Originally Posted By ecdc <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/08/19/isis-beheads-american-journalist.html">http://www.thedailybeast.com/c...ist.html</a> I kinda want us to go kill every last member of ISIS now. This is beyond appalling and upsetting. Religious fanatics suck.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox I wanted to kill these guys when they took dozens of women and children in the Yazidi tribe and buried them alive. Yes, they killed hundreds of Yazidi Muslims for being "devil worshipers" which is horrific enough. But some were actually buried alive! I really hate war, but these guys deserve to be eliminated. You cannot reason with crazy fanaticism on this level. Ever.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I feel the same way, but it is difficult to take that position while constantly criticizing Israel. I think they have perhaps long recognized a threat that the U.S. has been slow to see. Fortunately, U.S. public feelings about Israel are nowhere nearly as anti-Semitic as I've read that public feelings in Europe are.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 That doesn't necessarily follow. There's nothing anti-Semitic about criticizing the policies of a particular Israeli government - hell, half of Israelis do. It's also not helpful to blur together the Palestinians - even Hamas - with ISIS. I have no love for Hamas either, but even radical Islam is not a monolith and the groups are often at odds with each other, let alone Muslim people in general. When you blur things like that you get the situation of 70% of Americans supporting the invasion of Iraq because 9/11. Which is particularly maddening because Saddam assiduously made sure radical Islamic groups never gained a foothold in Iraq. Not as any sort of favor to us, but because he feared them as a threat to HIS power. But as long as he was in place they could never gain a foothold there; with the vacuum we created (and a Shia government oppressing Sunnis), we now have ISIS.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck How does one maintain a level perspective when people act like monsters? Does sub Human behavior deserve sub Human retribution? Religion, still poisoning the world as much as ever.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Let me fix that for you: Evil people abusing power and religions of peace: still poisoning the world as much as ever.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Evil people abusing power and religions of peace: still poisoning the world as much as ever.<< Religions of peace is a stretch. I get it--most Muslims are peaceful people. Ditto most Christians. But at some point, you have to own the horrible stuff in your religious sacred texts and religious history. ISIS doesn't have some random book they picked up--they have the Qu'ran, and there's plenty in there to justify them in what they do. Most religious people are peaceful *in spite of* their religious texts and history. Decent religious people would be better served to fix the ugly parts of their religions instead of saying, "Hey, that's not me, so not my problem and don't lump me in with them." Most Muslims aren't ISIS, but they share a religious text and history that should be reckoned with, not just dismissed as "abusing power."
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Most religious people are peaceful *in spite of* their religious texts and history.> I disagree. Evil done in the name of religion is done *in spite of* the true intent of the sacred texts.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Unfortunately there are so many passages in which violence and genocide are justified in religious texts that people who are inclined to use religious fervor to justify striking out against others have all too many verses to quote. There is the genocide of Jericho by Joshua, the lovely verse about dashing the heads of Babylonian babies against the rocks, or God killing every first born male child in Egypt because He had hardened the Pharoah's heart against Moses. The true intent of sacred texts is to elevate one religious belief over another and to show people why they don't want to be anything other than the faith the text promotes because of all the horrible things that will happen to you if you are. Even the Book of Mormon has similar passages about how God will destroy anyone who isn't part of the new covenant. If the true intent were peace, then the religious texts wouldn't be filled with breathless descriptions of genocide and murder of those who aren't the chosen ones.
Originally Posted By utahjosh You certainly don't understand the teachings of Jesus Christ that readers of the Book of Mormon try to follow. Finding old-world, old-covenant passages isn't what is followed today.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "You certainly don't understand the teachings of Jesus Christ that readers of the Book of Mormon try to follow. Finding old-world, old-covenant passages isn't what is followed today." Then why do Mormons have problems with homosexuality. Jesus never mentioned it. Christianity sure would be a lot better off it it dumped everything but the gospels.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Then why do Mormons have problems with homosexuality.> Modern Day Prophets. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/restoration">http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/...toration</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc Josh, you're overselling your case. I largely agree with you that Mormonism attempts to be a religion of peace. But it's also affected by its highly conservative, Republican membership. So you end up with a few weeks ago, the Deseret News openly endorsing more war with Iraq. You end up with its prophet endorsing the original war with Iraq. How'd that work out for a modern-day prophet that's supposed to let the world know how God feels about things? While Pope Francis condemns violence in Gaza and Israel, what do Mormon leaders condemn? Alcohol and gay marriage. Where's the LDS church statement on Ferguson? Instead, its busy telling BYU grads that only "true disciples" of Christ oppose gay marriage. Mormonism is far from a shining example of speaking out against violence. At some point, a religion is what it does, not just what it says, and Mormonism is clearly far more invested in issues that do not have to do with peace and nonviolence.
Originally Posted By utahjosh < Mormonism is clearly far more invested in issues that do not have to do with peace and nonviolence.> Well, that depends how you define peace. And we certainly do not advocate violence, unless absolutely necessary.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Evil done in the name of religion is done *in spite of* the true intent of the sacred texts*** You really want to go there Josh? I'm not familiar with the BoM, but I sure as hell know the bible - and it sounds like you really don't. AT BEST, using the whole "Jesus changed everything" argument, the god of the bible just USED TO BE a nasty, warmongering piece of work, and he ordered his people to do some horrible, horrible stuff. The other specious argument, that god is "mysterious", doesn't hold water in the face of the utterly immoral acts and orders he flung from on high. That does nothing to excuse or explain unconscionable actions, but it DOES speak to the authors of the day, who clearly assumed their god should act in the same manner as their warlord masters on earth did. In unspeakably barbaric times, no less. Come on, dude. You really can't sell that hogwash. At least be honest with yourself, and if you're so deluded you really believe that, then go read the bible some more. Obviously you missed all the horrible parts.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Finding old-world, old-covenant passages isn't what is followed today*** You're proving that you haven't read your own sacred text very carefully... "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished," (NASB, Matt. 5:18). JHC
Originally Posted By Mr X "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill," (Matt. 5:17). JHC
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Well, that depends how you define peace.<< See, and now you've just marvelously proved my point. Religion just defines anything however it feels like. So opposing gay marriage becomes "peace." Supporting stringent liquor laws promotes "peace," even as we're completely silent on the violence of war, of racial tension, of torture, of gay persecution in places like Russia, and on and on and on. Fortunately, we have the unequivocal statements of religious leaders like Pope Francis to compare this to, so we can see how squishy it is to say something like, "Well gee, it depends on how you define peace." Most of the world knows what peace is, and supporting a war with a country who didn't attack us while condemning two people loving each other ain't it. I'm sure ISIS feels like they are ultimately promoting a peaceful world by wiping out the infidels. Swell.
