK (!) as a legitimate Christian group and ignorantly categorizes it with, say, the Catholic Church. That is patently absurd. And it truly causes me to doubt the sincerity of the site's authors. I have read the site primarily because I knew there would be willfully ignorant people referring to it as an "authoritative" site when it is nothing of the sort. As I read it, in generalizing the point, is that Islam has been co-opted by fanatics who have twisted the interpretation of the Koran to their own beliefs. Similar to how some radical Christians have twisted the Bible to suit their own earthly needs. You employ a fallacy here that needs to be rejected straightaway. Even the most radical of Christians are not murdering innocents as part of a worldwide religious effort. So you ought not compare the two groups. Your comparison here is but an attempt to ameliorate islam’s ills by associating them with the errors of people who maintained some sort of Christian faith. You compare apples with oranges. Muslims are unique in that the quranic interpretation that allows murder is ubiquitous and receives no credible threat within islam. It receives no credible threat because the quran and hadith can reasonably be taken to allow murder. Contrariwise, the Christian Bible can by no means be reasonably taken to countenance the barbarism so easily found by a reasoned reading of the Islamic holy works. Indeed, retaliation for individual Christians is flatly wrong – period. Because of this, all radical pseudo-Christian aberrations throughout history have received confrontation within Christianity itself. The Crusades, for example, were regional. They were executed by no Scriptural mandate and they were actually condemned and ended by Christians themselves. Now when you claim islam has been co-opted by fanatics, you seem to suggest that widespread oppression in the name of allah in view of the quran is something foreign to islam and that it is a recent and inexplicable phenomenon in that religion. It is not. Such religiously inspired barbarism has been part and parcel of islam from its very beginning. Indeed, islam’s relatively tolerant periods have been exceptions and not the rule. Witness the portion dealing with suicide. Although suicide is expressly prohibited, the radicals have 'invented' their own loophole that allows suicide in the defense of Islam. You claim the radicals have “invented” their own loophole as if you are authoritative here. They may well claim you are radical and they have a more reasoned basis for the claim, given the quran and hadith. Surely, suicide due to personal misfortune and financial difficulty is roundly condemned by muslims. But there is simply no quranic prohibition against a muslim’s attempt to get explosives near his enemy by employing his own body. These muslim martyrs claim, and they are quite correct here, that unlike the circumstance of suicide, the object here is not to kill oneself. It is to kill one’s enemy. That such bombings result in the destruction of the bomber is secondary and sacrificial. That is why these bombers are widely considered martyrs amongst muslims. Some muslim authorities may disagree with the view, but very many others accept it. The view, whatever your beliefs, is simply not proscribed by the quran or hadith. This is undoubtedly why both Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi, and Sheik Ikrema Sabri, Jerusalem's top Muslim cleric, accept the bombings as valid weapons supported by Sharia law. (tbc...)

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (379914)	3/27/2003 5:59:33 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

[Muslim fanatics] further stretch that loophole to allow murder and suicide against nations that are not invading their Muslim lands, but those that they feel are threats. I have read many moderate Muslims who decry this twisting of their holy book. You claim the “fanatics” stretch a “loophole.” But when muslim authorities far greater than you claim otherwise, reason demands I consider their opinions above yours on this issue. Unfortunately, as with Christianity, although [the muslim “fanatics”] have the same roots [as other Islamic groups], many sects have branched off with their own interpretations. You continue here with yet additional dishonest pairing of islam with Christianity. The clear flaw here (and undoubtedly many reading this exchange now sense the flaw but are unable to put a finger upon it) is that if anything, Christian practice has grown gentler over the centuries, despite splintering, while according to you islam has grown more barbaric. That alone ought to prohibit your linking the two. Unfortunately you seem so hell-bound and determined to view both religions in the same sordid light, this, despite that such a view toward Christianity is simply unwarranted. As for the definition of Christianity, I was referring to the historical definition of the religions as derived from the teachings of Jesus Christ. Well, many Islamic groups might derive their practice from the teaching of Jesus and yet that alone is obviously not enough to make them “Christians.” That would include many religions that you don't seem to believe are 'Christian', because you have a view of what that is. It is but a simple matter of reason to read the Scriptures, comparing the Jesus described therein to the “jesuses” of these other religions to discover that those “jesuses” are wholly different from the genuine Article. Your problem is, you accept any ol’ dog as a real Jesus simply because of the name. That is illogical. However, that view cannot change the historical fact that the Mormons are an offshoot of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Mormons hold to the teachings of five standard “authoritative” sources: 1. the writings and sermons of their “prophet,” 2. the “Doctrines and Covenants,” 3. the “Pearl of Great Price,” 4. the King James Version of the Bible (but only as it is “translated correctly”) and 5. the “Book of Mormon.” Mormon Prophet Brigham Young taught emphatically (See Journal of Discourses, Vol. II, page 269.) that Jesus Christ was a polygamist. Clearly this is not the Jesus Christ of Christianity. Brigham Young declared (See Deseret News, Oct. 19, 1866 by Brigham Young) that Jesus was conceived through a physical sexual relationship between Mary and God – her father. Clearly this is not the Jesus of Christianity. We also see (See Journal of Discourses, Vol. XIII, page 282) that Jesus Christ is the brother of Lucifer. Clearly this is not the Jesus Christ of Christianity. In his “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” (p. 370.), Mormon Prophet Joe Smith declares Jesus is but one of several gods. Clearly this is not the Jesus of Christianity. Mormon Prophet Spencer W. Kimball in his “Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball” (pp. 32-33) declares that Jesus is the brother of Lucifer. Clearly this is not the Jesus of Christianity. Mormon leaders themselves admit that they believe in another “jesus,” not the Jesus of historic, biblical Christianity. (See Ensign, May, 1977, page 26.) So the “fact” Mormonism comes from Christianity is fact only in the most superficial sense. You claim it is fact in the significant sense only because of your ignorance– politically correct ignorance where all religions are essentially the same, all having essentially the same flaw and the same goodness. That is complete falsity, but you will undoubtedly continue to believe it because your mind is closed to the truth. I have no respect for this at all. Subtlety of thought is required here, and you show none at all with this “globalistic” tendency of yours regarding religion. Just as you view Mormons as not really being Christian (if I interpreted your comments correctly), many Muslims do not view other radical elements (especially the Islamic 'Republics') as truly Islamic. I view Mormons as non-Christian because their “Christ” is not The Christ and clearly not The Christ. The muslims you call “fanatics” can by no means be dismissed as such when their holy works reasonably vindicate them. A very strong case can be made that you are the fanatic in that you wish to alter the historic meaning and practice of islam to shore up your politically correct religious fantasies. (tbc...)