Does islam support terrorism?

[DEADn]

What does anyone think about this? It is easy to say yes but do you think the religion of islam supports it or has islam been hijacked by radicals who are twisting it?

I am doing a research paper on this and have to take a stance on the subject. Just looking for some opinions.

 

[Zero V]

What does anyone think about this? It is easy to say yes but do you think the religion of islam supports it or has islam been hijacked by radicals who are twisting it?

I am doing a research paper on this and have to take a stance on the subject. Just looking for some opinions.

I am a Christian, and I can sometimes be radical in my views. I believe the general idea of Islam is being twisted by some radicals. But in Islam it does say to kill the infidels, Christians, or anyone not of Islam belief. Though that part is not practiced as much today(no more Jihads) Radical groups use the religious influence and promise to make zealous recruits.

In the end, their decree is technically asking to cleanse the world, while generally people say they want peace, and terrorism is made up of radicals that do take the part of their holy word that calls for violence, and twists it.

In the Bible it says for a women to be obedient to the man. As husband and wife. But it also says the man should show her so much love, passion, and kindness that it is second nature to her to do so. Some men take that first part, beat their wives, and say they are supposed ot be obedient. The Bible is against harming innocents, and loved ones, especially your family. Yet they twist it.

I believe their holy book does say a bit about killing the infidels and Christians. But I am unsure of what comes before it and after it in the text, so I cannot base my judgment off of that. I would look into finding that excerpt and reading the text before and after that.

Considering most of these organizations are calling it a Jihad(holy war) is kinda devastating the religion as a whole. The last of the true Jihads that made a change in the world happened probably 400 years ago. Christians also held the Crusades. A similar idea, but alot less harmful than a jihad was. Though both of these carried unspeakable wrong doings, with the intent of good outcomes.

 

[AE14]

Zero, I must intervene here as you are speaking the americanized version of the Qu'ran that has become popular since 9-11.

There is a lot in the Qu'ran, and issues with infidels is there. However, m ore importantly are 2 specific issues.
1. if you kill innocent civilians you will go to hell;
2. if you commit suicide you will go to hell.

Now with those 2 being understood, we must look at extremism. You will notice, that there is extremism in all religions, in fact Zero, you even stated that you are a tad extreme in your beliefs. It is those same zealots that twist the words that they "believe", to suit their own selfish needs, wants and desires. That is not only found in Islam, that is also found in Judaism, and of course Christianity.

Also, the jihad is more harmful than the crusades?

 

[Zero V]

Zero, I must intervene here as you are speaking the americanized version of the Qu'ran that has become popular since 9-11.

There is a lot in the Qu'ran, and issues with infidels is there. However, m ore importantly are 2 specific issues.
1. if you kill innocent civilians you will go to hell;
2. if you commit suicide you will go to hell.

Now with those 2 being understood, we must look at extremism. You will notice, that there is extremism in all religions, in fact Zero, you even stated that you are a tad extreme in your beliefs. It is those same zealots that twist the words that they "believe", to suit their own selfish needs, wants and desires. That is not only found in Islam, that is also found in Judaism, and of course Christianity.

Also, the jihad is more harmful than the crusades?

Thats because Christianity is spot on, and Islam is wrong ^.^ We were at least making progress lol. J/K I claim that because I am Christian of course. Truthfully the Crusades did a good job of spreading the belief. Though like I said, some really stupid things were done with good intentions...people weren't the smartest back then, and many still arent today. A crusading soldier was not necessarily bad, nor all the generals. But following orders sucked sometimes back then. Still doe today. *Vietnam tragedies*

Thats why I said for him to look up the excerpt and read before and after and do more research. I identified with my dedication, so that it is know I am Christian, and my opinions may be a lil biased. I did not give the Americanized version. I know Islam peeps, I generally like em. Save for the wronging its being done because it has become a racial thing here in the states -.-

You have to understand they can classify "innocents" widely or narrowly. Innocents may be believers, who are not military or hurting you, and killing them is wrong. I believe there is not a necessary guideline for preventing that view in the Qu'ran. When you are basing rules off religion, the conceptual ideals of what the book says is up to interpretation.

Kinda like how the Bible is with alcohol. It can be argued in both directions. Some bit is written outright, but the other bit is always disputed.

I mean the Holy Bible itself has been perverted in the sense of Jehovah's Witness and Mormons. (please no offense intended to any believers of those faiths)

Islam undoubtedly faced the same thing. The core belief may be as many people state to be peaceful, and to try to chase perfection knowing it can never be reached, but always knowing there is a way to better yourself.

 

[AE14]

I agree that it is all up for interpretation. However I am always amazed that a theist talks about interpretaion, but also is a believer in a strict interpretation, hence being a theist. Kinda contradictory imo.

 

[Zero V]

I agree that it is all up for interpretation. However I am always amazed that a theist talks about interpretaion, but also is a believer in a strict interpretation, hence being a theist. Kinda contradictory imo.

good point. atheism is the belief that there is no god...so its still a faith. lol

 

[dsade]

good point. atheism is the belief that there is no god...so its still a faith. lol

No, it is a lack of belief in god. It is a neutral to your positive, for most people.

Some believe that there is NO god - which would be a more negative atheist, but the strict definition of the word is "a" (without) theism (belief in god).

 

[Zero V]

No, it is a lack of belief in god. It is a neutral to your positive, for most people.

Some believe that there is NO god - which would be a more negative atheist, but the strict definition of the word is "a" (without) theism (belief in god).

but does not an atheist have faith in the fact there is no god? less he worry about judgment?

In all technicalities there is no safe ground. atheist is not the middle of a Christian and a satanist, it is more of a 3 way split, add in the other religions and it goes into more splits. but there is no middle. The middle is before you are old enough to choose I would say if there had to be a labeled focal point.

 

[dsade]

but does not an atheist have faith in the fact there is no god? less he worry about judgment?

In all technicalities there is no safe ground. atheist is not the middle of a Christian and a satanist, it is more of a 3 way split, add in the other religions and it goes into more splits. but there is no middle. The middle is before you are old enough to choose I would say if there had to be a labeled focal point.

You did not read what I wrote.

Strict definition of atheist is one WITHOUT belief in god. Do you believe in aliens? Not sure? Not enough evidence yet? Well, you are an A-alienist since you do not believe yet.

You are not claiming that there ARE no aliens, you are just not convinced either way.

I'll ignore your last paragraph as I am sober and to try to make any sense of it would make my head hurt.

 

[Zero V]

You did not read what I wrote.

Strict definition of atheist is one WITHOUT belief in god. Do you believe in aliens? Not sure? Not enough evidence yet? Well, you are an A-alienist since you do not believe yet.

You are not claiming that there ARE no aliens, you are just not convinced either way.

I'll ignore your last paragraph as I am sober and to try to make any sense of it would make my head hurt.

I think it has nothing to do with soberness.

I see how you are defining it. But an agnostic is a person who is not convinced some something to me.

Actually here you go.

"Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism,[1] though it is not a religious declaration in itself."


My experience with atheists....they are definitely in faith that there is no god.

Agnostics are the ones who better fit your description of not seeing the evidence.

 

[dsade]

I think it has nothing to do with soberness.

I see how you are defining it. But an agnostic is a person who is not convinced some something to me.

Actually here you go.

"Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism,[1] though it is not a religious declaration in itself."


My experience with atheists....they are definitely in faith that there is no god.

Well, as an atheist I would beg to differ.

An atheist can be an agnostic as well (and with the definition of knowledge agnostic is pretty much the only honest position).

 

[BoyFromAus]

I always thought Agnostic was the lack of belief in god and Atheism was the belief of No God.

either way, both are probably interchanged nowadays.

I'm not gonna say whether Islam supports terrorism but I do notice some intolerance and isolation in Islam. This facilitates terrorism depending on the individuals and the degree to which they follow it.

From what I understand, it seems to be an extremely conservative legal system which involves a belief in god. Like any legal system, it has its punishments for not abiding the laws, except Islam seems to have very brutal punishments. Therefore, like conservative christianity, it makes it hard for followers to assimilate with non-followers (especially those who believe in liberalism).

 

[dsade]

I always thought Agnostic was the lack of belief in god and Atheism was the belief of No God.

either way, both are probably interchanged nowadays.

I'm not gonna say whether Islam supports terrorism but I do notice some intolerance and isolation in Islam. This facilitates terrorism depending on the individuals and the degree to which they follow it.

From what I understand, it seems to be an extremely conservative legal system which involves a belief in god. Like any legal system, it has its punishments for not abiding the laws, except Islam seems to have very brutal punishments. Therefore, like conservative christianity, it makes it hard for followers to assimilate with non-followers (especially those who believe in liberalism).

Which is why both groups try to silence opposing views any way they can.

 

[Zero V]

Which is why both groups try to silence opposing views any way they can.

Can we leave this guys thread to its intentions? Me and you have never seen eye to eye, and though I have learned and changed much to more properly represent myself, we wont ever agree. Who is wrong? only death will tell.

Regardless of Christianity, atheism, agnosticism, etc. He is asking about Islam. Lets cut the idle chat here. you know as well as I do how some of these threads have turned out.

 

[dsade]

Can we leave this guys thread to its intentions? Me and you have never seen eye to eye, and though I have learned and changed much to more properly represent myself, we wont ever agree. Who is wrong? only death will tell.

Regardless of Christianity, atheism, agnosticism, etc. He is asking about Islam. Lets cut the idle chat here. you know as well as I do how some of these threads have turned out.

It was his observation, he made a comparison and I contributed.

quote:


From what I understand, it seems to be an extremely conservative legal system which involves a belief in god. Like any legal system, it has its punishments for not abiding the laws, except Islam seems to have very brutal punishments. Therefore, like conservative christianity, it makes it hard for followers to assimilate with non-followers (especially those who believe in liberalism).

 

[dg806]

1. if you kill innocent civilians you will go to hell;

So they have a provision to kill ones not innocent? (This statement is wide open to interpret)

 

[AE14]

So they have a provision to kill ones not innocent? (This statement is wide open to interpret)

that is reading way too far into it. In fact it states one cannot kill innocents, which is not too different from earlier texts. In fact, the NT states that you must be a peace maker until you see injustice.

 

[Zero V]

that is reading way too far into it. In fact it states one cannot kill innocents, which is not too different from earlier texts. In fact, the NT states that you must be a peace maker until you see injustice.

From the Bible there are 3 states cases where killing is allowed. As a soldier in war, to protect an innocent, and to protect yourself/family/land.

I am actually a fan of old school punishments. I dont think those other countries are off in the way they do punishments. The punishment for a cheating wife is stoning....I dont see an issue with that -.-

 

[dsade]

From the Bible there are 3 states cases where killing is allowed. As a soldier in war, to protect an innocent, and to protect yourself/family/land.

I am actually a fan of old school punishments. I dont think those other countries are off in the way they do punishments. The punishment for a cheating wife is stoning....I dont see an issue with that -.-

So stoning...does that qualify as a soldier in war, protection of an innocent, or protecting yourself (because I don't see any immediate threat there)?

And I notice you said wife..do you hold the same punishment for the husband?

/and before you get all freaky, I equate cheating with fraud and theft by deception, and believe it should be punished by both prison and forfeiture of any assets accrued during the marriage.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Also, the jihad is more harmful than the crusades?

Its comparing apples to filet mignon. The conquest of northern Africa alone in the name of Islam killed more people than all the Crusades put together.

Only when you look at the killing of the Aztecs (even then it was disease, not the sword for the majority) do you even come close the number of human life lost when compared to the spread of Islam under the caliphates from Rashidun to the beginning of the Ottoman Empire.

You simply can't compare the two on equal terms. The Crusades are romanticized..the conquests of Africa and South Asia are forgotten. Its similar to Hitler being the worst while forgetting Stalin killed more people overall..by a large margin.

 

[EasyEJL]

What does anyone think about this? It is easy to say yes but do you think the religion of islam supports it or has islam been hijacked by radicals who are twisting it?

I am doing a research paper on this and have to take a stance on the subject. Just looking for some opinions.

Islam as it originally began and as written directly in the quaran doesn't support terrorism, however like all religions its subject to interpretation. So the humans doing the interpretation can warp it however they want.

Did it really rain 40 days and 40 nites or is that metaphorical? did Abraham really live 175 years? Did he offer the tip of Isaac's prick as a sacrifice as the old testament has it, or sacrifice Isaac altogether as the quaran has it?

 

[Trauma1]

Its comparing apples to filet mignon. The conquest of northern Africa alone in the name of Islam killed more people than all the Crusades put together.

Only when you look at the killing of the Aztecs (even then it was disease, not the sword) do you even come close the number of human life lost when compared to the spread of Islam under the caliphates from Rashidun to the beginning of the Ottoman Empire.

You simply can't compare the two on equal terms. The Crusades are romanticized..the conquests of Africa and South Asia are forgotten. Its similar to Hitler being the worst while forgetting Stalin killed more people overall..by a large margin.

Don't forget about chairman mao, either. One brutal SOB...

 

[dsade]

But are they conceptually different, or the same act on different scales?

In the end religions, like states, are concentrations of power and their primary condition is to protect and expand their power b any means necessary.

 

[futurepilot]

:bandit:

 

[AE14]

Its comparing apples to filet mignon. The conquest of northern Africa alone in the name of Islam killed more people than all the Crusades put together.

Only when you look at the killing of the Aztecs (even then it was disease, not the sword for the majority) do you even come close the number of human life lost when compared to the spread of Islam under the caliphates from Rashidun to the beginning of the Ottoman Empire.

You simply can't compare the two on equal terms. The Crusades are romanticized..the conquests of Africa and South Asia are forgotten. Its similar to Hitler being the worst while forgetting Stalin killed more people overall..by a large margin.

I do not disagree, and also appreciate the Aztec reference. However, the overall theme under both belief systems has been a history of onversion by the sword. My point here in this thread is not to prove one more liable than the other, actually it is to prove both as a horrible criminal in this situation

 

[AE14]

Islam as it originally began and as written directly in the quaran doesn't support terrorism, however like all religions its subject to interpretation. So the humans doing the interpretation can warp it however they want.

Did it really rain 40 days and 40 nites or is that metaphorical? did Abraham really live 175 years? Did he offer the tip of Isaac's prick as a sacrifice as the old testament has it, or sacrifice Isaac altogether as the quaran has it?

actually the Qu'ran has it as Ishmael, Abraham's son with Hagar.

 

[EasyEJL]

actually the Qu'ran has it as Ishmael, Abraham's son with Hagar.

ah true, i just recalled it being a sacrifice of the whole child rather than the tip of his johnson

 

[dsade]

ah true, i just recalled it being a sacrifice of the whole child rather than the tip of his johnson

Plenty of penises are stillol mutilated in the name of ridiculous beliefs.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I do not disagree, and also appreciate the Aztec reference. However, the overall theme under both belief systems has been a history of onversion by the sword. My point here in this thread is not to prove one more liable than the other, actually it is to prove both as a horrible criminal in this situation

I wouldn't say Christianity has a large history. In the overall scheme of things, the conversion by sword is relatively small....a few instances of perversion (on a large scale) over 2000yrs...for much of it Christians were getting the sword...:lol:

I don't think there is anything within the Christian belief system that encourages conversion by the sword on a grand scale. In fact, its quite the opposite.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

But are they conceptually different, or the same act on different scales?

Depends on the interpretation but considering my own personal studies in this area, especially a concentration in western civ, there isn't anything within the Christian belief system that encourages conversion by the sword. A few snippets here and there doesn't override an entire creed.

As for Islam, I can easily see how it could be interpreted (even within its main principles) but I haven't studied it enough to make such a overall conclusion. I don't even know in what context its written.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Did it really rain 40 days and 40 nites or is that metaphorical?

Come to South Florida in August and Sept. You'll believe

 

[EasyEJL]

Come to South Florida in August and Sept. You'll believe

Central florida is close enough, and no goddamn rain this year. City of Tampa has put in place a "no watering at all" ordinance starting next week. My freakin lawn is going to die.

 

[DEADn]

Well, you really haven't given much of an answer to the question except to compare islam to christianity and extremists. I don't care about the christianity part of it. I am just concerned about Islamic part of it. I have been able to find some article in the college database about islams early beginnings and also jihad. Proabably a good place to start.

My idea in this paper was to say that islam does support terrorism but right now what it seems to me is that it originally started out as a war within. Not sure how that is possible since islam does not believe in a personal relationship with God. What I am reading seems to show that as time goes by jihad is slowly being turned around and 'perverted' into a thought process or killing those who invade them, as far as the middle goes but also to threaten with death those who blaspheme Allah in anyway. These threats can lead to terorrism.
So, does the answer of whether Islam supports terorrism lay back in its earliest beginnings when it appears it doesn't support it or should it be pointed to todays muslim culture with fundamentalists threats of violence?

I find that more muslims threaten violence upon a society then do any christians.

My paper is going to deal with all or at least most of the aspects of Islam and somehow I have to support whether or not jihad is responsible for terrorism in Islam. Now, based on that sentence alone I would say yes. yet, if I word it different the answer could be no.

While many things in Islam is admirable I don't find it to be an inward transformation of soul because their god is not a personal god. They are always hoping and reciting stuff but seemingly never coming to the the intimate knowlege of who their god is.

 

[Red Dog]

I'm not an authority on the subject and I could be mistaken, but I believe the Qur'an suggests Muslims should defend themselves from an "invading force". If you view the Americans or whoever as an invading force, and terrorism as a form of defense, then you could say that Islam supports terrorism (under the right conditions).

I believe there is another verse that says no Muslim should take the life of an innocent -- but again, if you consider Americans "invaders" and then move to generalize from those who are considered to be actually physically invading to the entire American population, you end up with all Americans not being innocent.

Additionally, I don't support or sympathize with the extremist cause or find either one of these arguments to be rational and/or acceptable. But, I believe the majority of Muslims do not support terrorism and/or the killing of innocent people.

 

[DEADn]

Red Dog

I hear what you are saying yet we also got realize as well that there is Indonesia, the largest population of muslims. There have been a few instances of terrorism there yet nothing like in the middle east. Could it be that islam just happens to reside but the terorism that goes on there. although mostly performed by islamic extremists are because of the politics of the land?

Naturallly it comes down to jihad and what that means in islam.

 

[dsade]

Islam, as an entity, does not exist.

It is the adherents that interpret and act.

You can ascribe will acts to an abstract.

/does calculus recommend polygamy?

 

[DEADn]

Islam, as an entity, does not exist.

It is the adherents that interpret and act.

You can ascribe will acts to an abstract.

/does calculus recommend polygamy?

Whether or not Islam as an entity does not exist doesn't deal with the question. It is practiced but with it being practiced and its strict adherents to it does terorrism exists in it from when it was founded or did it evolutionize itself into terrorist acts.
I have read some accounts where Mohammed actually did acts of piracy in order that his village, would have good and foods. I wondered if this was merely an act of surviving or did it have anything to do with Islam?

This is probably the most I have ever dealt with anything islam. I have always taken the notion that terrorism is built into the muslim pysche. I think that this may be more of a middle eastern thing because of the war with Israel for land. This may be a cultural thing.

 

[AE14]

I wouldn't say Christianity has a large history. In the overall scheme of things, the conversion by sword is relatively small....a few instances of perversion (on a large scale) over 2000yrs...for much of it Christians were getting the sword...:lol:

I don't think there is anything within the Christian belief system that encourages conversion by the sword on a grand scale. In fact, its quite the opposite.

I dont disagree that many Christians were getting the sword (look at the Romans and the human torches, ouch)

However, neither is really on a large scale imo. It is just a few that have perverted relatively simple words and made them something they were not

 

[AE14]

Whether or not Islam as an entity does not exist doesn't deal with the question. It is practiced but with it being practiced and its strict adherents to it does terorrism exists in it from when it was founded or did it evolutionize itself into terrorist acts.
I have read some accounts where Mohammed actually did acts of piracy in order that his village, would have good and foods. I wondered if this was merely an act of surviving or did it have anything to do with Islam?

This is probably the most I have ever dealt with anything islam. I have always taken the notion that terrorism is built into the muslim pysche. I think that this may be more of a middle eastern thing because of the war with Israel for land. This may be a cultural thing.

Ok, well lets deal with hte issue of your original question.

Does it support terrorism....well we are going to need to decide which branch of Islam we are going to discuss. In essence, you have 3 major branches, Sunni, Shia, and Wahabbi. As a whole, Islam doesnt support anything of this kind, however, when you look at the wholesale changes that have been made over the years, then we might be able to adjust to your question.

 

[lennoxchi]

What does anyone think about this? It is easy to say yes but do you think the religion of islam supports it or has islam been hijacked by radicals who are twisting it?

I am doing a research paper on this and have to take a stance on the subject. Just looking for some opinions.

why don't you read the Qu'ran and find out for yourself? i will save you a bit of time here and say this, no religion, none supports murder, not one. Islam is one of the most accepting religions out there. True Muslims don't really care if you believe in thier idea of God, just that you believe in God. They even admit that Jesus was a real person and a great spiritual leader....talk about open-mindedness.....but do a little research on Islam, historicly speaking, you might be surprised.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

In its current form, your thesis question is implicitly attempting to tease out answers from a great many disciplines - theology, political philosophy, political geography and so on - and muddily congeal them into one, overreaching totality; indeed, your potential conclusions will owe their invalidity precisely to the ambiguousness of your original question.

In saying Islam, it appears you mean to suggest religious Islam, but then call into question the actions of merely ethnically-associated, so-called, "Islamists". In the first place, you need to define your purpose: do you wish to theologically analyze the primary documents of note [Koran, Hadith and so forth], in order to discover a sympathy toward "terrorism", or; do you wish to examine the political and sociological implications of "Islamic Extremism"?

At current, you are slightly muddying your terms of analysis, and this will necessarily lead to inconsistent and/or invalid conclusions. As dsade said, in so many words, "Islam is not anything in itself".

 

[lennoxchi]

From the Bible there are 3 states cases where killing is allowed. As a soldier in war, to protect an innocent, and to protect yourself/family/land.

-.-

please provide verse in the bible that this is stated

 

[AE14]

Must agree with mullett. There is more needed here prior to a true analysis being completed properly.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

In according all the facets of this issue full consideration, a more adequately framed question may rightly become: "What are the institutions, historicity and social arrangements that cause the areas of highest Muslim population to also harbor disproportionate amounts of terror-based aggressors?"

 

[Dr Packenwood]

I agree that it is all up for interpretation. However I am always amazed that a theist talks about interpretaion, but also is a believer in a strict interpretation, hence being a theist. Kinda contradictory imo.

reps

 

[DEADn]

You guys are right about me muddying the waters a little bit on this subject. I think I am making this harder than what it is really. It is more of an argument paper I have to do. I have to decide for myself, 'does Islam support terrorism'. Whether yes or no I have to take a stand on it showing evidence and then also I have to give a nod to the opposing side.

I have been reading about the sociology of Islam in some articles I have found. I find that the middle east is a breeding ground for violence yet I think that Islam has been hijack to promote it. So maybe my answer is NO even though it is too easy to say yes. yet in Indonesia there is some violence on the remote islands against christians. I have not read indepth about it so I don't know what created that really.

Thanks for the input!

Good food for thought.

 

[Zero V]

please provide verse in the bible that this is stated

Just for that I got a few Bible verses that are thinkers for you

"Exodus 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side ... and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. "

or

"1 Samuel 15:2-3 Thus saith the Lord of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare him not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. "

^ that I believe is in relation to the "Ban of Hiram"( I definitly did not spell that right)

Christians are constantly accused of wrong if we dont "turn the other cheek"

I can probably find alot of verses that give you the right ot protect yourself and the ones you love. Tho it takes a bit to sift through a Bible.

No where in the Bible does it say "Though shalt be a panzy."

The issue is finding the balance in this.

Lets not drag the thread into one of these. PM me if you want to do this, but no thread hijacking.

EDIT: I do mean really though...you dont think God wouldnt want you to protect your wife and kids from someone who broke into your hose at 2am?

Some one hurts my kids(when I get some)...they might not believe in God, but by the time I am done with them they will be praying for God to save them...

2nd EDIT: In all faiths, you have to find YOUR place in it, and not be consumed. Christian soldiers surely ant be in sin? A guy who shoots a man who is about to rape your GF/Wife, would you consider him a sinner? Or a hero?

Such is the same with Islam. I have verses above that institute violence, but it pertains to that situation, and that time period of the old testament. In Islam I suspect(considering I think we have the same first books) that the issue is the same. Kinda like how cults form, though Christian extremist and cults are more freakish and control oriented, Islam is a harsher place than America and so it makes sense it would be war based perversions.

 

[dsade]

Just for that I got a few Bible verses that are thinkers for you

"Exodus 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side ... and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. "

or

"1 Samuel 15:2-3 Thus saith the Lord of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare him not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. "

^ that I believe is in relation to the "Ban of Hiram"( I definitly did not spell that right)

Christians are constantly accused of wrong if we dont "turn the other cheek"

I can probably find alot of verses that give you the right ot protect yourself and the ones you love. Tho it takes a bit to sift through a Bible.

No where in the Bible does it say "Though shalt be a panzy."

The issue is finding the balance in this.

Lets not drag the thread into one of these. PM me if you want to do this, but no thread hijacking.

EDIT: I do mean really though...you dont think God wouldnt want you to protect your wife and kids from someone who broke into your hose at 2am?

Some one hurts my kids(when I get some)...they might not believe in God, but by the time I am done with them they will be praying for God to save them...

"1 Samuel 15:2-3 Thus saith the Lord of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare him not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Yeah...those infants are a HUGE threat to your family...better slaughter them to protect yourself.

 

[Zero V]

"1 Samuel 15:2-3 Thus saith the Lord of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare him not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Yeah...those infants are a HUGE threat to your family...better slaughter them to protect yourself.

This is in relation to the "Ban of Hiram"(I know i have that name wrong...) I think like stated. Basically it was Judgment. For what the tribes did, God decided to destroy them because they had drifted into evil.

We been over this before, overvaluing a life is insane. The military would fail utterly if they overvalue a life that did not necessarily get in the way(look at Iraq). The modern issue of "Red Tape" and media make any world wide breakthroughs impossible.

Sin has the right to be exterminated. It is just not a normal mortals right to do so, but God does allow appointment of judges and officials to carry out such tasks. Sadly, this world thinks criminals have more rights than honest people...(hence Revelations)

EDIT: and actually...if those infants grew up, and found knowledge of the fact that you wiped out their entire Tribe, and land, would they not live from that point on only for revenge?

 

[dsade]

This is in relation to the "Ban of Hiram"(I know i have that name wrong...) I think like stated. Basically it was Judgment. For what the tribes did, God decided to destroy them because they had drifted into evil.

We been over this before, overvaluing a life is insane. The military would fail utterly if they overvalue a life that did not necessarily get in the way(look at Iraq). The modern issue of "Red Tape" and media make any world wide breakthroughs impossible.

Sin has the right to be exterminated. It is just not a normal mortals right to do so, but God does allow appointment of judges and officials to carry out such tasks. Sadly, this world thinks criminals have more rights than honest people...(hence Revelations)

Yep...we've been over this before and you keep insisting that infants somehow committed sins that justified killing them.

Yet, you still refuse to give an example (sorry OP for derailing your thread).