Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Extremist Christian Mullah issues Fatwa against President of Venezuela

Page 2 of 2

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Extremist Christian Mullah issues Fatwa against President of Venezuela (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/93796-extremist-christian-mullah-issues-fatwa-against-president-venezuela.html)

Lebell

08-25-2005 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

... If this is the behavior of the christian god, the being in whose image christians believe themselves to be made, what reason do i have to believe that most christians are above the use of a little assassination if it furthers their agenda?

Instead of Job, I suggest reading the Gospels if you want to understand how the Christians I know view God and how to act.

As to the outrage, I am suspecting that no amount would satisfy you as you seem to have separate issues with Christians and Christianity.

filtherton

08-25-2005 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Well, we aren't talking about the christians you know. We're talking about the ones who embrace a god who compels them to smite his enemies. A god who compelled syria to invade israel because the israelis angered him, and then punished syria for obliging. I have no doubt assassination falls in line with the biblically endorsed practice of enemy smiting. Chavez would be lucky if the christians didn't bury him up to his head in sand and then take turns throwing hand-sized rocks at his skull.

If the bible is the word of god, as many christians believe, how are we to reconcile their potential behavior with the behavior of their diety, a diety who oversaw the bloodening of rivers and the cold blooded murder of first born children, or the murder by drowning of nearly an entire region?

Just because you know many peaceful christians doesn't mean that christianity is not a violent religion and can't be used quite easily to justify any number of atrocities.

Charlatan

08-25-2005 03:40 PM

Except that the Christians in Venezuela seem to really like Chavez...

You are confusing hypocrites with Christians... not that they are mutually exclusive.

jorgelito

08-25-2005 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

There are some nations which have expressed regret over their past actions, and have changed their patterns of foreign policy. Germany, for example, is a nation that has changed more than night and day since the first half of the 20th century. The same with Japan, to a slightly lesser degree.

Other nations have expressed little to no regret, and even hold up their past to be emulated.

I bolded for emphasis: Japan has not really changed much, at least like Germany has. They still see themselves as victims of WWII instead of as aggressors and still see themselves as an example to Asians, as liberators. In fact, Japan is becoming more militant these days and their leadership worships war criminals (class A war criminals)[End threadjack]

MSD	08-25-2005 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Robertson is now claiming that he was misinterpreted. How could we have all been so mistaken in what he said. :rolleyes:

The root of the problem seems to be the fact that we're listening to him in the first place.

Elphaba

08-25-2005 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

The root of the problem seems to be the fact that we're listening to him in the first place.

His audience is far greater than this little forum. Or did you mean the global "we're listening" which has now become the case?

The "root of the problem" is a tad bit larger than you have expressed IMO.

Lebell

08-26-2005 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I'd be pleased to discuss this in depth in "Philosophy", but in short a Christian's understanding of who God is stems (or should stem) from Christ's teachings.

I don't think Jesus would approve in this case.

filtherton

08-26-2005 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I know, i'm just fucking around. I was seeing how difficult it would be to use the common, usually conservative, argument against islam as a template to create an argument against christianity. Seems like a pretty efficient way to pretend to engage in a discussion without actually attempting to get anything out of it.

host	09-15-2005 10:25 AM

On August 29, FEMA issued a disaster relief announcement that listed and linked Pat's "Operation Blessing" as fourth on it's list of organizations to donate money to NOLA relief efforts...........
http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=18473

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/HurricaneK...1112518&page=1
Operation Blessing Is Second on FEMA's List for Donations for Hurricane Victims

By BRIAN ROSS

Sept. 9, 2005 — Charity and religious leaders are questioning why the Federal Emergency Management Agency designated Operation Blessing as the No. 2 charity for donations in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Operation Blessing is the charity founded and still chaired by Pat Robertson, the politically well-connected television evangelist, who recently called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela.

"Ladies and gentlemen, we've never had anything like this," Robertson told his audience. "Let's rally together and do what we can."

In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the federal government, through FEMA, issued a list of charities to which Americans should donate. On that list, Operation Blessing was only second to the American Red Cross.

Charity leaders say this FEMA recommendation is a huge boost for Robertson's charity.

"It could be worth tens of millions of dollars," said Richard Walden, president and founder of Operation USA, a non-governmental organization specializing in disaster relief.

However, as Robertson hosted his daily television show in Mississippi this week, other charity leaders were questioning why FEMA had recommended Robertson's operation and left others off the list, including Walden's Operation USA.

"I was shocked," said Walden upon seeing Robertson's charity so prominently displayed on the FEMA Web site. "It stuck out for a reason because of Pat Robertson's activities over the years."

Questions of Accountability

Seven years ago, those activities led Virginia investigators to say there was evidence to prove Robertson "willfully induced contributions from the public through the use of misleading statements." Robertson denied the allegations. He then personally reimbursed Operation Blessing. No action was taken.

"Based on their track record, I would say that, as an individual, I would not give to Operational Blessing," admitted the Rev. Charles Henderson, a Presbyterian minister, who is the executive director of the Association for Religion and Intellectual Life.

<h4>According to its most recent filing with the Internal Revenue Service, Operation Blessing gave more than half of its yearly allocation of cash donations — $885,000 — to the Christian Broadcasting Network, or CBN, of which Robertson is also the chairman.</h4>

"There is no accountability when you have two boards working hand in hand like this," said Henderson. "One never knows when you're contributing to Operation Blessing whether the money is really going to the hurricane victims, or whether it's going to pay for some more television time for Pat Robertson's television show."

Some charity watchdog groups have given high marks to Operation Blessing. Bill Horan, the charity's president, at first denied his charity gave any money to Robertson's television operation..........

Quote:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-293221c.html

........FEMA's official Web site (www.fema.gov) is encouraging concerned citizens to help Katrina victims by giving money to the Robertson-run relief organization Operation Blessing.

Operation Blessing - which Robertson founded in 1978 - is listed third on FEMA's site, right after the American Red Cross and America's Second Harvest.

Never mind that on his religious show, "700 Club," Robertson urged a sudden death for U.S. critic Chavez, saying: "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."

I wanted to find out more about our government's endorsement of Robertson's efforts, but calls to Robertson, Operation Blessing and FEMA weren't returned.

True, Robertson seems to think of himself as an expert on hurricanes and other disasters.

In 1998 - when the citizens of Orlando planned to observe Gay Pride Month by flying special flags - he warned them: "You're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you. ... A condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs. It'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor."

As for FEMA's advice to donate to Robertson's group, one wag quipped: "Maybe we can have him take a small part of that [money] to hire a hit team to take out Chavez, put in a puppet government and take control over Venezuela's oil and help our suffering oil companies."

Faith based, compassionate conservatism at work.....provocative statements advocating the assassination of a foreign, democratically elected head of state are "no problemo", nor are controversies of past "Operation Blessing" performance, I guess......

Marvelous Marv

09-20-2005 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smooth

I think the irony is how you've constructed a completely inappropriate analogy.

You are certainly entitled to your thoughts, but your own words demonstrate that my statement is appropriate.

Quote:

2) these same people, along with others, usually can't seem to understand the difference between a fanatic religious segment of muslims, a non-fanatic religious segment of muslims, and the hinge of all this--that muslim is an ethnicity, not necessarily tied to the religion Islam.

Interesting.

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

Quote:

A Muslim is an adherent of Islam. Literally, the word means someone who has submitted him or herself to God.

The declaration of submission to God, called Shahada that includes the recognition of Muhammad as the last prophet constitutes the main condition to be considered a Muslim. Muslims describe many Biblical figures, such as Musa (Moses) and Isa (Jesus), as Muslims, because, as prophets, they submitted completely to God.

This appears to contradict your statement regarding both ethnicity and that a Muslim is not necessarily tied to the religion Islam, the last sentence (using the literal translation of "Muslim") notwithstanding.

Furthermore, there are a "host" of examples on the TFP in which someone lumps all Christians in with people such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or George W. Bush. Occasionally they will refer to the lunatic fringe as the "radical right," or "extremist Christians" in an attempt to disguise the inherent bigotry. However, within their thinking is the fundamental assumption that ALL Christians are "radical" and "extremist."

Such a position remains "ignorant," to use your word.

Quote:

3) political parties are chosen, presumably, by their adherents because they share the views of other members of the party and want to implement similar policies. So they band together and elect representatives in the hopes those people will effect their will.

4) religious groups, while many people might be born into them, are by and large chosen by the adults because they share the perspective of the other members in their congregation.

This appears to be a distinction without a difference. For example, it would be just as accurate to say that "religious membership is chosen, presumably, by its adherents because they share the views of other members of the religion."

There is also no shortage of religions/denominations that attempt to sway their members into electing representatives who are likely to effect the church's position. The fear of losing tax-exempt status has been the only limitation on the activities of the larger ones.

Quote:

So it seems perfectly reasonable and accurate to me that when you have a group of people sharing a religious perspective AND a political party that you will find those people tend to think along similar lines and desire to plot courses of action in conjunction with one another.

Like "Muslims" from the Middle East?

Quote:

It seems really odd to me that you would equate such a statement with "all caucasians are the same" or "all italians are the same." You might have had a stronger case if you had used "all Islamics are the same."

I simply used the verbiage that would be the most familiar to the most people. I have not observed any of the national media using the word "Islamics" in the manner you prefer.

Quote:

These comments are all based on my premise that political parties are self-selected groups of people who think about particular problems in similar ways and want a coordinated effort to address those problems.

Like Arabic suicide bombers?

Quote:

I definately don't see the same patterns of behavior and choice when it comes to ethnicity or racial categorization.

Although, one might make a case for broad characterizations of a particular ethnic groups as it pertains to cultural notions.

But those same people would have to be very careful when they decide to shift from the aggregate to the personal...

My entire premise (admittedly couched in sarcasm) was based on the philosophy that Republicans do not all think alike and look alike.

It would appear that we are at least partially in agreement: Generalizations do not always apply to individuals within the specified group.

smooth

09-21-2005 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

You are certainly entitled to your thoughts, but your own words demonstrate that my statement is appropriate.

Interesting.

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

Quote:

A Muslim is an adherent of Islam. Literally, the word means someone who has submitted him or herself to God.

The declaration of submission to God, called Shahada that includes the recognition of Muhammad as the last prophet constitutes the main condition to be considered a Muslim. Muslims describe many Biblical figures, such as Musa (Moses) and Isa (Jesus), as Muslims, because, as prophets, they submitted completely to God.

Well, it would contradict my statement if one could ignore the last sentence. It's wikpedia and usually I would recommend one refrain from posting publicly editable internet information as fact. In this case, however, you including a definition that supports my contention and then calling me wrong is just laughable...the first sentence in your quote is an excellent example of a logical error called an undistributed middle term. All followers of Islam are muslims (this is how the first sentence should be worded--and actually could be changed given it's wikpedia *hint*), not all muslims are followers of Islam (this is incorrect as the following sentences point out that some muslims are NOT followers of Islam).

How exactly do you just ignore the last sentence? Muslims aren't necessarily followers of Islam. Moses and Jesus were Jewish, dude, no way around it. Mother Teresa wasn't Islam, but she certainly fits that definition of a muslim. I mean, I could argue that apples are red, sure I've seen some green ones, but if you ignore that last part, all apples are red...but that'd be an equally illogical argument as all muslims are followers of Islam, ignoring Moses and Jesus, among others...

Perhaps you would be interested in reading what some muslims (the Progressive Muslim Union North America) have to say about this issue:
http://pmunadebate.blogspot.com/2004...ethnicity.html

Quote:

Furthermore, there are a "host" of examples on the TFP in which someone lumps all Christians in with people such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or George W. Bush. Occasionally they will refer to the lunatic fringe as the "radical right," or "extremist Christians" in an attempt to disguise the inherent bigotry. However, within their thinking is the fundamental assumption that ALL Christians are "radical" and "extremist."

Such a position remains "ignorant," to use your word.

If someone lumps all christians into a radical and extremist group of ideologues, then I would agree their position is an ignorant one. All the threads I've seen, however, don't do that and many go to great lengths to clarify that they are speaking about a particular group of people. Lotsa christians take umbrage at what they read into the post rather than what is there. Also, a lot of people are religious and progressive in their politics and a lot of people post here who are christian but aren't offended by statements made by host himself. The utmost irony would be if host were a christian himself. I would laugh my ass of because I haven't ever seen you avail yourself of the option to not insult him, and I've never seen the reverse in action.

Quote:

Quote:
3) political parties are chosen, presumably, by their adherents because they share the views of other members of the party and want to implement similar policies. So they band together and elect representatives in the hopes those people will effect their will.

4) religious groups, while many people might be born into them, are by and large chosen by the adults because they share the perspective of the other members in their congregation.

This appears to be a distinction without a difference. For example, it would be just as accurate to say that "religious membership is chosen, presumably, by its adherents because they share the views of other members of the religion."

This is interesting and follows the trend you set in the opening. You want to disagree with me, so you say I'm wrong and then paraphrase my point. That's cool, I mean I'm all for you understanding what I wrote better so please paraphrase away.

Quote:

I simply used the verbiage that would be the most familiar to the most people. I have not observed any of the national media using the word "Islamics" in the manner you prefer.

Me neither, but I didn't want to type out "followers of Islam" and I couldn't really figure out how to parse the term any other way. I actually thought you would follow what I was writing.

Quote:

If by philosophy, you meant personal belief, then who am I to falsify it? But if you really feel that Republicans think and "look" (I don't know what kind of meaning I should infer from this; do you mean racially? phenotypically? But I find it interested that you would read "act" as "look") differently than you, your interests would be better served finding or creating a different political party. Poltiics are about securing the interests of your self-selected group.

Of course, I didn't see the original discussion revolve around whether Republicans looked and thought the same; rather that Republican, conservative christians thought along the same lines and acted in similar ways. This is an intersection of at least three classes of belief: conservatives within christianity (a self-selected group of individuals working toward an end in the larger umbrella of their religion) espousing adherence to a political party that promises to secure their ideological interests.

I can't think of a single person on this board who thinks that all generalizations apply to all individuals within a specified group. weeell, you might get some flamboyant post that floats a variant of the idea that all leftists are enemies of America. but hopefully that won't happen this time because I'd rather not be proved wrong on this point.

stevo

09-21-2005 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

How about looking somewhere other than wikpedia...like dictionary.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

Mus·lim ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mzlm, mz-, ms-, ms-)
n.
also Mos·lem (mzlm, ms-) A believer in or adherent of Islam.
A member of the Nation of Islam; a Black Muslim.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Arabic muslim, one who surrenders, active participle of ’aslama, to surrender. See Islam.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslim adj.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

muslim

adj : of or relating to or supporting Islamism; "Islamic art" [syn: Muslim, Moslem, Islamic] n : a believer or follower of Islam [syn: Muslim, Moslem, Mohammedan, Muhammedan, Muhammadan, Islamist]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Um. so should I call The American Heritage Dictionary and Princton University and tell them they are wrong? or will you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Perhaps you would be interested in reading what some muslims (the Progressive Muslim Union North America) have to say about this issue:
http://pmunadebate.blogspot.com/2004...ethnicity.html

Maybe I misread the post on the blog you linked to...but the way I read the last paragraph, I understood it to say that it is pointless to have Islam as only a cultural identity not tied to religion. correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NMA member

To include "Muslim atheists" defies the purpose of the organisation as I see it and wastes what has been achieved.

There is a fundamental difference between a progressive agenda _within_ Islam and one that sees its purpose in _overcoming_ Islam. If someone doesn't believe in the fundamentals of the faith (the existence of a single supreme God, ultimate judgement etc.), then the only sensible aim must be to get rid of it. What's the point in 'reforming' something that doesn't have any substance? "Islam" as a mere cultural identity is pointless.

smooth

09-21-2005 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

How about looking somewhere other than wikpedia...like dictionary.com
Um. so should I call The American Heritage Dictionary and Princton University and tell them they are wrong? or will you?

OMG, if you guys spent half as much time researching things rather than just doing google searches in attempts to prove me wrong you'd quit wasting all of our time...

Before you make any calls, research the difference between Nation of Islam, Black muslims, and followers of Islam (all part of the definition you cited). THEN get back to me on whether you think muslism are only adherents to the theology of Islam. This has now become a case of RTFM or STFU.

Quote:

No, you read it correctly. One group of muslims are concerned that other muslims aren't adherents to the Islam theology. That's because non-Islam muslims exist...

...even more thought provoking is the notion that atheist muslims exist...which interestingly mirrors the existence of atheist Jews. Or even atheist Rabbis...giving rise to the claim that century old religions also work as ethnic identities for people.

Mojo_PeiPei

09-21-2005 12:46 PM

Are you confusing non-Islam muslim with Arab? Because in that case Jesus and Moses would be Arabs, they were not Muslim.

Ustwo

09-21-2005 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Are you confusing non-Islam muslim with Arab? Because in that case Jesus and Moses would be Arabs, they were not Muslim.

Since the Arab invasion of Isreal didn't happn until well after Jesus was dead, I rather doubt he would be Arab (this is in the philosphy board btw).

Also the concept that saying 'muslim' is different from saying 'Islamist' is kinda silly.

Quote:

Origin of Islam:

The name of this religion, Islam, is derived from the word "salam," which is often interpreted as meaning "peace." However "submission" would be a better translation. A Muslim is a follower of Islam. "Muslim" is an Arabic word that refers to a person who submits themselves to the will of God.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_intr.htm

Mojo_PeiPei

09-21-2005 02:08 PM

Nevermind...

Marvelous Marv

09-21-2005 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

(Sigh) Some people won't even let you agree with them...

I choose not to accept your polite invitation, but I will provide some reading material for YOU:

Merriam-Webster

Link

Quote:

Muslim

1 : an adherent of Islam

Cambridge Dictionary

Link

Quote:

Definition
Muslim [Show phonetics]
noun [C] (ALSO Moslem)
a person who follows the religion of Islam

American heritage dictionary:

Link

Quote:

1. also Mos·lem ( mzlm, ms-) A believer in or adherent of Islam.

Microsoft Encarta

Link

Quote:

Muslim

Mus·lim

noun (plural Mus·lims)
Definitions:

follower of Islam: somebody whose religion is Islam

AskOxford.com (Compact Oxford English Dictionary)

Link

Quote:

Muslim

(also Moslem)

• noun a follower of Islam.

Also from the Compact Oxford English Dictionary

Quote:

Islam

/izlaam/

• noun 1 the monotheistic religion of the Muslims, regarded by them to have been revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah. 2 the Muslim world.

Quote:

I was going to ask if, in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you still stood by this statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

You've been kind enough to answer that already. If Sammy Davis Jr. were still alive, he'd probably be surprised to know that his ethnicity was Jewish, not African.

But I guess that's Sociology for you. It reminds me of this old joke:

Quote:

An old cowboy sat down at the bar and ordered a drink. As he sat sipping his drink, a young woman sat down next to him. She turned to the cowboy and asked, "Are you a real cowboy?"

He replied, "Well, I've spent my whole life, breaking colts, working cows, going to rodeos, fixing fences, pulling calves, bailing hay, doctoring calves, cleaning my barn, fixing flats, working on tractors, and feeding my dogs, so I guess I am a cowboy."

She said, "I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. As soon as I get up in the morning, I think about women. When I shower, I think about women. When I watch TV, I think about women. I even think about women when I eat. It seems that everything makes me think of women."

The two sat sipping in silence.

A little while later, a man sat down on the other side of the old cowboy and asked, "Are you a real cowboy?"

He replied, "I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian."

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:28 AM.

Page 2 of 2

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360