Nairobi attacks - you'll have seen this, no doubt.

[classical_hero]

Indeed. I find it particularly sad that so many Christians are so hypocritical that they deny that their religion is based on pacifism instead of warmongering.

But by the time that Islam came along, the Muslims had little choice because Christianity had already indeed forsaken its roots. They became the persecuted instead of the predominant Christians, even though they worshiped the very same god in a slightly different manner.

Eventually, many Christians will stop persecuting Muslims just as they finally did with the Jews fairly recently. Baby steps.

What persecution is happening by Christians to Muslims? Muslims in Christian countries are free to practice what they believe, but the exact opposite is not happening in Muslim countries. The Arab Spring has turned into winter for any religious minority in Muslim lands. Islam does not worship the same God, since according to the Quran, Allah has no son, whereas both the Old and New Testament says that God has a son. No wonder why they consider Christianity as causing corruption in Muslim lands. Let's just witness to the barbaric horror of the recent Nairobi attack.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2434278/Kenya-mall-attack-torture-claims-emerge-soldiers-Eyes-gouged-bodies-hooks-fingers-removed.html

Eyes gouged out, bodies hanging from hooks, and fingers removed with pliers': Horrific claims of torture emerge as soldiers reveal gory Kenyan mall massacre details

Kenyan soldiers claim to find scenes of torture by mall terrorists
They say children found dead in food fridges with knives still in bodies
Men were said to have been castrated and had fingers removed

Yep, we see all over the world Christians just storming malls and torturing non Christians. We see Christians behead Muslims for not converting all the time. Seriously, what world are you living in when you say that Christians persecute Muslims?

Link to video.

 

[Borachio]

Seek and ye shall find.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/09/muslims-denounce-nairobi-mall-terrorist-attack-fox-news

I can only suppose www.AnsweringMuslims.com didn't look at all for Muslims condemning the Al Shabaab attacks. I, myself, didn't look hard and long by any means.

I must say that the Muslim community needs to very clearly, and repeatedly, distance itself from terrorist groups, and make clear that Al Shabaab, and others, in no way represents it.

I think it is doing this. But it needs to keep on doing it until we're thoroughly sick of it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What persecution is happening by Christians to Muslims?

Do you have any conception of what the phrase "by the time Islam came along" means? That I was clearly referring to when those passages were written?

But there are indeed Christian religious crusades which continue to occur. The US has a number of prominent military leaders who have couched the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq in those terms. And in Africa, there are a number of Christian terrorist organizations which continue to burn mosques and murder Muslims.

Seriously, what world are you living in when you say that Christians persecute Muslims?

"Seriously, what world are you living in when you say" they are not?

 

[peter grimes]

The US has a number of prominent military leaders who have couched the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq in those terms. And in Africa, there are a number of conflicts which are ongoing between Christians and Muslims which are entirely due to religious grounds.

I was hoping to post these myself, but didn't have the time

Here in the US, there is common persecution - both active and passive - against muslims and, by extension, things that are perceived-to-be Islamic. Just the other day a professor of Medicine at Columbia University was attacked by guys shouting anti-muslim epithets -- and this guy wasn't even Muslim. But he had a beard, and he was wearing a turban. That's enough for some people to engage in anti-religious bigotry, sadly.

If we were perfect creations in a god's image, there wouldn't be tribalism. If I were a god of creation and could change one thing about human nature, that would be it

 

[Borachio]

Well, perhaps we need a little perspective on this?

How is a woman holding a placard asking when they can build a synagogue in Mecca illustrative of Christians persecuting Muslims?

And, given that Al Qaeda (an Islamic organization - at least nominally so) carried out the 9/11 attacks, is it so incomprehensible that public opinion would be against a Mosque being built on or near "ground zero"?

To be frank, if jihadists continue with terrorist attacks on non-Muslim communities, it's highly likely to escalate tensions between them - even further. And that is indeed their aim, as far as I can see.

What's the solution to it all?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Sure. That is if you completely forget or deliberately ignore the rampant Islamophobia which has been pervasive in this country since 9/11, much less what has been occurring in much of Europe for even longer.

And, yes. I think the bigoted reaction to the "Ground Zero Mosque" should indeed be incomprehensible in any free and open society which claims to have religious freedom for all.

The missing "perspective" seems to all be on the opposite side of this issue.

 

[Borachio]

And, yes. I think the bigoted reaction to the "Ground Zero Mosque" should indeed be incomprehensible in any free and open society which claims to have religious freedom for all.

Well, much credit to you then.

Hang on, there, you've edited it since I last looked. That was quick!

You originally said "it's incomprehensible to me"!

edit: perhaps it "should" be incomprehensible, but I suggest it isn't.

 

[Camikaze]

Sure. That is if you completely forget or deliberately ignore the rampant Islamophobia which has been pervasive in this country since 9/11, much less what has been occurring in much of Europe for even longer.

And, yes. I think the bigoted reaction to the "Ground Zero Mosque" is indeed incomprehensible.

What are you saying 'sure' to? You're answer doesn't follow from any of the questions Borachio has asked. I reckon that picture's a pretty poor example of the Islamophobia of which you speak, but pointing that out is hardly ignoring the wider problem.

A reaction can be bigoted yet comprehensible. I don't think many people had much trouble understanding what the anti-Ground Zero Mosque stuff was about.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You originally said "it's incomprehensible to me"!

No, I originally stated that it was incomprehensible. But I edited to make it clear I was referring to not just me.

edit: perhaps it "should" be incomprehensible, but I suggest it isn't.

Rampant bigotry towards Muslims has certainly been pervasive in the US since 9/11. But I would hardly call it comprehensible from any sort of rational perspective. I think bigotry is inherently irrational, especially when it is so pronounced.

 

[Borachio]

I heard that 9/11 has had the most significant effect on the American psyche since Pearl Harbor.

Even I know where I was when the second airplane struck. And I'm notoriously oblivious to everything. And I'm not even American.

 

[peter grimes]

Well, perhaps we need a little perspective on this?

How is a woman holding a placard asking when they can build a synagogue in Mecca illustrative of Christians persecuting Muslims?

And, given that Al Qaeda (an Islamic organization - at least nominally so) carried out the 9/11 attacks, is it so incomprehensible that public opinion would be against a Mosque being built on or near "ground zero"?

There was never a proposal to build a Mosque at Ground Zero - and that's the entire point. These people picketing against this were riled up by Pam Geller, Orly Taitz, and other racists (religionists??) against something that was never proposed.

So, well, that's the perspective. This non-story seemed to make world headlines, but it was a vastly distorted perversion of the real issue: whether or not a community center would be allowed a zoning variance

NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT A MOSQUE.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. Indeed.

But notice the use of the word synagogue? I just don't see how that shows Christians persecuting Muslims, that's all. Unless it's insulting someone's intelligence, or something.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I heard that 9/11 has had the most significant effect on the American psyche since Pearl Harbor.

They are indeed quite similar. Both occurred as a direct reaction to US foreign policy decisions followed by complete bureaucratic incompetence to properly prepare for the inevitable. Then ethnic groups who had nothing whatsoever to do with the incidents were discriminated against and persecuted during the subsequent years.

But notice the use of the word synagogue? I just don't see how that shows Christians persecuting Muslims, that's all. Unless it's insulting someone's intelligence, or something.

Who do you think the proponents of this ongoing discrimination and persecution are? The handful of atheists and agnostics in the US who have been largely supportive of the Muslims despite 9/11?

Who do you think continues to couch this in terms of a religious war? Who continues to blame the religion of Islam instead of the handful of terrorists who are defying their own religious teachings?

Granted, there are likely a handful of atheists and agnostics who feel the same way, as well as those who have other faiths. But I think it is clear the preponderance of them are Christians.

 

[Plotinus]

@Plot. At the earliest stages of Christianity most definitely wasn't a religion spread by the sword. Before the 3rd Century it was persecuted mightily. It was only when some Roman emperors saw some political use out of Christianity that it can be slightly close to how Islam has always operated. Once Christianity became political it was always persecuted and that is how it spread. Following the tenants of Jesus, which is what i Christian should be, then he told his follows to preach the Gospel, not to conqueror. Whereas right from the start Islam, following the example of their prophet, has always been spread by the sword. When you take away the elements of Christianity in the past where it was used for political means and thus spread often through violence, not through the intended message of the Saviour. The big difference is the words of Jesus compared to the words of Mohammed.

BTW, I see that no one knows exactly what causing corruption means in Islam.

Sure, that's mostly correct. (I don't think it's true that Rome adopted Christianity for "political" reasons, and there isn't much evidence that persecution fuelled the spread of Christianity, but these are minor points.) But what relevance does it have? Most Christians who are Christians today are so because they were brought up in a Christian culture (and probably a Christian family). Most Muslims who are Muslims today are so because they were brought in a Muslim culture (and probably a Muslim family). They didn't become Muslims because of the violent origins of the religion. The point I'm trying to make is that the history of the religion is largely irrelevant to modern-day believers. Why does pointing out the violent history of Islam discredit it, when pointing out the violent history of Christianity not discredit it? Because Islam started off violent when Christianity didn't? Why does that make any difference? Why are the early Christians more authentically "Christian" than the later ones? After all, the early Protestants were a pretty violent bunch, and yet I don't see Protestants converting to Catholicism or the Orthodox church (which had less violent beginnings) because of that.

And are the teachings of Muhammad really so morally inferior to those of Jesus? I don't see that. One could make a perfectly good case (and many have) for saying that Jesus' teachings, at least as presented in the Gospels, are pretty morally dubious in places; the best bits are just standard stuff from Jewish teachers of the time, with plenty of parallels in the Mishnah. That's before we even get to the Old Testament, with its genocidal violence and institutional murder; Christianity grew out of that too. And conversely, there's plenty of edifying stuff in the Koran. It's not all about going out and conquering the infidel. Just as I said before, good people will latch onto the good bits of the holy text, and bad people will latch onto the bad ones, and that's the case no matter what the holy text is. This is just another way of saying that people are basically people, no matter what their background. I've yet to see any good reason to think otherwise.

 

[Borachio]

Who do you think the proponents of this ongoing discrimination and persecution are? The handful of atheists and agnostics in the US who have been largely supportive of the Muslims despite 9/11?

Who do you think continues to couch this in terms of a religious war? Who continues to blame the religion of Islam instead of the handful of terrorists who are defying their own religious teachings?

Granted, there are likely a handful of atheists and agnostics who feel the same way, as well as those who have other faiths. But I think it is clear the preponderance of them are Christians.

I think I mostly agree with this.

But why do those who want to blame Islam for terrorism not recognize that they are behaving precisely as the jihadists want them to?

(Or is there perhaps a conspiracy between the terrorists and the let's-call-them crusaders? This isn't a serious question, btw.)

And what's the solution to it all, in any case?

How can the jihadists be prevented from stirring up anti-Muslim sentiment (by engaging in terrorism), and how can the Christian US majority be prevented from reacting negatively to Muslims?

 

[Formaldehyde]

How can the jihadists be prevented from stirring up anti-Muslim sentiment (by engaging in terrorism), and how can the Christian US majority be prevented from reacting negatively to Muslims?

Perhaps we can arrange for them to get together and exchange their opinions with each other in a coliseum environment which is broadcast on live TV.

 

[classical_hero]

@plot, do you think that God is evil from not punishing those who do evil today and oppression millions of people and commit murder on a wide scale? At the very least, do you think that God should show himself and defend the defenceless?

 

[Borachio]

A BBC investigation has uncovered evidence of a breakdown in control when the military entered the Westgate mall, Nairobi, during an attack by al-Shabab militants.

Meanwhile, a leaked security document has revealed the group behind the attack recruited members not just abroad, but from within Kenya itself.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24380691

It seems most of the attackers were Kenyans recruited by Al Shabaab.

Meanwhile, it appears that the Kenyan police took the opportunity for some looting on their own account.

 

[Plotinus]

@plot, do you think that God is evil from not punishing those who do evil today and oppression millions of people and commit murder on a wide scale? At the very least, do you think that God should show himself and defend the defenceless?

No, because I don't believe that God exists at all. If God did exist he would, by definition, not be evil. If he existed, I don't think that punishing evil-doers would be enough to make God good; he ought to see to it that they don't do evil in the first place. If God can actualise any logically possible world (which he can if he's omnipotent), he could do that, which is why the onus is on those who believe such a God actually exists to explain why he chooses not to.

But I do think that the existence of so much suffering is a very good reason to think that God doesn't exist, because if God did exist, it would seem probable that, being perfectly good and all-powerful, he would see to it that such suffering didn't happen. The world that we actually see seems to me to be very much the kind of world we'd expect to see if God didn't exist. The kind of world that we'd expect to see if God did exist is quite different. So the evidence seems to me strongly in favour of God's non-existence.

That's not a knock-down argument against God's existence, since we can't be certain about what God would do if he existed or what kind of world he would permit, but we can only go with how things seem to us. It's possible that God does exist and he permits events of the kind we're talking about here for some reason, but I can't imagine any such reason that would justify it. The traditional candidates for such reasons, such as free will or to help us morally mature, don't stand up to scrutiny in my view.

 

[Borachio]

Why does God have to be "perfectly good"?

Doesn't this presume an anthropocentric view of God - a god whose intentions and actions conform to the human notion of good, which seems to be just what is good for human beings?

Human beings are only a small part of creation. If creation is what it is.

In the immensity of time and space, why would human beings (in this tiny part of space, and this incredibly narrow window of time) figure at all greatly in any of God's calculations? A being, presumably, of infinite expanse and duration.