"I don't think it is right to equate Islam with violence"

[Immanuel Can]

“Faith invariably breeds violence.”
- J. Krishnamurti

Yes...I can remember all those slavering hordes of Mennonites, Quakers and Anabaptists thundering down from the Mongolian Mountains, killing everything in their paths...

[Immanuel Can]

"you get your throat slit"

Ain't gonna make it easy for 'em.

Hey, I'm with you. Ultimately, they have the same plan for us both.

[uwot]

And the one and only thing ISIL says we can ever do to pacify the "religion of peace"?

Convert to Islam. There it is. One thing.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, you believe that your god is planning some day of judgement. The fate of those who fail to convert to whatever stripe of Christianity you are peddling, is some appalling horror that lasts for eternity. It's not much, but the virtue of having one's throat slit is that within a few minutes, the victims get to rest in peace, something the Christian god intends to deny non-believers.

[Walker]

“Faith invariably breeds violence.”
- J. Krishnamurti

Yes...I can remember all those slavering hordes of Mennonites, Quakers and Anabaptists thundering down from the Mongolian Mountains, killing everything in their paths...

You assume violence only by the faithful, which does happen if the faith decrees it.

However, bred violence can also be visited upon the faithful.

Either way, faith invariably breeds violence.

[Immanuel Can]

However, bred violence can also be visited upon the faithful.

Either way, faith invariably breeds violence.

Then you're blaming the victims.

Rubbish. Atheists killed 148 million in the last century alone, mostly in the name of purges, "reeducation" and the Brave New World. And many of their victims were not even people of "faith," though some certainly were.

So how did "faith" cause all that?

It's an empirically absurd quotation.

[Hobbes' Choice]

However, bred violence can also be visited upon the faithful.

Either way, faith invariably breeds violence.

Then you're blaming the victims.

Rubbish. Atheists killed 148 million in the last century alone, mostly in the name of purges, "reeducation" and the Brave New World. And many of their victims were not even people of "faith," though some certainly were.

So how did "faith" cause all that?

It's an empirically absurd quotation.

No one has ever been killed in the name of atheism. Not one single person.

[uwot]

Atheists killed 148 million in the last century alone..

So am I wrong? On the day of judgement, will your god not annihilate the entire human race?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





Kill one man - you're a murderer.


Kill a peoples - you're a conquer.


Kill everyone - you're a god.







.

[Arising_uk]

...

Kill a peoples - you're a conquer. ...

A peoples?

Mines a sixer!

[ken]

How is this man doing something quite different? He still killed another body. I do not see the difference here.

Do you mean you can't see the difference between obeying and disobeying what a religion commands? Or are you confused about how "love your enemies" would be different from "kill them"?

A "religion" is not something that mysteriously appeared and overrides all human beings. Every religion is just an ideology devised/inspired, through human beings, and then taught through word of mouth of, or in written words from and to, human beings. Religions are ever changing things. They are not fixed things. Obviously at any point throughout this change, from conception to present day interpretations, there are going to be ideas and interpretations that get lost, misinterpreted, and/or just changed. Human beings create religions. Religions were/are not miraculously created and unchangeable ideologies.

Depending on how a reader, reads and an observer, observes, the question you asked could be answered in so many different ways. How I read the quote in question, the messages "love your enemies" and "kill them" can also imply the exact same thing, just with a different way or interpretation. If you want Me to explain this further I will, but it may be rather lengthy.

By the way and honestly I did not notice the difference between obeying and disobeying what a religion "commands", but that might because I am NOT a follower/non-follower nor believer/non-believer of anything, except Self, so I was not reading that text from that certain viewpoint.

Everything depends on what the ideology teaches.

Everything depends on the reader/observer, and then what the reader/observer teachs.

'Ideology' itself can and does NOT teach. Only human beings teach, and what they teach is relative to what they have experienced/observed.

If what you were saying is true, then there would be no such thing as a "bad," "wrong" or "mistaken" ideology: only "bad," "wrong" or "mistaken" people.

Well which 'ideologies' are the "good" ones, and, which ones are the "bad" ones?

Ah, let Me guess, the ideologies you want to follow are the "good" or "right" ones and the other ones are the "bad" or "wrong", or "mistaken" ones, right?

The ONLY good, bad, right, wrong, or mistaken in any ideology are the ones people, themselves, put into ideologies, or anything else for that matter.

Just like there is NO bad, wrong, or mistaken ideology because bad, wrong and mistaken are only things that only human beings put into ideology, there is NO bad, wrong, or mistaken person, as such, also. Only human beings put or see bad, wrong, and/or mistaken into or from other human beings. Also, a person is NOT bad, wrong, or mistaken in their own right and on the whole. Within every person there is good thoughts and bad thoughts, right/true thoughts and wrong/false thoughts, and, accurate and inaccurate/mistaken thoughts. NO one person is better nor worse than another. Just different.

But then we couldn't even identify them as "bad," "wrong" or "mistaken," because those adjectives are always relative to an ideology of what is "good," "true" or "accurate": and I suppose since no such ideology "teaches" anything, it couldn't teach us how to make that kind of judgment.

If a person is identifying [judging] another human being as being good, bad, true, wrong, accurate or mistaken, then they are only judging them on their own past experiences and/or from an "ideology" that that person wants to follow. And, that "ideology" is based solely upon the thoughts/beliefs of others that have made/created that ideology, which has been changing and is now been transferred down, through the ages, to that person NOW doing the "identifying". 'Identifying', from the perspective you are talking about, is, literally, based solely on pre-conceived ideas/ideology.

This is as easy to understand as if you were truthful enough to answer this question; Would you look at, and read and see, the koran the exact same way as you do now, and have the exact same views as you do now, if you were born into and raised up in a islam/muslim society or culture?

What do you think your view of the koran would be then?

Ideology does NOT exist in its own right away from human beings, and thus, as such, teaching human beings from above, beyond, nor outside of human beings. The word 'ideology' is based upon ideas and ideals, themselves, which obviously from within human beings. Human beings make/create and change ideologies into the way that they are, NOW. 'NOW', being at any point throughout history, hitherto.

It could even be argued that a person with a very strong want of following one ideology, and thus an opponent of another, could also if raised up into that other opposed ideology, actually be, and want to be, a very strong follower of that opposed ideology. Depending on how the nature/nuture argument is viewed, the fundamentalist of one ideology could just have easily grown up to be the fundamentalist of an "opposing" ideology.

By the way I do NOT and NEVER identify any person as bad, wrong, or mistaken, nor, good, bad, or taken either, but I guess that is because I fully understand WHY every person is the way they are. I also understand WHY every person has every view they have, good or bad.

Interesting view, but I think most people will find it implausible. In fact, it fails to account for why we even HAVE any kind of ideology.

If My view actually fails to account for why we even HAVE any kind of ideology, then what is your explanation for why we HAVE any kind of ideology?

Where do you think/believe ideology comes from?

Now, this view should be interesting to see.

By the way in the days of these writings, most people, like you, find what I say implausible and a 'paradox', i.e., a lot of what I say may appear implausible, self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth. The possibility of what I say being the Truth however can only be discovered through further investigation. If total rejection of My views and/or complete refusal to look further at the possibility of Truth being in My views, then this will not lead you nor us anywhere.

[ken]

Follow up note:

"Dabiq," the official magazine of the Islamic State has just released its official list of six reasons they hate Westerners.
(http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... al-8533563)

A short gloss on that...

1. We don't believe in Islam.
2. We're liberal, and thus allow things Sharia forbids.
3. We have Atheists among us.
4. (The Islamic view of) Christian theology, which they say constitutes a "crime against Islamic religion."
5."Crimes" against Muslims.
6. Invading "Our Lands."

And the one and only thing ISIL says we can ever do to pacify the "religion of peace"?

Convert to Islam. There it is. One thing.

Congratulations, Atheists and liberals: ISIL hates you just a shade more than they hate Christians and Jews.

You win.

Do you really think using and quoting a "western" based media source, which already has preconceived ideas about and of an islamic state, and which this media source's sole purpose is obtaining as much money as it can to increase its profits, for absolute true, right, and/or accurate information is really the best thing to do here to look for and find Truth about whether islam equates to violence or not?

If so, then just maybe those prejudices that you are are not yet fully clear to you yet?

[Arising_uk]

Hey, I'm with you. Ultimately, they have the same plan for us both.

So a Christian who kills eh!

[Immanuel Can]

Do you really think using and quoting a "western" based media source, ...

Ummm..."Dabiq" is a publication of ISIL. It's their propaganda rag. So it's their own words.

Go check it out.

[Immanuel Can]

Note: I clipped a few of the longer, rhetorical passages to keep my own response a readable length...readers are referred to the above for full context, and can judge if I missed anything they want to discuss.

How is this man doing something quite different? He still killed another body. I do not see the difference here.

Do you mean you can't see the difference between obeying and disobeying what a religion commands? Or are you confused about how "love your enemies" would be different from "kill them"? [/quote]

A "religion" is not something that mysteriously appeared and overrides all human beings. Every religion is just an ideology devised/inspired, through human beings, and then taught through word of mouth of, or in written words from and to, human beings. Religions are ever changing things. They are not fixed things.

Nice assumptions. Now prove them.

Obviously at any point throughout this change, from conception to present day interpretations, there are going to be ideas and interpretations that get lost, misinterpreted, and/or just changed. Human beings create religions. Religions were/are not miraculously created and unchangeable ideologies.

But to have a "misinterpretation," you would have to refer to a "correct interpretation." So how did you come to have possession of the "correct interpretation of Islam" so that you are now able to "correct" our reading of ISIL?

Depending on how a reader, reads and an observer, observes, the question you asked could be answered in so many different ways. How I read the quote in question, the messages "love your enemies" and "kill them" can also imply the exact same thing, just with a different way or interpretation. If you want Me to explain this further I will, but it may be rather lengthy.

Disingenuous. "Interpretation" has limits, the limits of plausibility. What you are suggesting is far beyond the limits of any reasonable reading, so if any one take it they're just having trouble with basic reading skills, I'm afraid.

By the way and honestly I did not notice the difference between obeying and disobeying what a religion "commands", but that might because I am NOT a follower/non-follower nor believer/non-believer of anything, except Self, so I was not reading that text from that certain viewpoint.

You don't need to. You just need to know the difference between obeying and disobeying. And you don't need a particular ideology to do it. It's basic logic and basic semantics.

The ONLY good, bad, right, wrong, or mistaken in any ideology are the ones people, themselves, put into ideologies, or anything else for that matter.

Oh. And just how, without having to interpret in your own right, do you detect any of these? How do you know what ISIL "put into" Islam, and what was really there? You definitely imply here that somehow you can detect the difference: I'd love to know how you do it.

Just like there is NO bad, wrong, or mistaken ideology because bad, wrong and mistaken are only things that only human beings put into ideology, there is NO bad, wrong, or mistaken person, as such, also. Only human beings put or see bad, wrong, and/or mistaken into or from other human beings. Also, a person is NOT bad, wrong, or mistaken in their own right and on the whole. Within every person there is good thoughts and bad thoughts, right/true thoughts and wrong/false thoughts, and, accurate and inaccurate/mistaken thoughts. NO one person is better nor worse than another. Just different.

Then it's not bad to "put" anything at all into any ideology? Everything is just "different"? So an Amish farmer is the same as a Jihadi warlord? Lovely.

But then we couldn't even identify them as "bad," "wrong" or "mistaken," because those adjectives are always relative to an ideology of what is "good," "true" or "accurate": and I suppose since no such ideology "teaches" anything, it couldn't teach us how to make that kind of judgment.

This is as easy to understand as if you were truthful enough to answer this question; Would you look at, and read and see, the koran the exact same way as you do now, and have the exact same views as you do now, if you were born into and raised up in a islam/muslim society or culture?

Yes. Right now, I think it says "Kill infidels." If I were born Islamic, I would also think it says "Kill infidels."

What do you think your view of the koran would be then?

it would depend. If I could read then as well as I read now, I'd likely find it just as horrid a book as I do now. On the other hand, if I were an indoctrinated, semi-literate Jihadi, I would probably have no opinion of it at all, except to believe blindly what my Imams told me about it.

Ideology does NOT exist in its own right away from human beings, and thus, as such, teaching human beings from above, beyond, nor outside of human beings. The word 'ideology' is based upon ideas and ideals, themselves, which obviously from within human beings. Human beings make/create and change ideologies into the way that they are, NOW. 'NOW', being at any point throughout history, hitherto.

So in your view, no ideology can have reference to truth? Funny...their proponents think they all do.

By the way I do NOT and NEVER identify any person as bad, wrong, or mistaken, nor, good, bad, or taken either, but I guess that is because I fully understand WHY every person is the way they are. I also understand WHY every person has every view they have, good or bad.

Your choice. Those of us -- on any side -- who think we have some facts in hand are less drawn to moral confusion.

Where do you think/believe ideology comes from?

Now, this view should be interesting to see.

Which ideology? They're not all the same, nor did they come from the same sources. Nazi ideology didn't come from the same sources as Islamic, Catholic, Hindu or Communist ideologies...but that's basic history. I'm sure you know that, so I'm surprised at the question. You'd maybe better clarify.

Truth however can only be discovered through further investigation. If total rejection of My views and/or complete refusal to look further at the possibility of Truth being in My views, then this will not lead you nor us anywhere.

Well, I'm going to say again, "How do you anticipate we will be able to recognize truth in your views?" To what ideology will we refer, since you say they are all equally bunk anyway...how do we find truth when you deny there is any such thing -- and then claim you've got it? You see, you're not even keeping faith with your own relativism when you assert that somehow I ought to find "truth in [your] views": given relativism, how can I do that?

[uwot]

...readers are referred to the above for full context, and can judge if I missed anything they want to discuss.

Yup, over here, Immanuel Can. So; do I understand correctly? If I fail to convert to Islam, there is a chance that some nutter will slit my throat. Then, if I fail to convert to Christianity, your god will condemn me to eternal torture.