[colliric]

Yeah, no one is arguing that Arabic wasn't influenced by Aramaic. Allah as a word just means God but apparently you think God and Allah are two separate entities since if Muslims believe in the same God as Christians, that humanizes them and you don't like to humanize the other. Are you implying that Aramaic somehow is a Christian language and not just the most commonly spoken language at the time

I have never had a problem with that.

Allah is the Islamic understanding of God, the Hebrew God, which Christians also believe in. And the Great Prophet Isa is the Islamic understanding of Jesus Christ!

As Christians we mainly clearly have a different understanding of the same God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. Of course we believe that God is the loving fatherly God.

I don't have that issue, what are you talking about?

In fact I delibrately go out of my way all the time to point out to Jewish People thinking the "future Messiah will usher in a peace age" that Muslims believe "the great prophet Isa" is the Jewish Messiah and that therefore about 4-5 billion people believe Jesus was the Messiah(and from within that group one group's rogue Terrorist fundamentalists may react extreamly violently towards any future "Messiah" claimant) while roughly only 10-12 million Religious Jews aggressively don't.

[Oxymandias]

@colliric

1. Don't stray off the topic of the original discussion

2. I don't see how that logically makes sense.

3. Don't bother explaining how it does make sense given that it is off topic.

[colliric]

https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/ ... court-told

The latest news from down Under....

[Oxymandias]

@colliric

Oh if you didn't know, my post was responding to this section of yours:

In fact I delibrately go out of my way all the time to point out to Jewish People thinking the "future Messiah will usher in a peace age" that Muslims believe "the great prophet Isa" is the Jewish Messiah and that therefore about 4-5 billion people believe Jesus was the Messiah(and from within that group one group's rogue Terrorist fundamentalists may react extreamly violently towards any future "Messiah" claimant) while roughly only 10-12 million Religious Jews aggressively don't.

[colliric]

@colliric

Oh if you didn't know, my post was responding to this section of yours:

Yes I admit I went OT and into a Rant. I apologize.

But your statement did hit a bit of a nerve. No I am not one of these "they believe in a different God" people. In fact I respect their belief, including those related to the Great Prophet Isa whom we call Jesus Christ. We have a different interpretation of God and his nature, that's all.

[Pants-of-dog]

The article did not disclose the ethno-religious demographic of the attackers, we already know now don't we?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKBN1KD0JW

Please provide evidence that the attackers were Muslim. Thank you.

[Albert]

So this thread has thoroughly proven that @ingliz like a real communist has no clue what he was talking about and perhaps even has gaslighted us on purpose all along.

[Ter]

[b]Indonesian district bans men, women from dining together





A district in Indonesia's deeply Islamic Aceh province has banned men and women from dining together unless they are married or related, an official said yesterday, saying it would help women be "more well behaved".

Aceh -- the only region in the world's most populous Muslim majority country that imposes Islamic law -- has drawn fire in the past for putting moral restrictions on women.

It also attracted global condemnation for publicly whipping people found guilty of a range of offences including homosexuality, gambling and drinking alcohol.

Under the latest Islamic regulation, women in Bireuen district on Sumatra island will not be able to share a table with men at restaurants and coffee shops unless they are accompanied by their husband or a close male relative.

Co-workers on their lunch break would also be forbidden from sharing a meal.

"The objective is to protect women's dignity so they will feel more comfortable, more at ease, more well behaved and will not do anything that violates sharia (Islamic law)," local head of the local sharia agency Jufliwan, who like many Indonesians has only one name, told AFP yesterday.

Another part of the directive - signed by the district head on August 5 -- said women who were alone or not with family should not be served at restaurants and cafés after 9:00 pm.

Authorities say it will be up to restaurateurs to enforce the regulation, although offenders will not be punished.

https://www.thedailystar.net/news/south ... er-1629757

It is indeed a slippery slope..
It starts with mixing of the genders, and then they will ask for 50% of the jobs, faultless divorce and so on.
Better keep them in line, no retreat no surrender !

[Suntzu]

Please provide evidence that the attackers were Muslim. Thank you.

The attack was organized by the father of the child, an Afghan refugee, pissed off at the baby momma. He was probably a Baptist.

[Quercus Robur]

Please provide evidence that the attackers were Muslim. Thank you.

Lol when I left this site 4 years ago PoD was complaining that it was not Muslims in Rotheram :P I guess it was because the label at the time was that they were 'south asians'. Since them there has been Newcastle and a host of other cities in the UK where a blatant racial bias was infecting rape gang cases. It's a nice impulse to not blame 'Muslims', since ofc you can't essentialise Muslims (unless you are Muslim), but people who peddle the idea that there is nothing amiss with cultural Islam in Britain are the reason we now have a revived Tommy Robinson.

[Oxymandias]

@Quercus Robur

There is literally no such thing as cultural Islam. The "Islamic world" is not homogenized.

[Quercus Robur]

@Quercus Robur

There is literally no such thing as cultural Islam. The "Islamic world" is not homogenized.

I agree with the second part of your quote absolutely. As for the first part...

(RNS) The mass murders in Oslo have raised a host of agonizing questions, but few have such an ancient lineage and contemporary resonance as whether Anders Behring Breivik, the right-wing extremist behind the attacks that killed 76 Norwegians last Friday (July 22), is a Christian.

Breivik claimed that he is a Christian in various forums, but most explicitly and in greatest detail in the 1,500-page manifesto he compiled over several months and posted on the Internet.

“At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised [sic] and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church,” the 32-year-old Breivik wrote. “I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian.”

But he also fiercely disagrees with the politics of most Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Church.

“Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man,” he writes. “I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.”

Breivik fashions himself a “cultural Christian” and a modern-day crusader in a resurrected order of the medieval Knights Templar, riding out to do battle against squishy “multiculturalism” and the onslaught of “Islamization” — and to suffer the glory of Christian martyrdom in the process.

Not surprisingly, conservative pundits who share some of Breivik’s views and also consider themselves Christians quickly sought to distance themselves from Breivik by declaring, as Bill O’Reilly did on Fox News, that “Breivik is not a Christian.”

“That’s impossible,” O’Reilly said Tuesday. “No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the ‘net, but he is certainly not of that faith.”

O’Reilly blamed the “liberal media” for “pushing the Christian angle” in order to demean Christians like himself. But O’Reilly’s point was taken up by any number of commentators and religion scholars.

Mathew N. Schmalz, a professor of religious studies at the College of the Holy Cross, wrote in a Washington Post column that Breivik’s vision “is a Christianity without Christ” because the attacker rejected a personal relationship with Jesus.

Writing in The Guardian, Andrew Brown wrote that “even in his saner moments (Breivik’s) ideology had nothing to do with Christianity but was based on an atavistic horror of Muslims and a loathing of ‘Marxists,’ by which he meant anyone to the left of Genghis Khan.”

Arne H. Fjeldstad, a longtime Norwegian journalist and Lutheran minister of the Church of Norway, wrote a lengthy analysis of Breivik’s references to Christianity and also concluded that “his view is framed entirely by politics, with strong political and cultural opinions, which also include religious views.”

“Breivik’s religious position is rather distant from any Christian faith commitment,” Fjeldstad wrote.

But others pushed back against such a carefully cordoned-off interpretation of Breivik’s faith, or Christianity itself.

“If he did what he has alleged to have done, Anders Breivik is a Christian terrorist,” Boston University religion scholar Stephen Prothero wrote on CNN.com.

“Yes, he twisted the Christian tradition in directions most Christians would not countenance. But he rooted his hate and his terrorism in Christian thought and Christian history, particularly the history of the medieval Crusades against Muslims, and current efforts to renew that clash.”

“So Christians have a responsibility to speak out forcefully against him, and to look hard at the resources in the Christian tradition that can be used to such murderous ends.”

Andrew Sullivan, the popular blogger and Catholic, also expounded on that point, writing that “it is obvious that Christians can commit murder, assault, etc. They do so every day. Because, as Christian orthodoxy tells us, we are all sinners. To say that no Christian can ever commit murder is a sophist’s piffle. ... Do the countless criminals who have gone to church or believe in Jesus immediately not count as Christians the minute they commit the crime? Of course not.”

Sullivan said Bill O’Reilly’s argument “is complete heresy in terms of the most basic Christian orthodoxy.”

And Sullivan is right, though for some 2,000 years Christians have still battled fiercely over who is a “real” Christian and who is not, or who is a “good” Christian and who is a “bad” Christian.

Is Christianity about being baptized or joining a particular church? Is faith a matter of true belief (orthodoxy) or just actions (orthopraxy)? Or some alchemical combination of the two? And what is the right belief? Or the right thing to do?

Many argue today that President Obama, for example, can’t be a true Christian despite his profession of faith because of the liberal policies he proposes. Or that Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, a Tea Party favorite, can’t be a real Catholic because he embraces the atheistic libertarianism of Ayn Rand in opposition to the teachings of the
Catholic Church.

Yet as far back as the fourth century, Saint Ambrose spoke of the church as a “casta meretrix” — the “chaste harlot” who welcomes all comers while remaining pure herself in order to sanctify her members. That analogy still holds true.

Anders Breivik may have been a bad Christian, perhaps the worst one can imagine, as well as a confused man who cherry-picked from Scripture and history to justify his un-Christian form of Christianity.

But proof-texting the Bible and using faith to rationalize one’s favorite political and cultural views is something most believers — Jewish, Muslim and Christian — are guilty of at one time or another. So kicking Breivik out of Christianity in the end might be an ominous sign for all Christians.

Spirituality is powerful, but shouldn't command intellectual respect in itself.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_C ... _for_Jihad

Though the Young Turks had compelled the Sultan in his capacity as the Caliph to declare a jihad urging all Muslims to resist Allied encroachment on their lands, the effort was largely unsuccessful.[1]

[Oxymandias]

@Quercus Robur

No, as in there is literally no such thing as Islamic culture. Islam isn't a culture, it's a religion. If you agree that the "Islamic world" isn't homogeneous then why do you think that there is such a thing called "Islamic culture"?

In regards to your wikipedia article, ironically, the Young Turks were secularists. It is hilarious to see a secularist nationalist group advocate jihad while the main authority of the Ottoman Empire whose legitimacy is supposedly derived from God refuse to call for jihad.

While your article is entertaining, I don't see what your goal was in linking it. Exactly what argument are you trying to make here? To extend this further, what was the point of the original article you posted? It seems to be more relevant to Christianity rather than "Islamic culture".

[Pants-of-dog]

Lol when I left this site 4 years ago PoD was complaining that it was not Muslims in Rotheram :P I guess it was because the label at the time was that they were 'south asians'. Since them there has been Newcastle and a host of other cities in the UK where a blatant racial bias was infecting rape gang cases. It's a nice impulse to not blame 'Muslims', since ofc you can't essentialise Muslims (unless you are Muslim), but people who peddle the idea that there is nothing amiss with cultural Islam in Britain are the reason we now have a revived Tommy Robinson.

I do not think I ever claimed that.

My thinking at the time was that the reason why the cops never did anything was because they were receiving payoffs, and the whole “we did not want to seem racist” thing was just an excuse.

[colliric]

https://www.news.com.au/national/victor ... 6aea0f336a

Fuck....

Muslim for sure....

[Oxymandias]

@colliric

ISIS also claimed the Vegas music festival shooting yet we all know how that turned out. Honestly, before it would've obviously been a Muslim who did this, but now, after all of these far-right terrorist attacks, I'm not quite sure. ISIS isn't even powerful anyone, they're all hiding underground now.

The biggest threat to the West was never Muslims, it was yourselves. You and your ridiculously self-destructive natures.

[colliric]

@colliric

ISIS also claimed the Vegas music festival shooting yet we all know how that turned out. Honestly, before it would've obviously been a Muslim who did this, but now, after all of these far-right terrorist attacks, I'm not quite sure. ISIS isn't even powerful anyone, they're all hiding underground now.

The biggest threat to the West was never Muslims, it was yourselves. You and your ridiculously self-destructive natures.

Yeah:

Islamic State (IS) claimed responsibility for the attack and police confirmed this morning that Shire Ali was "inspired" and "radicalised" by IS.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-10/ ... fmredir=sm

Shut up, you're making an idiot out of yourself.

[Oxymandias]

@colliric

Shut up, you're making an idiot out of yourself.

How? You're the one making a fool of yourself. All I said was, prior to being given this information, you can't be sure of whether it's a Muslim or not anymore because of the recent prominence of conservative or domestic terrorist attacks in the West. Furthermore, you can't rely on ISIS's word either since they're both powerless (they're literally forced underground; they only remain active in tunnels around Homs) and they have wrongfully claimed responsibly for attacks that weren't their doing (i.e. the Vegas Music Festival shooting).

Nothing I said is wrong.

[chrisw]

I'd take those numbers with a pinch of salt. Some of those countries are so small they could have a half dozen new immigrants and it could bump the statistics up fast

Andorra is letting in 900 new residents each year and it's total population is only 75000. I guess if they have a heavy Muslim year they could import a bunch of Catholics the year after (assuming they can find some)

[Suntzu]

I'd take those numbers with a pinch of salt. Some of those countries are so small they could have a half dozen new immigrants and it could bump the statistics up fast

Andorra is letting in 900 new residents each year and it's total population is only 75000. I guess if they have a heavy Muslim year they could import a bunch of Catholics the year after (assuming they can find some)

Andorra is not taking in parasites. You have to PAY to get in.