Yes, But At What Cost?

Open up a dictionary and look up the phrase “underdog”, and you will see a map of Israel. That plucky group of nomads that God called “stiff necked”, no doubt a term of endearment but given with a sigh of resolution, has given the world new meanings to resiliency and determination. If you use a cell or smart phone, there are well over a dozen Israeli patents in your hand. Israel ranks fourth in the world in scientific activity as measured by the number of scientific publications per million citizens. And some of the indigenous population ain’t too bad to look at.

But for a nation that has stridently maintained a policy of not negotiating with terrorist, they have not only waggled on this (circuitously keeping their hands clean by allowing intermediaries to do the negotiating for them) but even when they are complicit, they are really really bad at it:

In an elaborate prisoner exchange that could roil Middle East politics, an Israeli soldier held for more than five years by the militant Palestinian group Hamas was swapped on Tuesday for hundreds of Palestinians who have languished in Israeli jails, all them freed to jubilant welcomes tinged with bitterness and grief.

Buses transporting the Palestinian prisoners — the first group of what will eventually be more than 1,000 — made their way into Egypt and from there to the West Bank and Gaza Strip where jubilant relatives and celebrations awaited.

1,027 prisoners Hamas prisoners to be exact, many of these the absolutes dregs, murderers, and terrorists imprisoned for years, but now free.

After 6 years in captivity (and looking like an Auschwitz refuge at release) Gilad Shalit has become a national hero, so temporarily there will be much celebration.

It should be noted that because in Israel military service is compulsory and it’s heightened awareness of its national and religious values (every citizen is a warrior and a bulwark to its survival) they have a history of paying exorbitant out of whack prices for it’s citizens. The Jabril Agreement of 1985 was as equally lopsided (1,150 to 3), and in 1998 they released 65 Hezbollah prisoners in exchange for the remains of one dead Israeli soldier.

The question of whether the exchange would lead to more abductions of Israeli soldiers hung in the air on Tuesday for both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I think this qualifies for a collective ,”No shit, Sherlock”. I think it is great that they value their soldiers so highly, but to think that releasing 1100 Jew haters, many with a history of murdering other Jews, will not down the road result in further Israeli deaths, I keep thinking about that river in Egypt. Equally damaging to the resulting violence that will occur down the road, is the precedent set, not only of negotiating with terrorists, but negotiating badly. I think we need to send some of our SEIU negotiators over there to show them how its done, they manage extract huge concessions and giving up little in return, now that is major league negotiating.

The affect of this type of behavior is clear and historical. We saw it with the Somali pirates, who serendipitously found out that piracy pays a hundred times better then drug dealing or gun running, so now we have more piracy. Ditto here, where this ransom to Hamas will no doubt encourage more Jew haters to engage in kidnapping.

Since the Israeli prisons are now empty, the next ransom demand for a kidnapped soldier will probably be money, the Somali’s can provide consulting services in that area. It seems like such a long time ago when the Jews gave to the US, on it’s bicentennial day of celebration, and all freedom loving nations the great lesson in the proper way to deal with evil in the world.

Comments are closed.

  1. InaneGoldfish

    First, I’d like to say welcome home to Gilad Schalit. .No one denies that that this is an extremely uneven prisoner swap. It’s also not the first Israel has engaged in. Looking at it from a pragmatic standpoint we will always come up with the same conclusion: this was a stupid idea that short term and long term is bad for Israeli National Security. But if you look at it from a more emotional viewpoint, (i assume) that you will understand the importance of bringing home a captured soldier. Especially one from such a high profile situation as Gilad Schalit (Until recently his story has been very much out of the news, I wonder why? [but that’s a completely different train of though]).

    Thumb up 0

  2. richtaylor365 *

    There was a good article in the WSJ last week about the irrationality of an “identifiable being”. All of Israel knew Gilad Shalit, his pictures and articles about him and his captivity permeated the press, they could put a face on him, but since the resulting deaths that will be caused by this lopsided release will (now) only be statistics, an unidentifiable group of people who may die in the future. Psychologists call this “statistical lives” whose value is less then that of a real person.

    Much like where no expense is sparred in rescuing a trapped miner, expenses are a huge factor and are limited in actual mine safety.

    Thumb up 2

  3. AlexInCT

    I think the Israelis got a better deal here. One of them is worth at least 50K of the death worshipping losers, and they only had to release 1027 murderous scumbags. If they are smart they will kill these assholes this time around instead of arresting them. At least the real dangerous ones.

    Thumb up 1

  4. Mississippi Yankee

    I’ll be very disappointed to find out these hostages weren’t “fixed” with a RFID tag.

    And as pleasant as Bar Refaeli is to look at the simple fact that she skirted her military obligation is a distraction for me.

    IMHO these are the beautiful women of Israel. Girls of the IDF

    Thumb up 0

  5. Technomad

    Unlike a lot of people on the “right” side of the aisle (I’m actually a libertarian, but I get along a lot better with right-wingers than lefties on most subjects) I never thought that Israel was a good idea. I’d rather the Israelis all came here to the US, and left Palestine to the Arabs.

    I will admit that part of my dislike for Israel is based in my dislike for the chronic God-botherers; anything they like, I am almost certain to take against. I also do think that they’ve made their own bed, and should lie in it without the US endlessly running interference for them.

    As for them “not negotiating with terrorists,” they have had no problem electing terrorists to high office. If Menachem Begin wasn’t a terrorist, the word has no meaning, and he’s not the only one by any means.

    Thumb up 0

  6. Mississippi Yankee

    I’d rather the Israelis all came here to the US, and left Palestine to the Arabs.

    If they were to move here will they be allowed to live in your neighborhood?

    Thumb up 1

  7. InsipiD

    I’d rather the Israelis all came here to the US, and left Palestine to the Arabs.

    I’d rather the borders of Israel be set to the post-6 day war borders and allow them greater leeway at peacekeeping in the area. Thus far, Israel has done a remarkable job of not overreacting to constant attacks, and they deserve to have their borders secure and not open to outside reinterpretation. Setting the borders to that level would make it much easier to defend their core regions and would be an excellent reminder to aggressors in the region what can happen when you mess with Israel.

    Thumb up 1

  8. AlexInCT

    Unlike a lot of people on the “right” side of the aisle (I’m actually a libertarian, but I get along a lot better with right-wingers than lefties on most subjects) I never thought that Israel was a good idea. I’d rather the Israelis all came here to the US, and left Palestine to the Arabs.

    Do you think that would stop the Arabs from killing each other or wanting to kill us and islamify the world?

    I ask because that’s the main reason most people oppose the existence or idea of Israel. And frankly, Israel is just as valid a country as Iraq, Iran, or even Lebanon or Saudi Arabia, which where all created by colonial masters back in the day. Were it not for colonialism these people would still be corrupt tribal groups, fighting and killing each other for no other reason than that being their traditional way of life, like things are in Afghanistan. I know that the KGB was horribly successful in getting academia to convince people that colonialism was a problem and why these countries are all dysfunctional, but that’s utter bullshit. These people were dysfunctional before they where colonized, and once the people that kept order left, they reverted right back to it.

    The reality is that Israel is there. Wishing it were not so is futile and non productive.

    Thumb up 1

  9. Poosh

    Much of the land called “Palestine” was absorbed into other Arab countries, yet no one seems to care about that, or the trouble it caused. It’s an entire stitch up. They only real issue is that Israel is made up of Jews and the religion of Islam teaches to hate Jews.

    Thumb up 3

  10. InsipiD

    I’d rather the Israelis all came here to the US, and left Palestine to the Arabs.

    I didn’t know that Helen Thomas could use a computer…

    Thumb up 3

  11. Poosh

    I know Alex :s technically the Koran says to be nice to Jews as they’re also people of the book … but then it contradicts itself and encourages hate towards them (and Christians). Either way, more hatred is set out for atheists and polytheists…

    So if this is how authentic Muslims treat Jews – imagine how they’re gonna treat atheists…

    Thumb up 0

  12. AlexInCT

    I know Alex :s technically the Koran says to be nice to Jews as they’re also people of the book … but then it contradicts itself and encourages hate towards them (and Christians). Either way, more hatred is set out for atheists and polytheists…

    Yeah, how well is that “be nice to Jews and Christians” playing out in the real world? I keep hearing how these people are nice to other religious denominations but when I look I see that they treat anyone that doesn’t believe like they do, and just as frequently those that do too, worse than if they were lepers. It’s not coincidental that Islam is all about government sanctioned violence against anyone they can label as a non believer.

    So if this is how authentic Muslims treat Jews – imagine how they’re gonna treat atheists…

    Just look at how they treat other muslims that aren’t members of their tribe.

    Thumb up 0

  13. sahrab

    It’s not coincidental that Islam is all about government sanctioned violence against anyone they can label as a non believer.

    Alex, you sure your not talking about Theocracies? They, any theocracy, by their nature are not very forgiving of those who believe in anything differently than the State Sanctioned diety (you might of heard of the revolution we had a few years ago, one of the major justifications behind it was protection against State Religion)

    Just look at how they treat other muslims that aren’t members of their tribe.

    Ask a Baptist about their feelings towards Catholics
    Ask a Catholic about their feelings towards Mormons
    Ask a Mormon about their feelings towards Wiccans
    Ask a Wiccan about their feelings towards Jedi’s (which i do believe is a recognized religion in UK?)

    The point is not that Christians/Wiccans/Jedi’s are the same as Muslims. The point being that ALL beliefs are intollerant of other beliefs. The inherrent trust that is necessary in your beliefs, makes you distrust any that are not your own.

    Muslims are violent to non-Muslims, but your belief (doesnt matter what it is) has its own history of violence towards non-believers. And yes, lest we forget, just as with Muslims you are sanctioned in the violence through your bible

    And before anyone tries to claim they are Buddhist and non-violent look up Miltary Monks first. (Buddhists share the same human emotional spectrum, including violence)

    Thumb up 0

  14. Poosh

    The difference being, factually (theologically) speaking, Christianity and Jedi prohibit intolerance etc and attempts to control the state. When a human bends the teachings of the Bible or delves into the Dark Side, it is not the religion’s fault. In Islam it’s a totally different ball game. The religion is just as much a political system as it is a religion (in contrast to Christianity), and the failure to understand this (VERY understandable as we are the product of Western history) creates messy ideas about what Islam is (i.e. it’s just another religion).

    Tribal violence is cultural not religion (generally) and should be separated from when we talk about the religion – unless their is a religious component to it.

    Thumb up 0

  15. AlexInCT

    Alex, you sure your not talking about Theocracies? They, any theocracy, by their nature are not very forgiving of those who believe in anything differently than the State Sanctioned diety (you might of heard of the revolution we had a few years ago, one of the major justifications behind it was protection against State Religion)

    You are right that our forefathers fought against state sanctioned religion because they fled Europe to avoid it. And while you may have a point Sahrab, since Islam is also theocratic, I reiterate that I am talking about Islam as a whole being the problem. We do ourselves a huge disservice in believing the problem is with theocracies or the religious part only, in general. Yes, theocracies practically always are bad, but Islam is far more than theocratic.

    Islam is not just a religion. It is a militant governmental/legal/sociologic system all wrapped in the guise of religion, and its end goal is to control all or kill those that don’t submit. That’s why they end up with Islamic states, not being a believer or a woman makes you subhuman or less of a person if you want to nit pick, and trying to leave Islam is punished by death. Islam is horribly militant. The religious aspect is to be spread by the sword. Believe or die. It is not by coincidence that Islam literally means to submit either. And there is no cure for the problem. Any changes that could mirror the reformation the Christian church underwent, which made Christianity meek and less militant, is in itself apostasy in Islam, and about the worst crime ever. Maybe it is the epitome of what a theocracy is. Maybe you think I am splitting hairs, but I feel the distinction is important.

    Ask a Baptist about their feelings towards Catholics
    Ask a Catholic about their feelings towards Mormons
    Ask a Mormon about their feelings towards Wiccans
    Ask a Wiccan about their feelings towards Jedi’s (which i do believe is a recognized religion in UK?)

    You forgot scientology and the cult of AGW, BTW. The difference I think is obvious however. In all your examples, these groups might have negative feelings for others. With the exception of the collectivists that are behind the AGW movement, how many of them have a holy book that is taken literally and tells them they need to kill the members of these other groups if they do not submit and convert, however? In my book negative feelings never trump those that want to kill you and do it.

    The point is not that Christians/Wiccans/Jedi’s are the same as Muslims. The point being that ALL beliefs are intollerant of other beliefs. The inherrent trust that is necessary in your beliefs, makes you distrust any that are not your own.

    Again, intolerance is one thing. An outright mandate to forcibly convert or kill is another.

    Muslims are violent to non-Muslims, but your belief (doesnt matter what it is) has its own history of violence towards non-believers.

    When was the last time meateterians killed and ate PETA members?

    And yes, lest we forget, just as with Muslims you are sanctioned in the violence through your bible

    It’s not my bible, but you are welcome to quote me the passages in the new testament that tell people to go kill non believers. Maybe you are talking about one of L. Ron Hubbard’s books? Or is it the teachings of the Goracle and his predecesor Marx?

    And before anyone tries to claim they are Buddhist and non-violent look up Miltary Monks first. (Buddhists share the same human emotional spectrum, including violence)

    Tantric sex rocks?

    Thumb up 0

  16. sahrab

    Is it that Islam is a political system, or, is it followers of Islam use Politics as a means to enforce their Religion (and vice versa)?

    Not picking nits, but there is a difference in the above. Followers of both beliefs have embedded Religious belief with Political system. This country, while founded on a belief of Religious Freedom, has a history of it as well (as does your own).

    Alex used the Theocracies that follow Islam, as an example of whats wrong with the belief. In doing so he ignores that the same can be said for just about any belief, definetly the major ones. That in itself doesnt display whats wrong with the belief.

    Islam has the same problem Christians, Buddhists, Democrats, Wiccans and Republicans suffer from. The problem is from its fundamental, radical, fringe elements and how they bastardize the message (albeit political or religious) to justify their actions and infringements upon others.

    Thumb up 0

  17. sahrab

    Islam is not just a religion. It is a militant governmental/legal/sociologic system all wrapped in the guise of religion

    Do you base this on your own reading of the Quran, or what you’ve been told the Quran states?

    There are MANY muslims that would disagree with your above post. And amazingly they wont cut your head off while doing it. Once again your mixing Theorcatic Islam with the Religious belief of Islam.

    You forgot scientology and the cult of AGW, BTW. The difference I think is obvious however. In all your examples, these groups might have negative feelings for others. With the exception of the collectivists that are behind the AGW movement,

    No i left out a shitload of other beleifs. Your initial post was about how one flavor of Islam treats the other flavors. I did the same with various flavors of Christianity (Baptist, Catholic, Mormon), and then extended it to other beliefs.

    There are many, many, MANY examples of Violence in the Bible, the violence the Bible tells you to commit toward unbelievers and the sanctioned violence in the Bible. A good source is Skeptics Annotated Bible

    Or you can read it for yourself, without an external filter telling you what a particular passage really means, even if that explanation runs counter to what is actually written. (mustard seed… c’mon really)

    how many of them have a holy book that is taken literally and tells them they need to kill the members of these other groups if they do not submit and convert, however?

    Wait i thought your problem is the message. No doubt, if your honest, you have the same problem with the other Abrahamic religions, as the message doesnt vary much.

    But now it sounds as if your problem with Muslims, is they follow their beliefs closer to the word of their bible, than Christians or Jews. It really sounds as if your problem with Muslims is they are better believers.

    In my book negative feelings never trump those that want to kill you and do it.

    And in my book, it doesnt matter what justification is used by a batshit fundamentalist radical. They are merely looking for justification for the actions they were going to commit anyways.

    The intention of my post, unlike yours, was not to Bash a belief. It was merely to point out that all Beliefs, and All Theocracies suffer the same problems and issues.

    Thumb up 0

  18. Poosh

    Yay! Christians!

    Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

    (2:62)

    Boo! Christians!

    O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

    (5:51)

    Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

    (9:29)

    (The People of the Book are Jews and Christians)

    This could be due to multiple authors, or the Prophet simply starting off peaceful to gain support, and once he had a small army, became violent.

    *was waiting for you to reply to my “read the Koran” answer.

    Thumb up 0

  19. Poosh

    It is the case that say most of the west was founded on Christian ideals (even the scientific method stems from Christian ideals) but the Bible itself says to keep church and state separate and for Christians to “endure” wherever they end up. We may have chosen and/or been forced into Christian government but that is not sanctioned by the actual texts (which is why I said theological).

    The Koran and the other Islamic holy texts elaborately demand Islamic government and for imperialism. It is a mechanism of governance.Theologically, Islam demands government and religion are one. There is no “pay what is Caesar’s to Caesar and pay what is God’s to God”

    They are diametrically opposed in constitution. What men do with the text is another story.

    Thumb up 0

  20. CM

    As always, context is king….

    Boo! Christians!

    Yet only six verses later the Koran makes clear what kind of Jews and Christians are being referred to in 5:51, with whom Muslims must not be friendly:

    “O you who believe, do not take for friends those who take your religion as a mockery and a sport, from among those who were given the Book before you and the disbelievers; … And when you call to prayer they take it as a mockery and a sport.” —- 5:57-58

    Only a little further on:

    ”Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians — whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good — they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.” —- 5:69

    This places Muslims, Jews, Christians in the same category as regards belief – that they all believe in God and the Day of Judgment. It promises that true faith in these two precepts leads to salvation.

    At the end of the day we’re not experts in interpreting scripture (no matter what the book). Therefore none of us should be making strong claims about what is meant.

    Thumb up 0

  21. Poosh

    Context is indeed key which begs the question why you’re just making up context. I mean you’re actually referring to a chapter that calls both Jews and Christians the decedents of pigs and swine.

    Nice.

    Thumb up 0

  22. Poosh

    I can concur with Alex, my reading and more educated men than myself’s readings agree (I did study Islam in part at University but it was a “clean” version which had little baring to the reality of Islam). But the Koran is there for you to read, just be wary than some Muslims lie outright to you when faced with problematic verses. And evidence that I can see with my eyes i.e, you know, the Islamic countries and islamic history. What Muhammad actually did (who has more historical basis than Jesus).

    What seems to be the standard conclusion is that Muhammad was peaceful at the start of his career then once he gained power and followers, weapons, became violent. The Koran, annoyingly, is not in chronological order. But there is a rule stating that all late verses take affect over the earlier (peaceful) verses.

    This is the same in Christianity where the NT and Jesus’ teachings override the OT. This is sort of the reverse affect of what happens in Islam. What we have in Christianity is the violence of the OT overridden by Jesus, he even singles out OT verses and says “I am the new law” and such.

    But we have to detach the actual scripture from, yes, historical effects. Men have long used the Bible to dominate others (especially during times when the Bible was only written in Latin). The Bible does not teach or advocate democracy, but the christian doctrine of equality gave rise to the argubly false claim that “we are all equal” as is written in your constitution, for example.

    There are many many decent good Muslims. But upon looking at Islamic history, the Koran, Hadith and other writings, it is clear they are not authentic Muslims. They are ‘liberal Muslims’. There should be no shame in this.

    You mention Buddhism but, as far as I am aware, there is NOTHING at all that would validate Buddhist violence, it’s almost insane. But there are “Buddhists” who are violent etc. But that makes them inauthentic.

    The problem is, the 9/11 terrorists were doign exactly as their religion demanded. It is natural for a westerner, with Christianity as his yard stick, to think “oh it must be a minority, who misinterpreted it” – but the truth is the opposite.

    Thumb up 0

  23. Poosh

    Also at uni, one of my projects (extended essay option) were the historical origins of the Genesis creation accounts. If anyone wants a quick overview of the original Genesis accounts – it’s an amazing, fascinating avenue of inquiry. How the authors copied Babylonian creation myths when held captive which were in turn copied from the original creation account – the ancient Sumarians .

    That’s where our history gets freaky ….

    Thumb up 0

  24. CM

    Wow, clearly this a waste of time as you’re obviously very anti-Muslim and can’t see beyond your own bias and so just repeat an interpretation that suits. You clearly reject any concept of context, even though in the same post you pretend it’s important.

    Woeful.

    Thumb up 0

  25. CM

    How so? Looks like the right tree so far. You give an out-of-context quote and when it’s put into context you ignore it and move onto providing another out-of-context quote. SO either you don’t understand context or you’re anti-Muslim. There is good evidence of both within your other comments in the thread. So it could be both.

    As I understand it, the (swine, apes) verses were referring to a specific group of Jews who had sinned during the time of Moses. This specific group of Jews had disobeyed God, so God gave them this harsh punishment, and made this punishment as an example. Is that a demonstrably false explanation?

    Thumb up 0

  26. CM

    According to Bernard Lewis, there is nothing in Muslim theology (with a single exception) that can be considered refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes.[30] Lewis and Chanes suggest that, for a variety of reasons, Muslims were not antisemitic for the most part. The Qur’an, like Judaism, orders Muslims to profess strict monotheism. It also rejects the stories of Jewish deicide as a blasphemous absurdity, and other similar stories in the Gospels play no part in the Muslim educational system The Qur’an does not present itself as a fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible but rather a restoration of its original message – thus, no clash of interpretations between Judaism and Islam can arise.[31][32]

    In addition Lewis argues that the Qur’an lacks popular western traditions of ‘guilt and betrayal’.[33] Rosenblatt and Pinson suggest that the Qur’an teaches toleration of Judaism as a fellow monotheistic faith.[34]

    Lewis adds, negative attributes ascribed to subject religions (in this case Judaism and Christianity) are usually expressed in religious and social terms, but only very rarely in ethnic or racial terms. However, this does sometimes occur. The language of abuse is often quite strong. It has been argued that the conventional Muslim epithets for Jews, apes, and Christians, pigs derive from Qu’ranic usage. Lewis adduces three passages in the Qu’ran ([Quran 2:61], [Quran 5:65], [Quran 7:166]) used to ground this view.[35] The interpretation of these ‘enigmatic'[36] passages in Islamic exegetics is highly complex, dealing as they do with infractions like breaking the Sabbath,.[37] According to Goitein, the idea of Jewish Sabbath breakers turning into apes may reflect the influence of Yemeni midrashim.[38] Firestone notes that the Qurayza tribe itself is described in Muslim sources as using the trope of being turned into apes if one breaks the Sabbath to justify not exploiting the Sabbath in order to attack Mohammad, when they were under siege.[39]

    According to Stillman, the Qur’an praises Moses, and depicts the Israelites as the recipients of divine favour.[14] The Qur’an dedicates many verses to the glorification of Hebrew prophets, says Leon Poliakov.[40] He quotes verse [Quran 6:85] as an example,

    We gave him Isaac and Jacob: all (three) guided: and before him, We guided Noah, and among his progeny, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron: thus do We reward those who do good: And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous: And Isma’il and Elisha, and Jonas, and Lot: and to all We gave favour above the nations.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism

    You appear to reject the idea that complexity is involved here. I think that’s indicative of where you are on Islam.

    Thumb up 0

  27. Poosh

    I am more than aware of the complexities. However, a belief that things are always complex is a simplicity itself.

    I would happily admit to you that the KORAN whilst it does teach violence and hatred, it is mild. It is a confused unfocused text, cobbled together by a madman, when it suited him. Three wives for Muslim men, 10 (or whatever) for him!!! He made it up as he went along. He wanted 10 wives, so Allah magically told him that was cool.

    But Muslims do not follow just the Koran. That is not their only religious text. These are unambiguously violent towards Jews etc, far worse than the few passages of the Koran. The point is, that Muslims are split as to which Hadith is correct. Some Muslims, not a majority, reject all Hadith altogether.

    Thumb up 0

  28. sahrab

    Yay! Christians

    Those are your examples of “Hate Christians” in the Quran?

    Nothing more than informing its followers that one belief is right and all others are wrong.

    When you were in Uni, did you read that the EXACT FUCKIN SAME THING is in the Christian Bible(both the prequel and sequel), Jewish Torah and (as far as i know) ever other belief?

    Thumb up 0

  29. Poosh

    No I took time out to quickly find two negative and one positive quote. I see no reason to spend time making a point many others make in other places. They are not “my examples”: I’m not going to write an essay for CM, or put any time over minimal effort into it.

    I’m not too sure what you’re talking about either. Jesus himself makes plenty of example to sit and love the enemy, he healed the ear of a guard who came to take him to his doom. He said to “love your enemies” and “turn the other cheek” when someone is violent to you. Suicidal perhaps. Stupid perhaps. Deaht-Wish perhaps. but certainly not “do not be friends with non-Christians” or “fight the non-believers”.

    I mean, I’m confused by your words. The exact same thing is not in every single other religious text. All religions are different and built from and with different concepts.

    To suggest “all religions say the same thing” is as absurd as saying “all political philosophies say the same thing”.

    **in addition, Jesus on the Cross, as he was EXECUTED, after being tortured, asked God to FORGIVE THEM. How many religions teach this sort of concept? Can you tell me? … and yes, this potentially creates an internal contradiction or problematic for Christianity as Jesus *might* be talking to himself, but that’s another issue …

    Thumb up 0

  30. CM

    However, a belief that things are always complex is a simplicity itself.

    Sorry but that’s just nonsense. Nobody has claimed that “things are always complex”.

    I would happily admit to you that the KORAN whilst it does teach violence and hatred, it is mild. It is a confused unfocused text, cobbled together by a madman, when it suited him. Three wives for Muslim men, 10 (or whatever) for him!!! He made it up as he went along. He wanted 10 wives, so Allah magically told him that was cool.

    Admit whatever you like about what you think it means. Personally, not being a Muslim and/or a scholar, I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to try and claim definitive meaning behind the verses. Let alone reach firm conclusions about how, overall, it teaches violence and hatred. I’ve seen a significiant amount of explanation which says the opposite, and it seems plausable enough . Who am I to say one interpretation is categorically wrong and one is right.

    But Muslims do not follow just the Koran. That is not their only religious text. These are unambiguously violent towards Jews etc, far worse than the few passages of the Koran. The point is, that Muslims are split as to which Hadith is correct. Some Muslims, not a majority, reject all Hadith altogether.

    How are you able to determine who is right and who is wrong? On what basis? You’ve already demonstrated that you’re not beyond cherry-picking. That’s not a good indication that you’re looking at this in good faith (pun intended).

    Thumb up 0

  31. sahrab

    Dont know why the above got posted in this particular stream instead of the response to CM

    This is the same in Christianity where the NT and Jesus’ teachings override the OT.

    Ahh the old Christian chestnut (or crutch). This is where actually reading the Bible will do some good.

    We know Jesus was a fan of the Old Testament laws (Mathew 5:17), to the point he admonishes those who havent followed the OT rules and Laws (Mark 7:9-10) and even uses the OT rules about disbelief as an example of what will happen if you dont believe in him (Hebrews 10:28-29). Hell that alone, based on some arguments against Muslims, should negate Jesus.

    But wait theres more!

    Jesus tells us, (John 14:15 and Matthew 5:17) that he is not here to destroy any of the laws of the Prophets (OT laws and rules)

    Sorry for derailing the topic

    Thumb up 0

  32. CM

    No I took time out to quickly find two negative and one positive quote.

    Which, by themselves, are essentially meaningless. Aren’t they. Without context. Without an understanding of their meaning without the chapter, the text as a whole, and the religion.

    Honestly, picking selected passages from a religious text and quoting them out of context to try and make a point is about the worst possible way to engage in a discussion.

    I see no reason to spend time making a point many others make in other places.

    Ah I see, you weren’t trying to be objective. Is that what you’re trying to say now?

    They are not “my examples”: I’m not going to write an essay for CM, or put any time over minimal effort into it

    WTF? YOU put them up as EXAMPLES. They are precisely your examples. If you agree that their meaning requires a contextual understanding, then why put them up in the first place? If your answer is, “because you asked for examples” then that would be the time to suggest that the apparent contradiction might not be as it seems.

    And now you’ve followed it up with MORE out-of-context quotes? Really?!

    Thumb up 0

  33. Poosh

    That makes absolutely no sense.

    You have missed the point I can only assume. Why would Jesus reject the OT entirely?, as that is the basis for his legitimacy. The NT, the teachings of Jesus in the four Gospels specifically, take precedence over any thing in the OT that contradicts the New Law and new religion (called Christianity) that he came to create. When he stops people from stoning someone to death and says “he who is without sin may throw the first stone” that’s him making a new law that overrides the OT. In the same manner the more recent rules of the Koran (the violent ones) supersede the young (peaceful) ones IF there is a contradiction. I do not know why you are so angry, it’s like you hate religious people or something.

    If you think that negates Jesus i.e. he’s making it up as he went along, then fine. As far as I am aware there is more evidence for the existence of the Islamic Prophet than the Christian Avatar.

    Thumb up 0

  34. Poosh

    I’m not bothering with most of that as I only read the last part but with your last quote of mine I thought I was careful with my grammer, apparently I failed. They were examples I quickly gave but, as the second part of that sentence implies, I am not going to sit around and write an essay. I’ve already in the past read these passages and the HISTORICAL context as well. You asked me for “examples” in a snide little manner. So I gave you two negative references and one positive reference. This is sufficient. I’m sorry I’m not responding to your trolling with more gusto. I don’t have time to write a protracted thesis every time you cry over what someone writes.

    Thumb up 0

  35. CM

    I’m not bothering

    I can see a pattern emerging…..

    I’ve already in the past read these passages and the HISTORICAL context as well.

    Surely that makes it worse that you’d just throw them out then, context-free. Apparently you knew what you were doing.

    You asked me for “examples” in a snide little manner.

    Please explain what is snide about the following question:

    Could you provide the relevant passages?

    Is it because I didn’t say please?

    I’m sorry I’m not responding to your trolling with more gusto. I don’t have time to write a protracted thesis every time you cry over what someone writes.

    Based on this and other comments of yours lately I’m getting the impression this means “I’m only really interested in discussing this with people who already agree with me“.

    As for the trolling accusation, that’s pathetic. If you want trolling, check out any post on this forum which features baseless accusations and ends with “AMIRIGHT?!”.

    Thumb up 0