I wish we could, but you have to remember that the word 'honesty' is in there. Maybe someday though. I look forward to it.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

Well, we could. There is this thing called logic which you have spoken of previously. You seem to pay some heed to it, at least in names sake, so perhaps you could formulate your argument in logical form? It would involve you breaking down your discussion into short premises, and short conclusions drawn from those premises. Then, we could look at each and check the veracity of each statement.

Care to take the logical form challenge?

I decided to post this response here, as I thought it more appropriate...


Then my comment stands.


The only problem with this comment is that, at least in our case, that’s not at all what occurred. I called you a dishonest liar because that’s exactly what you were displaying and doing during the discussion. When you refuse to acknowledge fundamental objective factual differences between Islam and Christianity (i.e. the violence is directly attributable to and motivated by a developed theology & doctrine of violence, a long history of violence, and the violent example of the religion’s founder in the case of Islam but not in the case of Christianity or even Judaism) and continue to claim that they are essentially the same in nature; that’s dishonesty and a lie, no matter what one may personally think of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism.


I cannot speak to your discussions with Mark, but I’ve not rejected evidence based arguments. You’d have to first present some kind of actual evidence that deals with the actual topic at hand. Mere violence by a single God of any religion is not what the discussion was about. The discussion had to do with the violent machinations of the three religions, as driven by their developed theologies, doctrines, histories, and the example of their founders. All three religions had violent machinations, but they differed in both quality and quantity, which was the determining factor in the differences between the three religions’ violent vs. non-violent tendencies that exist all the way into today. That is the source of the distinctive between the three religions, which doesn’t allow a fair lumping together of the religions, so far as it concerns violence. I’ve done anything but simply reject your arguments. Instead, I took the time and put forth the effort to deal with them in detail. However, rather with the reasonable defense and refutation offered, you simply repeated yourself. What more can anyone do at that point?


Since I’ve not been involved, to any significant degree, in the conversation between you and Mark, I consider our discussion to be separate. All I can say is that I am not in the habit of calling anyone a liar, but in your case, as we’ve gone round & round about this issue, I felt very safe and confident in using that word in an explicitly non-pejorative fashion. You can disagree with me as much as you like, as it’s always possible that I’m wrong. However, when you continue to spout untruths in the face of distinctions and refutations that make your position untenable, or at the very least unfair, I think you are simply being dishonest at a very fundamental level.


I hope you will, but I would suggest you do a better job. One suggestion would be to stop undermining your own credibility by refusing to deal with the arguments that are provided in refutation of your own claims. The facts are the facts. There is no historic violence within either Judaism or Christianity that is prescriptive for one or both religions over time and are indeed, dictated from the very developed theology & doctrines of their faith, as well as the authoritative prescriptive current to future commands and examples of their founders. This is not the case with Islam, which does possess those qualities by the very nature of the religion and its teachings. Notice, I did not say that there is no example of violence within Judaism for example. It’s simply that this example is qualitatively and quantitatively different when compared to the violence contained within Islam, both historically and today. You can either deal with this fact, which makes your judgment untenable, or you can simply pretend nothing was offered to refute your position.


Since you’ve not dealt with the answers provided, I don’t know how you could know such a thing. Nor is this claim credible, given the background o f this discussion. When you become genuinely interested in the facts, feel free to re-visit the discussion.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

I'll be continuing to provide a counter point at my convenience whenever you present a opinion, regardless of whether you find it interesting or not.

I think so. He sets the example for God in or out of the OT.

Don't we also see God when we are in the presence of a person who lives a life consistent with God's will?

[/quote]

Certainly, but anyone like that would not be perfectly consistent in living such a life. I agree when they are living a life of compassion and love for others, we are seeing the image of God and that is how I think man is created in the image of God.

Some Dude,

Actually this is not the case. As I’ve said before, I think the common idea that the use of violence by God and/or through God’s chosen intermediaries, by way of His natural and logical prerogatives as God & Creator, is certainly a good point that can be discussed. But the fact of this common idea being true and/or allowable in principle is different from saying that one religion or another “IS” or “MUST BE” violent.

Assuming people of sound mind recognize the objective existence of certain things like logic, the following would be true. If God does exist in theory or reality, it would be true, even from an atheistic perspective, that certain prerogatives would logically follow from His existence. They may be prerogatives that offend your sensibilities and perhaps those of others, but this offense would not change the fact that they logically follow from His existence. One of those prerogatives is that a God who created all that ever came into existence at a time in the finite past would naturally possess ownership of this creation, for which He was responsible. As owner and sole benefactor of that creation, God would possess the prerogative of disposing of this creation, if He so chose, in any fashion that was consistent with His nature. This would be logically true whether a person was an atheist or a Christian. Perspective, either yours’ or mine would be completely irrelevant to whether or not such a thing were logically true.

This truth about God’s prerogative, as God, is recognized by multiple religions, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I think we both agree on that, but no distinction, legitimate or otherwise, can be made at this stage. Now as I’ve said, this fact (i.e. the shared basic belief regarding the nature of God’s prerogatives) would not demand or necessitate violence in any way. What demands or necessitates violence driven by the religion itself and where genuine distinctions or real differences come into play, are the understood/comprehended teachings of the religion itself and the understood/comprehended examples of the religion’s founders. This understanding/comprehension is achieved through what I’ve already mentioned at length.

Theology - The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.

As I’ve also said, it is upon theologies that religions develop doctrines, but what are doctrines?

Doctrine - A belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school.

And of course, as I’ve covered, the legitimate actions (i.e. those in consonance with the religion’s teachings) are driven by the beliefs held. The beliefs held are driven by the doctrines taught. The doctrines taught are driven the by theology held. And the theology held is driven the fullness of the comprehension/understanding of the authoritative religious texts.

When it comes to either Judaism or Christianity, there is absolutely no developed doctrine of violence to inculcate beliefs that animate actions….PERIOD! The only cases that are available within Judaism are not doctrinal in nature and have never been seen as prescriptive behavior outside of the immediate command of the day.

This same thing is precisely not true when it comes to the religion of Islam, and this FACT is primarily responsible for why you do not generally see devout Christians and Jews killing people in a way that logically follows from their religion’s teachings or the examples of their founders.

This difference, which is both a qualitative and quantitative distinction is not dependent upon anyone’s opinion or perspective. This is simply an objective fact of history, and it has nothing to do with anyone’s ability or willingness to recognize or countenance it. It simply is the way that it is. Your essentially saying that such a distinction is not an actual distinction is simply and demonstrably untrue. It’s a lie. You can be offended by that if you’d like, but it’s simply the truth, and it doesn’t matter whether you or I even believe it’s a lie. It is what it is.

Now, whether this FACT has any impact on your willingness to say or admit that there is a qualitative and quantitative difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam with respect to violence that is legitimately dictated by their religion’s developed theologies and the examples of their founders is an entirely different question. I have no reason to believe, given your strong impetus to disbelieve in the existence of God and bolster such delusion with various negative notions that generally offend the common sensibilities of mankind that you would be willing to admit such a thing. But then that’s not the point. Denying the real distinction itself is the problem.

If you emulate my behavior, then you emulate by behavior. What do I have to fear from that? I don’t throw out such terms willy nilly. I use them very judiciously, so far as I can tell, and in this case, I am forced to stand by my statement. I was trying to have a serious discussion in which I went into some depth to explain the distinction as clearly as I could at the time. Your response was essentially to dismiss it by saying it wasn’t a real distinction at all (i.e. “a distinction without a difference”), which simply isn’t true. The differences can be seen in history, theology, and in the current day. They are all around you and blood is pouring and not pouring all over the earth on the basis of this real and genuine qualitative and quantitative distinction. When you persist in saying something that is objectively and demonstrably untrue, yeah…that generally means you’re a liar. Sorry, but there is little I can do about something like that.

I’m not trying to be a jerk, but I believe what I said, and I think it’s true regardless. There are a whole host of other issues which I’m confident about, but I think they are far more debatable, though I believe them to be facts. This is simply not one of them. It’s far too demonstrable and clear. In all honesty, it’s simply not rationally deniable, but your ability to deny it may not be rational. It may be based on the general lack of knowledge you have of all three religions. I can’t honestly put a reason behind it, other than your individual antipathy toward God and anything that might put Him in an appropriate, which is to say positive light. Anyway, that’s my latest attempt to explain. I hope it does some good, but I’m not going to hold my breath. I’m sorry if you were offended though. That wasn’t my purpose. Your believing that is entirely up to you.

Honest people are free to engage me or anyone else in conversation, so long as they are willing to be honest. Yeah, if they aren’t, right…they’ll eventually lock themselves out of the conversation. I agree completely on that point. And of course, on debatable points, most of which are debatable, at least to some degree, however small, there is room for differences. However, differing on something that is simply demonstrably true isn’t possible. You can certainly label this as excessive certitude if you’d like. I’d simply call it assent to true propositions…Ooooooooo, how controversial!

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

Is there a certificate one can obtain to objectively verify one's honesty because you will excuse me if I don't accept your judgement about such matters?

We have been through all this already over a long period of time and on many topics, and while I reject your rationale in most of these cases, I don't have to believe you are being dishonest to accept that you hold a differing opinion to be true. The problem for anyone interacting with you on these topics though is that for them to disagree with you means that they have to conduct discussions with you from the position of being a liar from your perspective. You leave people no chance of engaging in an honest discussion with you regardless of whether you are right or not.

Don't feel like you need to change because I will continue to point out where I disagree with you regardless of what you think about it or how I conduct my discussions. And I certainly won't be refraining from doing so simply because you don't think I am being honest about it. You're simply going to have to learn to live with it.

Well said. At the risk of being redundant I submit that given our differences on what truth is and how we are to reach it, accusations of "liar" are not productive or helpful to the aims of this site.

Gom has made a clear and understandable claim here. Based on my knowledge of history and current events, his claim appears to me to be true. Can anyone offer evidence that proves Gom wrong?

There is a minor difference, though, which should be noted. According the Koran, Jews and Christians are supposed to be afforded protection under Islam and not attacked. The dictates concerning violence only apply to other faiths. Now, that said, a LOT of people don't chose to follow what it says to do. But that's not the religion so much as criminals and evil people trying to hide behind and excuse their actions with religious dogma.(and that happens in every religion on the planet, unfortunately)

Actually, this is only partially if not barely true. The fact is, Islam operates under "chronological authority" and purist Islam under a "doctrine of abrogation". This means that the later teachings of the prophet have more authority than earlier teachings, in which case it is better to follow the later teachings, which of course are quite violent and alternatively speak about not having Jews & Christians as friends, waiting in ambush for them, and cutting their heads off. Under the "doctrine of abrogation" the teaching is taken further, in which case, contradictory statements by the prophet are adjudicated by their chronological order. In other words, whatever was taught later in the prophet's life cancels what he taught earlier in his life, to the extent that they contradict. In either case, it's not good for Jews, Christians, or quite frankly, any non-believer in Islam. The prophet's early days in Mecca were generally peaceful and his later teachings in Medina are the more violent. The Medina teachings are pretty much universally held to be more authoritative. Having said that, the doctrine of Jihad does dictate that Christians and Jews can be allowed to live if they accept Dhimmi status and all that such a status entails. Essentially, you become a second class citizen or a permanent underclass within Muslim society that can be persecuted as a routine within Muslim culture. In addition, the ability to purvey and or support your own chosen religion, heritage, and culture is severely curtailed. Most of these people tend to diminish over time, but as there are often hundreds or tens of thousands, this can take many centuries. But for example, you can find Jews that have been living in Iran since the time of the Babylonian captivity, Coptic Christians living in various places throughout southern Egypt, and recently some of the last Yemeni Jews have been being rescued from Yemen and brought to America and Israel over the last few decades.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

Some comments from Bill Maher, as well as commentary on Bill Maher's take on the difference between religions, as it relates to violence.

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/05/03/ ... -radicals/

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com