I know Islam doesn't have a Pope, I was referring to the fact that there are no main Islamic figures telling muslims that terrorist actions are wrong. If any priest or rabbi acted like many imams and preached violence as a means to an end they'd have their asses handed back to them.
Perhaps years ago when Christianity was in its worst throes of anti-semitism, they could preach that way. Not any more-like I said, Christianity has grown up and evolved to actually, finally, follow the words of Christ. I am waiting for Islam to do the same..........................................
<strong>If Jesus was perfect then that would mean that no possible "evil" could be caused by his effects in the world. Quite simply: he has been the expressed reason for much incredible murder and biggotry in the past.
again:
From the premis of perfection you would have only causal relations to that perfection that are themselves perfect, since there are many, many events that have grown directly out of the existence of Jesus as a historical phenomena that are less than perfect (taken in a 'moral sense), then, he could not have been perfect.
Clearly, in order for something to be definable as perfect then you would have to have perfection defined as a concept that includes everything as it is: which is more Buddhist than Christian. . . .
unless that was the message of Jesus: namely "forgive yourselves, see, everything is perfect...I am perfect, and if so, then so must everything be that stands in a contiguous relationship to me... which is everything"
but that would be too forgiving for Christians....they seem to need to have evil to love.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That was so out there it is just incredible. Because Jesus is perfect his actions could only create perfect results and therefore all people who follow him become perfect? Wow! How did you actually come to that conclusion? Even if you move it a step up so to speak and talk of God himself (who is also one and the same perfect person) plenty has been done in his name for evil.
Let's try this, since Jesus was perfect he became the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all humanity. When he died he took all the sin of the world on himself so that we did not have to pay for those sins anymore. There is only one catch, we have to accept that sacrifice for ourselves in order to be absolved of our sins. That is what the perfection of Jesus accomplished. Now, why is the world not perfectly sinless then? Have you accepted his free gift of salvation and forgiveness of sins? How many in this thread have? (I actually am interested to know this, I have a hunch about a couple of people)
Nobody is sinless but through Christ, and that is only in the eyes of the Father (God) because Jesus paid for out sins already through his death and resurrection. Do I still sin, yes. Does God hold it against me? No. Why? Jesus. If you want to know more ask me. If not, that is fine too. In any case that part had to be said at some point.
And I have to come back to this once more
[quote]<strong>From the premis of perfection you would have only causal relations to that perfection that are themselves perfect, since there are many, many events that have grown directly out of the existence of Jesus as a historical phenomena that are less than perfect (taken in a 'moral sense), then, he could not have been perfect.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For a man that was 33 years old when he was crucified as a criminal for no reason but that he claimed to be the Son of God (he is) and for the point that he was only in his ministry for what 3 years? He sure made a HUGE impact on the world. Name me anyone else who had this type of impact with this short of an exposure to the people. He came from Nazereth, a carpenter. NO fanfare, no money, nothing to make him stand out except that he healed incurably sick people, made blind people see, and performed many other signs and miracles. I fear this will all be lost on many, but really, name me another that has done all this.
Also, as a side note, all of the religions of the world acknowledge that we are fallen people who need a saviour, someone to pull us above ourselves because we are incapable. Only one actually provides that saviour. Christianity. I hope that I get CIVIL replies to this, flames are what I am expecting though.
my arguement is not out there. In fact what I am doing is what is called a rational arguement following from given premises.
The point is is that either the premises are false (Jesus was not perfect, or perfection itself does not exist)or the definition of perfect and imperfect must change to include all things.
It goes like this: causality reigns supreme in 'rational arguements'. contiguity is a kind of causal relationship.
IF perfection exists it would be made imperfect by its imperfect relationship to anything that exist, in contiguity to it, that is not itself perfect.
In other words, logically speaking, if something can be perfect in an absolute sense as you are saying then everything must be perfect.
It is rather, your bible school arguement that has no basis in logic or reason whatsoever and therefore, if it weren't so damn popular, would be seen as being "out there".
For example: "Let's try this, since Jesus was perfect he became the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all humanity" is this an example of logical argument. meaning that it is because the first part is true that the second part follows?? whereas the first premis itself still needs work.
NoahJ, I don't think you read Rafsanjani's statement very carefully. If you re-read it, you'll see that he doesn't actually advocate detonation a nuclear device in Israel. He says IF the Islamic world had nuclear weapons THEN "the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate" BECAUSE the "application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world".
His conclusion is "the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate" not that the Islamic world should nuke Israel.
In the end this really just points out once again that the fate of both Islamic states in the Middle East and Israel are linked. Violence will lead to more violence. And progress will lead to more progress.
Scary? Christians? Really? Most of them? I never realized that people lived in fear of me and my Church! And to think, all this time...</strong><hr></blockquote>
NoahJ, there are scary christians. There are good muslims. There are scary muslims. And there are good christians. I know its hard to come out from underneath your blanket generalizations, but I think you should give it a try. Do you still watch balck and white TV, or what?
my arguement is not out there. In fact what I am doing is what is called a rational arguement following from given premises.
The point is is that either the premises are false (Jesus was not perfect, or perfection itself does not exist)or the definition of perfect and imperfect must change to include all things.
It goes like this: causality reigns supreme in 'rational arguements'. contiguity is a kind of causal relationship.
IF perfection exists it would be made imperfect by its imperfect relationship to anything that exist, in contiguity to it, that is not itself perfect.
In other words, logically speaking, if something can be perfect in an absolute sense as you are saying then everything must be perfect.
It is rather, your bible school arguement that has no basis in logic or reason whatsoever and therefore, if it weren't so damn popular, would be seen as being "out there".
For example: "Let's try this, since Jesus was perfect he became the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all humanity" is this an example of logical argument. meaning that it is because the first part is true that the second part follows?? whereas the first premis itself still needs work.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I appreciate your reply. Very level headed. You don't agree with me, and that is fine, and I don't agree with you. Your hypothetical is very flawed because you can intorduce anything perfect into a flawed environment and it will not make the enviroment less flawed. However, those touched by that perfect thing will likely be changed for the better. I know I have.
NoahJ, there are scary christians. There are good muslims. There are scary muslims. And there are good christians. I know its hard to come out from underneath your blanket generalizations, but I think you should give it a try. Do you still watch balck and white TV, or what?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not under any blanket of generalizations. I was merely pulling off his. There are scary people everywhere. To make it sound like they are scary becase they are Christians is a false assumption, as I pointed out in a not so direct way. Sure there are good muslims as well. And there are nice satanists too. (I know a couple) your point?
<strong>I'm joining this debate a little late, but...
NoahJ, I don't think you read Rafsanjani's statement very carefully. If you re-read it, you'll see that he doesn't actually advocate detonation a nuclear device in Israel. He says IF the Islamic world had nuclear weapons THEN "the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate" BECAUSE the "application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world".
His conclusion is "the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate" not that the Islamic world should nuke Israel.
In the end this really just points out once again that the fate of both Islamic states in the Middle East and Israel are linked. Violence will lead to more violence. And progress will lead to more progress.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Given the history of these states and what Iran has said about Israel in the past, it is all to easy to go one step further and draw the conclusion that they would use the nuke if they had it. Recall that in the article:
"Analysts told the Iranian Press Service that Rafsanjani's speech marks the first time a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic had openly suggested the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State."
He is speaking hypothetically, but the veiled threat is there. If we have it, we will use it.
I am not under any blanket of generalizations. I was merely pulling off his. There are scary people everywhere. To make it sound like they are scary becase they are Christians is a false assumption, as I pointed out in a not so direct way. Sure there are good muslims as well. And there are nice satanists too. (I know a couple) your point?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps the blanket of generalizations is a matter of perspective. I'm more interested in your response to my post about Rafsanjani's statement. Do you still interpret that as a call to nuke Israel?
Perhaps the blanket of generalizations is a matter of perspective. I'm more interested in your response to my post about Rafsanjani's statement. Do you still interpret that as a call to nuke Israel?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see it as one in a long string of threats to Israel that have been coming over the years. He did not outright say Nuke Em now. But as I stated. The inference is definately there. If we have it we wil not hesitate to use it as Israel would be obliterated and we would only suffer a setback in the muslim world. It is inflammatory enough that he was irresponsible to say it, especially given the breakdown in the peace process in the MidEast and many ohter factors that seem to be pushing the region and the rest of the world even closer to WWIII. And before you ask, yes I beleive there will be a WWIII.
What if they only have one nuke? One nuke will not destroy Israel completely and israel has enough nukes to wipe out every major city in Iran. Who would win then? If Iran strikes first and Israel counter strikes, then other nations with nukes who are hostile to Israel (Pakistan, maybe Iraq) would find it hard to decide if they should interfere... Iran would have stricken first. They asked for wipeing out their nation. iraq would proabably love it. Thay have a bad history with Iran.
<strong>Iran would have stricken first.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean Iran would have struck first?
As far as I can tell, Rafsanjani was talking about Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). He perceives aggresion by Israel against the Palestinians part of which is enabled by the threat of nuclear weapons. He therefore concludes that if the Islamic world has nuclear weapons (and really its the technology, not the numbers that count) then Israel would be forced to reconsider their "strategy of colonialism" because the playing field would be leveled so to speak. Similar to our arms race with the Soviets.
Granted it is scary to hear people in positions of power toss around terms like "wiped out" and "just ... damages in the Muslim world". Certainly the people exposed to a nuclear blast will suffer more than just damages.
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>"Analysts told the Iranian Press Service that Rafsanjani's speech marks the first time a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic had openly suggested the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State."</strong> <hr></blockquote>
To me it just seems like you guys are just contributing to the inflated rhetoric which is the fundamentalists' favorite tool. I finally went and read the article that NoahJ linked to, and they provided no other quotes where Rafsanjani explicitly advocates attacking Israel with nuclear weapons. Only the quote where it is "implied". Yes, Rafsanjani's statement was inflammatory although its difficult to tell outside the context of the rest of the speech just how inflammatory it was. But I consider the article's headline to be just as inflammatory with few facts to back it up. And because of established perceptions of Iran in the West, many of us are quick to believe the worst, and I think that is a mistake. Certainly statements like, "Iran should be our next target." are just as knee-jerk as anything coming out of a fundamentalists mouth. The situation in the mideast is extremely complicated with many subtle and not so subtle issues colliding in one hot spot, so the last thing we need from either side is a knee-jerk proclamation for a pre-emptive strike.
I asked an Iranian exile friend of mine who Rafsanjani actually is. His reply was to the effect of "the root of all evil in Iran". The guy was President under Ayatollah Khomeini, and in my friend's opinion was the puppetmaster of the revolution. Today he's the head of the Guardian Council, which is where all the actual power lies in Iran - the Council has the right to reverse any action by the elected government, controls the religious police and army, and has final say on every matter (including choosing valid candidates for office). In other words, he's the most powerful man in Iran. He's also, according to my friend, the richest. But he's tried to both hide his wealth and in general remain out of the public eye. He rarely offers opinions about anything in advance of his actions. His statement, even if it was the result of goading by a reporter, seems incredibly more disturbing to me now.
Comments
Perhaps years ago when Christianity was in its worst throes of anti-semitism, they could preach that way. Not any more-like I said, Christianity has grown up and evolved to actually, finally, follow the words of Christ. I am waiting for Islam to do the same..........................................
<strong>If Jesus was perfect then that would mean that no possible "evil" could be caused by his effects in the world. Quite simply: he has been the expressed reason for much incredible murder and biggotry in the past.
again:
From the premis of perfection you would have only causal relations to that perfection that are themselves perfect, since there are many, many events that have grown directly out of the existence of Jesus as a historical phenomena that are less than perfect (taken in a 'moral sense), then, he could not have been perfect.
Clearly, in order for something to be definable as perfect then you would have to have perfection defined as a concept that includes everything as it is: which is more Buddhist than Christian. . . .
unless that was the message of Jesus: namely "forgive yourselves, see, everything is perfect...I am perfect, and if so, then so must everything be that stands in a contiguous relationship to me... which is everything"
but that would be too forgiving for Christians....they seem to need to have evil to love.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That was so out there it is just incredible. Because Jesus is perfect his actions could only create perfect results and therefore all people who follow him become perfect? Wow! How did you actually come to that conclusion? Even if you move it a step up so to speak and talk of God himself (who is also one and the same perfect person) plenty has been done in his name for evil.
Let's try this, since Jesus was perfect he became the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all humanity. When he died he took all the sin of the world on himself so that we did not have to pay for those sins anymore. There is only one catch, we have to accept that sacrifice for ourselves in order to be absolved of our sins. That is what the perfection of Jesus accomplished. Now, why is the world not perfectly sinless then? Have you accepted his free gift of salvation and forgiveness of sins? How many in this thread have? (I actually am interested to know this, I have a hunch about a couple of people)
Nobody is sinless but through Christ, and that is only in the eyes of the Father (God) because Jesus paid for out sins already through his death and resurrection. Do I still sin, yes. Does God hold it against me? No. Why? Jesus. If you want to know more ask me. If not, that is fine too. In any case that part had to be said at some point.
And I have to come back to this once more
[quote]<strong>From the premis of perfection you would have only causal relations to that perfection that are themselves perfect, since there are many, many events that have grown directly out of the existence of Jesus as a historical phenomena that are less than perfect (taken in a 'moral sense), then, he could not have been perfect.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For a man that was 33 years old when he was crucified as a criminal for no reason but that he claimed to be the Son of God (he is) and for the point that he was only in his ministry for what 3 years? He sure made a HUGE impact on the world. Name me anyone else who had this type of impact with this short of an exposure to the people. He came from Nazereth, a carpenter. NO fanfare, no money, nothing to make him stand out except that he healed incurably sick people, made blind people see, and performed many other signs and miracles. I fear this will all be lost on many, but really, name me another that has done all this.
Also, as a side note, all of the religions of the world acknowledge that we are fallen people who need a saviour, someone to pull us above ourselves because we are incapable. Only one actually provides that saviour. Christianity. I hope that I get CIVIL replies to this, flames are what I am expecting though.
my arguement is not out there. In fact what I am doing is what is called a rational arguement following from given premises.
The point is is that either the premises are false (Jesus was not perfect, or perfection itself does not exist)or the definition of perfect and imperfect must change to include all things.
It goes like this: causality reigns supreme in 'rational arguements'. contiguity is a kind of causal relationship.
IF perfection exists it would be made imperfect by its imperfect relationship to anything that exist, in contiguity to it, that is not itself perfect.
In other words, logically speaking, if something can be perfect in an absolute sense as you are saying then everything must be perfect.
It is rather, your bible school arguement that has no basis in logic or reason whatsoever and therefore, if it weren't so damn popular, would be seen as being "out there".
For example: "Let's try this, since Jesus was perfect he became the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all humanity" is this an example of logical argument. meaning that it is because the first part is true that the second part follows?? whereas the first premis itself still needs work.
NoahJ, I don't think you read Rafsanjani's statement very carefully. If you re-read it, you'll see that he doesn't actually advocate detonation a nuclear device in Israel. He says IF the Islamic world had nuclear weapons THEN "the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate" BECAUSE the "application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world".
His conclusion is "the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate" not that the Islamic world should nuke Israel.
In the end this really just points out once again that the fate of both Islamic states in the Middle East and Israel are linked. Violence will lead to more violence. And progress will lead to more progress.
<strong>
Scary? Christians? Really? Most of them? I never realized that people lived in fear of me and my Church! And to think, all this time...</strong><hr></blockquote>
NoahJ, there are scary christians. There are good muslims. There are scary muslims. And there are good christians. I know its hard to come out from underneath your blanket generalizations, but I think you should give it a try. Do you still watch balck and white TV, or what?
<strong>NoahJ:
my arguement is not out there. In fact what I am doing is what is called a rational arguement following from given premises.
The point is is that either the premises are false (Jesus was not perfect, or perfection itself does not exist)or the definition of perfect and imperfect must change to include all things.
It goes like this: causality reigns supreme in 'rational arguements'. contiguity is a kind of causal relationship.
IF perfection exists it would be made imperfect by its imperfect relationship to anything that exist, in contiguity to it, that is not itself perfect.
In other words, logically speaking, if something can be perfect in an absolute sense as you are saying then everything must be perfect.
It is rather, your bible school arguement that has no basis in logic or reason whatsoever and therefore, if it weren't so damn popular, would be seen as being "out there".
For example: "Let's try this, since Jesus was perfect he became the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all humanity" is this an example of logical argument. meaning that it is because the first part is true that the second part follows?? whereas the first premis itself still needs work.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I appreciate your reply. Very level headed. You don't agree with me, and that is fine, and I don't agree with you. Your hypothetical is very flawed because you can intorduce anything perfect into a flawed environment and it will not make the enviroment less flawed. However, those touched by that perfect thing will likely be changed for the better. I know I have.
<strong>
NoahJ, there are scary christians. There are good muslims. There are scary muslims. And there are good christians. I know its hard to come out from underneath your blanket generalizations, but I think you should give it a try. Do you still watch balck and white TV, or what?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not under any blanket of generalizations. I was merely pulling off his. There are scary people everywhere. To make it sound like they are scary becase they are Christians is a false assumption, as I pointed out in a not so direct way. Sure there are good muslims as well. And there are nice satanists too. (I know a couple) your point?
<strong>Right now i see fanatasism and illogic.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Its nice we have you to shine the light in the dark for us.
fanaticism
n : excessive intolerance of opposing views [syn: zealotry]
<strong>I'm joining this debate a little late, but...
NoahJ, I don't think you read Rafsanjani's statement very carefully. If you re-read it, you'll see that he doesn't actually advocate detonation a nuclear device in Israel. He says IF the Islamic world had nuclear weapons THEN "the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate" BECAUSE the "application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world".
His conclusion is "the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate" not that the Islamic world should nuke Israel.
In the end this really just points out once again that the fate of both Islamic states in the Middle East and Israel are linked. Violence will lead to more violence. And progress will lead to more progress.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Given the history of these states and what Iran has said about Israel in the past, it is all to easy to go one step further and draw the conclusion that they would use the nuke if they had it. Recall that in the article:
"Analysts told the Iranian Press Service that Rafsanjani's speech marks the first time a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic had openly suggested the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State."
He is speaking hypothetically, but the veiled threat is there. If we have it, we will use it.
<strong>
I am not under any blanket of generalizations. I was merely pulling off his. There are scary people everywhere. To make it sound like they are scary becase they are Christians is a false assumption, as I pointed out in a not so direct way. Sure there are good muslims as well. And there are nice satanists too. (I know a couple) your point?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps the blanket of generalizations is a matter of perspective. I'm more interested in your response to my post about Rafsanjani's statement. Do you still interpret that as a call to nuke Israel?
<strong>
Perhaps the blanket of generalizations is a matter of perspective. I'm more interested in your response to my post about Rafsanjani's statement. Do you still interpret that as a call to nuke Israel?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see it as one in a long string of threats to Israel that have been coming over the years. He did not outright say Nuke Em now. But as I stated. The inference is definately there. If we have it we wil not hesitate to use it as Israel would be obliterated and we would only suffer a setback in the muslim world. It is inflammatory enough that he was irresponsible to say it, especially given the breakdown in the peace process in the MidEast and many ohter factors that seem to be pushing the region and the rest of the world even closer to WWIII. And before you ask, yes I beleive there will be a WWIII.
<strong>Iran would have stricken first.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean Iran would have struck first?
As far as I can tell, Rafsanjani was talking about Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). He perceives aggresion by Israel against the Palestinians part of which is enabled by the threat of nuclear weapons. He therefore concludes that if the Islamic world has nuclear weapons (and really its the technology, not the numbers that count) then Israel would be forced to reconsider their "strategy of colonialism" because the playing field would be leveled so to speak. Similar to our arms race with the Soviets.
Granted it is scary to hear people in positions of power toss around terms like "wiped out" and "just ... damages in the Muslim world". Certainly the people exposed to a nuclear blast will suffer more than just damages.
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>"Analysts told the Iranian Press Service that Rafsanjani's speech marks the first time a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic had openly suggested the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State."</strong> <hr></blockquote>
To me it just seems like you guys are just contributing to the inflated rhetoric which is the fundamentalists' favorite tool. I finally went and read the article that NoahJ linked to, and they provided no other quotes where Rafsanjani explicitly advocates attacking Israel with nuclear weapons. Only the quote where it is "implied". Yes, Rafsanjani's statement was inflammatory although its difficult to tell outside the context of the rest of the speech just how inflammatory it was. But I consider the article's headline to be just as inflammatory with few facts to back it up. And because of established perceptions of Iran in the West, many of us are quick to believe the worst, and I think that is a mistake. Certainly statements like, "Iran should be our next target." are just as knee-jerk as anything coming out of a fundamentalists mouth. The situation in the mideast is extremely complicated with many subtle and not so subtle issues colliding in one hot spot, so the last thing we need from either side is a knee-jerk proclamation for a pre-emptive strike.
[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Simple Ranger ]</p>