Bill Maher, Osama bin Laden, church and state, part 3

Continuing from last time, the rest of the dialogue up to this point.


Angela:

Did Jesus rejoice when peter cut off the ear of Jesus' enemy in John 18? Arent Christians supposed to be modeling themselves after his behavior?

The reason I mentioned Iran was to again point out to you as a side note that not all Muslims are Arab. When you refer to the "Arab Muslim world" It doesn't include Iran, they are Persian, not Arab. I wasn't arguing about what they are or are not ruled by. Your summary of Islam's take on democracy is also a stereotype and inaccurate and I am certain that the people fighting for democracy right now in any number of Muslim countries would debate that with you. But you don't really seem like the kind of fellow who is up for debate.

I have talked about these issues with many people, I've gone to listen to Muslim Scholars speak on the subject. How does visiting a Muslim country and speaking with them not include myself in listening to a diverse group of opinions from Muslims? I would argue that you are the one that isn't acknowledging the diversity of the Muslim community. Again in 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world you will most certainly find diversity. I haven't argued that all Muslims are peace loving people, my point was that your generalization of most or even many (whatever that word means) is inaccurate. I am glad you are finally conceding that because the people you are talking about are actually part of a small minority of very loud people, OBL was the leader of them.

Oh wow thanks for exposing me to your "diverse" opinion that the majority of ignorant Americans hold. I've nevvvver heard these arguments before. Actually in truth I've heard them so many times that I am practically yawning while I type. The more accurate description is that I am again being exposed to someone so stubborn and determined to be "right" that he has hardened his heart and is clouding his vision with so much hate that he can't see the truth.

The fact that you are walking into a Mosque thinking that people are lying to you speaks volumes about your delusional paranoia about Muslims. The truth is that the verse you are speaking about tells Muslims they may lie if their life is threatened, and that really only refers to telling someone if they are Muslim or not.

There are many many violent verses in the Bible. Verses that we choose to ignore. The Qur'an states what is allowable if Muslims are under threat. At the time the Qur'an was written they were under attack very often. It needs to be taken into context. This is the problem with dogma is that some interpret it in the same context that it was written in back in those times. It really isnt meant to be applied that way today. You can apply the same ideas to the Bible. It doesn't sound like your bias would allow anything close to a "fair reading".

I dont buy your "chronological order" bit. A lot of Muslims aren't even clear on the chronological order or the Qur'an and they have been studying it for years.

I also don't buy that you know Islam better than scholars who have devoted their life to studying it. Quite frankly, you don't know what you are talking about, but you would love to think you do. It sounds like you are even ignorant to the teachings of your own religion let alone the teachings of one you don't even follow and have a considerable bias against.

Also I am not an scholar of Islam so I won't be getting into the "doctrine of abrogation" or any other doctrines, nor the chronological order of the Qur'an. Seeing as their are scholars of the religion who aren't even completely clear on this matter. Your arrogance has clearly clouded your vision to make you believe you are more educated on these matters than you really are. That doesn't surprise me though, usually ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand.

I am not claiming to know all about the intricacies of Islam, these issues are still out for debate even among Muslim scholars... but just to expose your ignorant broad generalizations of the people of an entire religion and culture that you aren't even that familiar with.

And actually you are claiming to know their religion better than they do if you are claiming that the Taliban's interpretation of Islam is more accurate than that of a peace loving Muslim. That is some of the most arrogant condescending comments I've ever seen. You should be proud of yourself.

I've already heard the guilt by association game people like to accuse CAIR of a million times. It is so tired. A federal judge has already taken them off whatever list they were put on by GWB and found them guilty of nothing. People love to hate CAIR because they defend the rights of Muslims and that's about it. The judge acknowledged that the accusations of them being linked to Hamas was McCarthyism and guilt by association.

There is ZERO risk. Our constitution is written in such a way that entirely prevents any legislation based on religion to ever get through. Your paranoid fantasies just simply aren't true, if they were we would be at risk of being under canon law and jewish law and any other number of religious laws. You just sound paranoid and silly. It will never happen, especially when it is just a tiny minority of nutjobs trying to make it happen. We are more in danger of the Christian taliban located in the tea party of taking away our rights than we are of Muslims trying to.

Willful ignorance in action? Take a look in the mirror my friend. I am not the one hunting for information on biased conspiracy websites and claiming it is truth. Offer me something scholarly and I might take you seriously. Otherwise you just sound like a nutcase honestly. Just the fact that you are still trying to get me to read information off of xenophobic websites speaks volumes.

John Walker Lindh is not an organized effort to overthrow America. Get real. A few crazies does not an "organized network" make.

Yes but you are accusing "most" every Muslim of wanting America destroyed, which would make every Muslim not American. Glad you are the authority on that. Sickening.

"And the Bible ***also*** mentions rejoicing to some extent in the death of enemies of the faith. It's BOTH. "
I don't seem to recall Jesus doing both.

A naked assertian of some white girl that claims to have a muslim boyfriend????? seriously? you are pathetic. You want me to show evidence???? soooooo pathetic. Well here you go (then links me to who I guess is her boyfriend's Facebook page).
I bet you feel pretty proud of yourself

Btw you are so stubborn it's obvious that no matter what I said or what Jesus even said to you, you wouldn't believe it. So it's therefore a waste of my time and I won't be engaging you anymore. Good luck in life with the hardened heart you have, must make it life tough. Maybe someday me and my "Muslim boyfriend" can take an Islam class with you.



Rhology:

hi Angela,

Hope you had a good weekend. Thanks for your patience as I couldn't get to this before now.

--"Did Jesus rejoice when peter cut off the ear of Jesus' enemy in John 18? Arent Christians supposed to be modeling themselves after his behavior? "

No, Jesus didn't rejoice.
Peter is, however, not the government. That matters.

--"not all Muslims are Arab"

Yes, I'm well aware of that.

--". Your summary of Islam's take on democracy is also a stereotype and inaccurate"

How?

--" But you don't really seem like the kind of fellow who is up for debate. "

That's funny, I thought we were debating right here.

--" I would argue that you are the one that isn't acknowledging the diversity of the Muslim community. "

Or maybe I've been discussing Islam as a religion, as a system of belief, rather than only discussing what this and that person believes.
The official position of a given system is not always the same as what most of its professing adherents believe.

--"I haven't argued that all Muslims are peace loving people"

Good.
And neither have I argued that all Muslims are bloodthirsty jihadis.

--"I am glad you are finally conceding that because the people you are talking about are actually part of a small minority of very loud people, OBL was the leader of them"

Yes, a "small minority" of 1.5 billion people!
And who are willing to live consistently with the teaching of the Qur'an. That's sufficiently concerning for me to bring up from time to time.

--"The fact that you are walking into a Mosque thinking that people are lying to you speaks volumes about your delusional paranoia about Muslims."

Qur’an 2:225 Allah will not hold you responsible for your mere utterance in an oath, but he will hold you responsible for that which your hearts gained (what your heart meant). And Allah is forgiving and forbearing.
According to one of Mohammad’s daughters, Umm Kalthoum, he told her that it is okay to lie in three cases: 1) A man with his wife that she will be pleased with him. 2) or at a time of war because war is deception. 3) or to make peace between people.

Wow, that's so funny! Actual exegesis of Islamic teaching!
As opposed to what you've been giving here - your opinion based on interactions with some modern Muslims. Congratulations and all that, but like I said, the teaching of the actual religion is pretty important.

--"There are many many violent verses in the Bible."

Your ignorance of the Bible is very, very striking.
The Qur'an PREscribes violence, whereas the Bible RECORDS, DEscribes it. It's very different.

--" Verses that we choose to ignore. "

Well, verses whose context you've apparently ignored. I don't ignore them, not at all. It's just that I know what they mean.

--"I dont buy your "chronological order" bit. A lot of Muslims aren't even clear on the chronological order or the Qur'an and they have been studying it for years. "

Then the doctrine of abrogation is completely incoherent. You need to rethink.
The translator of the Qur'an I read certainly thought he knew. W/o a good reason to think otherwise, I figure he knows better than you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Qur%27an_(Hilali-Khan)

Also, since you later said "Also I am not an scholar of Islam so I won't be getting into the 'doctrine of abrogation' or any other doctrines", how seriously should any reasonable person take this? Clearly you don't know what you're talking about, so your opinion is eminently dismissable.

--"I also don't buy that you know Islam better than scholars who have devoted their life to studying it. "

You mean like Muhsin Khan?
What you need to realise, and thus escape your naivete, is that "scholars" disagree on virtually everything. Playing scholar-pong gets no one anywhere a great deal of the time. There's at least a plausible reason why some of these scholars are unwilling to accept the violent Qur'anic teachings, just like numerous Biblical "scholars" neglect the passages in the Bible that make them uncomfy. It's b/c there's an agenda, and missing it for the sake of politically correct willful naivete (that would be you) is hardly commendable.

--" It sounds like you are even ignorant to the teachings of your own religion"

That's rich, from someone who didn't even know how to classify the violent passages of the Bible.
But OK, educate me - what am I ignorant about in biblical Christianity?

--"There is ZERO risk."

Except for the evidence I gave you. Your unwillingness to look at facts when they're right in front of you is astonishing.
Some risk, even if small, =/= zero.

--"John Walker Lindh is not an organized effort to overthrow America."

now you're moving the goalposts. That wasn't the original contention. Do try to pay attention.

--"Yes but you are accusing "most" every Muslim of wanting America destroyed"

Quote me.

--"And the Bible ***also*** mentions rejoicing to some extent in the death of enemies of the faith. It's BOTH. "
"I don't seem to recall Jesus doing both."

OK. And?

--" You want me to show evidence???? soooooo pathetic. Well here you go. "

And? How does this lend credibility to your claims?

--"Btw you are so stubborn it's obvious that no matter what I said or what Jesus even said to you,"

Believe me, the feeling is mutual, but the difference is that I can actually make sound arguments and you're having a great deal of difficulty in that area. You're good at emoting, though.

--"Good luck in life with the hardened heart you have"

How do you identify a hardened heart? What is the surrounding spiritual context of that?

Bill Maher, Osama bin Laden, church and state, part 2

Continued from last time, another commenter decided to address me.

Angela:
Ahem.. ok while you two are debating about scripture... I need to call out Rhology about something he said in his first comment.

"Bin Laden's entire mission in life was to destroy America, and he equated America with Christianity, b/c like most Muslims he never took the time to understand America.
The church did not kill OBL; America did. "

Bin Laden's mission wasn't against christianity, it was against America's foreign policy. And saying "like most Muslims he never took the time to understand America." is a generalization that many muslims I know would take offense to. (in fact, i kind of think its the other way around, America never takes the time to understand Muslims) I know Muslims born and raised in this country, does their religion make them less American than you and I? I also know muslims that immigrated here from other countries, and many of them understand and appreciate America more than we do. I just wanted to point out the problems with your broad generalizations.

Also, America may have killed OBL, but the church didnt just breathe a sigh of relief, they definitely celebrated it.



Rhology:
  Hi Angela! Nice talking to you.

--"Bin Laden's mission wasn't against christianity, it was against America's foreign policy."

Yes, but notice how he often referred to "the Crusaders". It is extremely common among Arab Muslims to equate America with "Christian Crusaders", leading to the conflation I mentioned.

--"generalization that many muslims I know would take offense to"

Well, I'm very glad to hear it.
But I've met far more that make that confusion than don't. And I've talked to quite a few.

--"I know Muslims born and raised in this country, does their religion make them less American than you and I?"

Depends totally on whether they want to destroy America and/or bring it under Sharia law. If so, then yes, it does make them less American. Just b/c you don't know any of them doesn't mean that some don't exist.

--"the church didnt just breathe a sigh of relief, they definitely celebrated it."

May I ask you to consider that you accused me of overgeneralisation but then overgeneralised for your own part?
I spoke out of my experience - most Muslims. Most Muslims I've talked to on this issue do make the confusion.
But "the church" in America did so? Some did, some didn't.

Bill Maher, Osama bin Laden, church and state

A Facebook acquaintance challenges Christians to "try and refute this logic. Come on, I dare you", and then, irony of ironies, links to a Bill Maher video in which Maher tries to let us know that no true Christian would celebrate the death of Osama bin Laden.
Bill Maher never met a logical argument he couldn't avoid, but it has led to a discussion worthy of recapitulating.


Rhology: 
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/05/black-white-and-gray.html

Maher is a joke. I am always disappointed to see people quoting him like he has ever had a good idea.
The Bible has numerous examples of celebrating the death of evil men who persecute the people of God, and Jesus inspired the Bible. Bin Laden's entire mission in life was to destroy America, and he equated America with Christianity, b/c like most Muslims he never took the time to understand America.
The church did not kill OBL; America did.

Maher's logic has some soundness to it; too bad he never took the time to properly define the objects of his talk. He's shadowboxing.


C:
Rhology, as usual, I disagree. Perhaps the Bible contains examples of the people of God celebrating the death of the wicked, but God explicitly condemns this, even in the Old Testament. God is consistent throughout in his contempt for this sort of behavior. As usual, lots of people in the Bible do things that are contrary to the will of God, like celebrating the death of their enemies. But if they did, they were wrong. “As surely as I live, declares the Lord God, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live" (Ezekiel 18:23). There are lot of other verses. But I think you get the point. Maher is spot on, like him or not.



Rhology:  He condemns SOME of them, and in others He is in fact the voice of celebration and festivity.
So what shall we conclude? The rightness of such celebration is dependent on something other than the brute fact of celebrating/not celebrating.

He is consistent, but not in the way you're thinking. Rather, He's consistent with respect to the types of people who died and the motivations for celebrating.
Maybe engage some of the texts I'm discussing.


C:
Maybe you could provide some texts for me to engage.



Rhology:
Sure.

Psalm 137:8-9 (RSV):

[8] O daughter of Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall he be who requites you
with what you have done to us!
[9] Happy shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!

Psalm 2:
1Why are the nations in an uproar And the peoples devising a vain thing?
2The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
3“Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!”
4He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.
5Then He will speak to them in His anger  And terrify them in His fury

Ps 7:9 O let the evil of the wicked come to an end, but establish the righteous; For the righteous God tries the hearts and minds.

Ps 9:4-6

4For You have maintained my just cause;
         You have sat on the throne judging righteously.
5You have rebuked the nations, You have destroyed the wicked;
         You have blotted out their name forever and ever.
6The enemy has come to an end in perpetual ruins,
         And You have uprooted the cities;
         The very memory of them has perished.


Psalm 10:15Break the arm of the wicked and the evildoer, seek out his wickedness until You find none.

Ps 58:99Before your pots can feel the fire of thorns
         He will sweep them away with a whirlwind, the green and the burning alike.

10The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance;
         He will wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

11And men will say, “Surely there is a reward for the righteous;
         Surely there is a God who judges on earth!”

Prov 11: 10When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices, And when the wicked perish, there is joyful shouting.  11By the blessing of the upright a city is exalted, But by the mouth of the wicked it is torn down.


C:
Good, I knew you would have no trouble finding them. Google is a wonderful thing. How did we ever use bible verses to prove opposite points before Google? It must have been a lot harder before. Well, two things. First, Jesus is unequivocal in the NT. He always condemned this sort of thing. And, since he was supposed to be God, or the son of God or something like that, I guess his opinion should take precedent. Right? Oh, and secondly: You just succeeded in illuminating one of many glaring contradictions found in the OT. Kill your enemies, or care for them? Who knows? Or maybe kill some of them and care for others. But if that were the case, why not just say so? Could it be that the OT supports both points of view because it was written by lots of different people with lots of different points of view? That would explain why God seems to condemn something in one verse and then condone it later. No fancy theological acrobatics needed.


Rhology:
‎--"How did we ever use bible verses to prove opposite points before Google? It must have been a lot harder before."

Haha, to be sure. I guess we actually had to use our brains and memory back then. :-D
The book of Hebrews is all about this - the author says several times "It says somewhere" and then quotes the Old Testament. But it stands to reason - he knew it said it but didn't have any verses or chapters to identify the reference. One of those funny things.

--"First, Jesus is unequivocal in the NT. He always condemned this sort of thing"

Where?

--" I guess his opinion should take precedent. Right?"

Properly understood, quite so. He is the final authority.

--"Kill your enemies, or care for them? Who knows?"

I know, and I know that it depends on the context.
Life is complex. Unlike the biased skeptic, I recognise that the Bible can refer to numerous different aspects of numerous different topics in 2000 pages of 6-point font.

(Continued...)

An interesting question to ponder

Chris (from Oz) asked:

you said that atheism is a violent strain of extremism, and when pressed, want proof that it can't lead logically to a violent lifestyle, that it leads one to being a nice person ? Bit of a stretch don't you think(?)

It's a stretch for YOU, which is good, and for which I'm thankful.
But for many many people in history that hasn't been a stretch at all, but rather they realised that violence was one of many logical conclusions/outcomes of atheism.
Think about it - you just got thru saying that atheism has virtually no content. So an atheist - whether he decides to be nice or to be violent, what does he have to inform him on which is better?



Atheism is the lack of a trigger

No, atheism is the lack of a god.

Yep, there's no fundamental "ought".

Fair enough - so it's impossible to say "you ought not to torture Chris from Oz's child for fun", right?

And, le plat de résistance:

(Atheism) neither prohibits violence, nor promotes it

Precisely. And it neither prohibits altruism, nor promotes it.
If I gave 33.33% of my millions (I'm independently wealthy) (not really) to Greenpeace/Ma Theresa/pick your favorite charity, 33.33% to the Fascist Us-Only Front For Mankind's Violent Destruction with special earmarks "For use in purchasing chemical and bio-weapons only, to be used on children only", and 33.33% to my own personal private gratification, am I a bad guy, a good guy, or a whatever? Which?