Spirituality
02 Apr 11
06 Apr 11
Originally posted by PalynkaThere was an imam (from where?), a very wise man, who wrote
I certainly do. You don't think because you are more familiar with normal Christians and perhaps less so with normal Muslims (who are never news)?
decades ago: god created the 3 main religions and gave each
one a strength; intelligence for the Jews, compassion for the
Christians, and courage for the Muslims. He also gave as a balance,
however, a weakness to each one; stubbornness for the Jews,
self-righteousness for the Christians, and laziness for the Muslims.
I know plenty of normal Muslims. They, however, don't stand up
against those who use the "verses of the sword" to kill and destroy.
Not few would call that "guilt by omission".
06 Apr 11
Originally posted by PalynkaHow do you know they disagree? Do they send you e-mails?
What do you mean by standing up? They disagree with it and say as much.
. . .
As a tiny example...
In Denmark, dozens of times hundreds of Muslims have gathered
to protest in the streets against stuff which goes against their creed
or to celebrate some bombing.
When the liberals, those favoring Ijtihad, have called for gatherings
to condemn violence or support Denmark, the newspapers report
less than hundred or so.
Get what I'm saying?
06 Apr 11
Originally posted by PalynkaWesterners have this need to appease and justify the
Not really. I also rarely participate in such mob activities. So what?
Muslims. Where do you get the certainty that "most
condemn" these acts?
I know how to count: 1, 2, 3, etc. So, the easiest way
is to count heads when it boils down to one of Muslims'
favorite activities: demonstrating in the streets.
It's measurable.
06 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseFrom my own anecdotal experience. If you count the heads of the ones demonstrating on the streets of Denmark you'll find out they are a minority. Like virtually all demonstrations. and let's not forget that people with moderate opinions are less likely to go on the street and shout slogans.
Westerners have this need to appease and justify the
Muslims. Where do you get the certainty that "most
condemn" these acts?
I know how to count: 1, 2, 3, etc. So, the easiest way
is to count heads when it boils down to one of Muslims'
favorite activities: demonstrating in the streets.
It's measurable.
06 Apr 11
Originally posted by PalynkaPeople with moderate opinions are less likely to go on the street and shout slogans.
From my own anecdotal experience. If you count the heads of the ones demonstrating on the streets of Denmark you'll find out they are a minority. Like virtually all demonstrations. and let's not forget that people with moderate opinions are less likely to go on the street and shout slogans.
That'd make a good protest sign, IMO. Bold-type, simple font, of course.
06 Apr 11
Originally posted by Palynkahardly. The act of burning the book is in contradiction to Christian Value #1: Do Unto Others.
Direct result? Jesus.
Pastor Jones may be a xenophobe and an idiot, but to blame him for the "predictable" and "direct result" of the deaths of UN workers is a fantastic display of moral contortionism.
06 Apr 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou will not enter paradise until you have faith; and you will not complete your faith till you love one another.
"I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father, except through Me."
Who was it that said that again?
Consider the second part of that quote. What does it mean to follow Jesus without having learned to love one another.
06 Apr 11
Originally posted by PalynkaYou didn't. But what that man did was the act of moral contortionism. He lead people into temptation. He gave evil an excuse. We should forgive him, but not defend or condone his actions.
You need to learn how to read, buddy. I didn't say what he did was in accordance to "Christian values".
06 Apr 11
Originally posted by Darax The GoodI didn't defend or condone his actions. But to each, his own. He's guilty of xenophobia and being insulting to a large number of people. That's it. Others are guilty of murder.
You didn't. But what that man did was the act of moral contortionism. He lead people into temptation. He gave evil an excuse. We should forgive him, but not defend or condone his actions.
06 Apr 11
Originally posted by Palynka"Wilful"
"Legally, there is a clear concept of incitement".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement
"act of persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime. [...] The inciter must intend the others to engage in the behaviour constituting the offence"
Pastor Jones did not intend UN workers to be killed, ...[text shortened]... an example of a legal definition that would include unintended deaths of UN workers.
(In Britain, 'wilful' is the generally accepted spelling, whereas 'willful' is more common in the US. However, the double 'l' should never follow the 'u' except in the adverb, 'wilfully'.)
For example a long document about wilful murder came up on Google and page 65 seems spot on for our purposes.
the mental element for wilful murder and murder is intention; that is, either intention to kill or intention to do grievous bodily harm. In some jurisdictions the mental element for murder includes both intention and recklessness. In general terms, a person intends a result if he or she means to bring it about. As Yeo has observed, the ‘core meaning of intention is one of purpose, aim or objective’. The concept of recklessness has been described as ‘an actual awareness (also referred
to as knowledge or foresight) of a risk of a prohibited consequence occurring and proceeding nevertheless to take that risk’. In those jurisdictions were recklessness is sufficient on its own to establish the mental element of murder, an accused may be found guilty of murder if he or she foresees that death or grievous bodily harm is a probable consequence even though the accused did not intend to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publications/reports/homicide/P97-ch02.pdf