0
   

Islam views on Prisoners of War

 
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 07:08 pm
but I am beginning to understand what exactly bothers you with nazi scum like Ustashas. Not fact that they were nazi scum, but fact that they colaborated with Muslims in WW2. Ohhh...
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 07:28 pm
Nimh--MOUsername--

Thank you for your fairness in your responses here.

I think you were right on the mark. Not mean-spirited, or anti-Ahmed, or biased. In fact, it was a bias you were pointing out.

Certainly, if Mohammad decreed it was wrong to harm prisoners, his followers aren't paying attention. But, trust me, no one is on a high horse regarding torture these days. Still, it is wrong to continue to whitewash Muslim atrocities, and blind ourselves to the jubilant celebrations of Muslims, just because we don't want to whip up an anti-Muslim sentiment,or be seen as (yes, I'll say it!) politically correct.

No one condemns the entire group--but we must condemn those who are gleeful at the deaths and active in terrorism.

Nimh said it well-- Apply the same standard to everyone.

(So sorry to see the recent turn of the thread. I guess there are many painful feelings all over.)
0 Replies
 
NorthernNeighbour
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 07:56 pm
nimh wrote:
Sounds like the insurgents in Iraq are cruelly violating the spirit and the teachings of their own religion. I hope the Muslim clergy and religious Muslims like (I assume) yourself will preach the gospel the way you quote it here, to those in Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world who violate it or defend violating it - and will lambast them for perverting their prophet's teachings. You've got a challenge cut out for you here.

As for our prejudices, the quotes you bring here are perhaps useful to counter preconceptions about Islam as having always been an inherently violent religion. But on a day-to-day basis, our image of Islam is also/mostly going to be determined by what we see in the news. And as long as there are people out there who claim to be fighting a holy war in the name of Islam while they cruelly kill both Westerners and fellow-Arabs, the association of Islam with violence is going to be out there. Christianity wasn't much associated with "turn the other cheek" at the time of the Crusades, either, and the image of socialism also became tainted when Soviet tyrants started to put people in Gulags in its name.

Now you can teach people about the "real" Islam like you can teach them about "real" socialism, but if you don't also first deal with the extremists who kill and maim in the name of Islam, it's like carrying water to the sea.


I find this information to be very helpful and promotes understanding. And it strikes me yet again that ANYTHING violent done in the name of God is suspect Sad . I don't think God requires cruel and inhuman behaviour of anyone...whether they be Muslim, Christian or Jew. Let's face it, all religions are interpreted for convenience and maximum impact. That's the scary thing in all this.

Knowledge is power...ignorance is dangerous. Keep it coming Exclamation
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 08:39 pm
nimh wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
nimh,

Go back and read the initial post in this thread. The author (and by implication Ahmad) is saying that according to their faith, mistreatment of prisoners is immoral.

What is there to argue about that?

Well MyOwnUserName goes off on how "some Iraqi's" treat prisoners. Au then points out that "Moslems never practiced what the preached" [sic] as if no Moslems have ever treated a prisoner well.

I think that Ahmad got roped into defending his statement of faith with this absurd tit-for-tat argument is unfortunate.


Well, imagine going onto a mostly Iraqi board, and posting a long thread there about how the US constitution prescribes - say - democracy, human rights for all and a safeguard against torture for any prisoner.

Of course, observed in pure isolation, most any Iraqi would share those values. But if an American would post just that treatise, at this point in time, there, wouldn't they fall all over him going - "yeh, right - that may be all great and beautiful - but thats not how your soldiers are behaving here now, is it!?"

Would you consider that reaction "bigoted"?

Apply the same standards to everyone.


I do apply the same standards to everyone. If someone believes in treating people with dignity I respect them. If someone violates human rights through violence or torture, I oppose them. Their religion doesn't matter.

When someone assumes that I support the torture of prisoners or the death of Iraqi's simply because of I am American, I consider that bigotry. When someone assumes that people support violence against civilians or prisoners simply because they are Moslems. I consider that bigotry as well.

Twelve or so years ago I was very relgious and I was part of a evangelical Christian church. During the first Gulf war many people bought T-shirts celebrating the "highway of death" (I forget the exact words) and making jokes about dead Iraqi's. This was from very pious Christians. My discomfort from this glee over the death of others started me on the path that led me to question my faith (I am now a non-religious agnostic).

I say this as part of my personal experience-- not as a tit for tat between religions.

But my point is that Moslems are people-- as well as Christians, Jews, Arabs and Americans. There are people in each of these groups that celebrate violence. There are people who heroically work for peace. 90% of people everywhere simply want to provide their families a decent life free from violence.

Those who use their faith, whatever faith it is, to work for peace and human rights, I respect. Every faith has both people who support brutality. Most have scriptures that can be read to support barbarism.

But it is the personal beliefs of each person that matters. If Ahmad's understanding of his religion leads him to believe that prisoners must be treated with respect that is all that matters. The responses have been based in a generalization of the Moslem religion that is clearly not representative of Ahmad.

This wholesale rejection of a point of view simply because of a religion is without question an example of bigotry. I would say this about any religion you try to disparage in this way.

I respect and agree with the original piece posted by Ahmad.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 08:45 pm
Would you not agree that if I started a thread glorifying Christian tenets of loving one another, and that the Christian religion espoused turning the other cheek, rather than resorting to violence--and someone showed up pointed out the murders that have occurred in the name of Christianity--

you would not have shown up to defend my initial post

but would have probably agreed with them?

(It has certainly happened, though I was not the originator.)


Same thing.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 09:28 pm
MyOwnUsername wrote:
oh my favourite Serb is back Very Happy Hello s(erbian)wolf, how are you? Still sad that serbian scum is all over Hague and your fellow compatriots are trying to become normal country while those alike you are buried deep in past? Are you disappointed honey? Do you feel rejected? Will you ever be able to forgive Serbs that they are becoming normal country?
So, now you are leading Holy War against Islam after your buddies ended up in Hague and in historical graveyards with their fellow Hitler, and YES, my dear friend, with their fellow Pavelic (edit: for others: Pavelic = notorius leader of croatian Nazis during WW2)?

Look, I have some other news for you - as always, unlike using cheap propaganda, I'll rather talk about what your kind was in 90's, by using Serb sources, glad that Serbia is becoming normal country again. For others - B92 is serbian radio station, SRNA is Bosnian Serb news agency

http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=11064&dd=29&mm=04&yyyy=2001



I'll say it again, I am not Serbian, slavic, nor a member of the orthodox church (yet), although that could change. If I were to join the Orthodox church it would be the Russian branch of it so I could at least understand the sermons (to ect, govoriu davolno xhorosho po russki, a ni odnovo slova po srbski...)

Notice that unlike somebody such as yourself who grew up with slavic languages I use articles both in speaking and writing other western languages, i.e. I would write "the cat caught the mouse" rather than simply "cat caught mouse" as you would or "koshka poimal muishku" as you would in Russian.

The Orthodox church and the Mormons in Utah are the only large groups of people I ever saw trying to stand up to to the Clinton regime and face it down and that deserves a lot of respect in both cases, nonetheless Mormon theology is a bit too much like science fiction for my tastes.

When the s#!+ hit the fan in the balkans in the early and mid 90s I was not able to come up with any real information; nonetheless the entire idea of the US getting involved in such a business struck me as harebrained at best and nefarious at worst. I mean, if nothing else, Serbia is a slavic orthodox nation just like Russia and even if you assumed that Serbs were the villians of the world as you proclaim, it did not seem to be worth it.

When Kosovo came along, the world had entered the internet age and I made it my business to find out what I could about the situation and what I found out was horrific.

Basically what I discovered, from any number of Russian and European sources available on the web and from usenet traffic, was that pretty much everything the west has seen, heard, and read about the balkans over the last dozen years is unadulterated BS produced by the out-of-control spin machines of NATO and the Clinton regime; that the Serbs are the closest thing there is to normal, decent middle class people in the Balkans, that of the 25 - 30 ethnic groups in the former Yugoslav confederation only about three of those groups had ever had any real problem dealing with Serbs, and that those three groups, Bosnians, Albanians, and Croatians, were basically a bunch of barbarians.

What I discovered about the Serbs was that they had been the one real ally the west ever had in the Balkans during WW-II, that they had declared war on Hitler and held him for six months sending him into Russia in the dead of winter rather than on schedule but for which we could all be living under naziism today, while all other Balkan countries joined the axis. Serbs saved about 500 allied airmen bailing out after raids over Ploesti; any allied airman who ever bailed over Bosnia or Croatia got his throat cut.

Moreover, I learned that the Croats had operated a death camp so much worse than anything the German nazis had, that German nazis complained of having bad dreams for weeks after tours of the place. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in this place and, apparently, all were being killed with knives and crude instruments.

http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/the_vatican.htm
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/sakic/press1.htm

Basically, I learned that most if not all of the charges being made against Serbs were being fabricated, including cases such as that of Trnopolja which even Joseph Goebbels would be ashamed to have been involved in:

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/film/judgment.htm


The "Racak massacre" which Clinton and Albright used as a pretext for
the NATO action turns out to be more propaganda BS:

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/meetmr.htm

and the Rambouillet ultimatum, particularly Appendix B, section 8,
which the Serbs refused to sign, turns out to look like something
which King George might have written. No nation on Earth would ever
sign off on such a thing:

http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/ksvo_rambouillet_text.html

It turns out that the entire case against Serbia was never anything
but a bunch of BS. There was never any "ethnic cleansing"
going on:

http://www.iraqwar.org/germanreport.htm

and there was never anything remotely like genocide going on:

http://www.counterpunch.org/biglie.html

nothing but a bunch of fabricated BS and a bunch of poor sorry
people (Serbs) having to defend themselves against an armed
insurrection supported and supplied by outside powers.


Like I say, the ONLY interest I have in any of this is a dislike for seeing my fellow Americans being played for suckers by people like yourself.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 10:03 pm
Sofia wrote:
Would you not agree that if I started a thread glorifying Christian tenets of loving one another, and that the Christian religion espoused turning the other cheek, rather than resorting to violence--and someone showed up pointed out the murders that have occurred in the name of Christianity--

you would not have shown up to defend my initial post

but would have probably agreed with them?

(It has certainly happened, though I was not the originator.)


Same thing.


Yes I would have shown up to defend your initial post. I have defended attacks on Christian faith on several occasions.

ebrown_p wrote:

(from 11/03/03)

The religious bashing of this post is excessive and out of line.

There is absolutely nothing in our Constitution that bans a religious person from being elected president. On the contrary, preventing someone from holding office because of there beliefs would go against everything I love about America.

We live in a Democracy. Within any democracy there are many different perspectives and viewpoints. The ideals behind democracy say that we can afford to allow different viewpoints to have a voice - and somehow, under our laws, we come up with a society that is decent to all.

Bashing people based on their religion is your right. It is a constitutionally protected expression of free speech. But so is book burning.

I think this thread goes against the spirit of democracy.

Attack the policies of Bush, and I will join you.

But don't teneralize all of the ills of society and blame them on a religion.



The entire thread is here:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14472

Bigotry is wrong, whether it is against Christians or Moslems. I feel confident in saying that I have consistantly opposed bigotry against both religions.

(P.S. it is also interesting to compare Au's position on the thread linked above with his position in this thread.)
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 11:33 pm
I have to cut in and speak for Ebrown here, I have agreed with him and ahmad's post(s) all along.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 11:58 pm
Sofia wrote:
Would you not agree that if I started a thread glorifying Christian tenets of loving one another, and that the Christian religion espoused turning the other cheek, rather than resorting to violence....


That one bears just a bit of thought to comprehend properly.

Quote:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;


Jesus said to turn the other cheek when somebody 'smites' you. Notice that he doesn't
really say anything about the case in which the other guy tries to shoot you in
the back under cover of darkness, rape and kill your wife and daughters,
massacre your village and make a pyramid of skulls of the local populace, tear
the village down to the last stone and salt the fields, or anything of that
nature. In fact, there are a number of assumptions built into the statement
which Christ makes: he is assuming, more or less, that something like the Pax
Romana is in place, that everybody in the picture is living under the same law,
can communicate, and that no really lethal intentions are in play.

Now, the path he lays out is sufficiently difficult to follow GIVEN those assumptions.
WITHOUT those assumptions, all bets are off. You might find some way to deal
with barbarians in a Christian manner and more power to you if you can, but
there is no way in which you can be REQUIRED to deal with barbarians in a
Christian manner.
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 01:21 am
and my dear s(erbian)wolf, as I also already said - person with IQ higher then 37 would be more then satisfied with numerous links I provided from serbian side about real truth. I am not debating with you on your level (you are using cheap serbian propaganda, so I will use cheap croatian propaganda), but I rather used much more efficient method (you are using cheap serbian propaganda, I am using EXCLUSIVELY AND ONLY SERBIAN LINKS AND SERBIAN COMMENTS ABOUT NUMEROUS EVENTS).

Facts that you were given SERBIAN links with following content:

1. Montenegrian president apologizing to Croats for participation of Montenegro in serbian agression.

2. Leader of Serbs from Croatia ADMITING numerous ethnical crimes towards Croats, stating that HE FEELS ASHAMED, and ASKING FORGIVENESS (once again: serbian link, not some croatian, bosnian or american propagadna) - how stupid someone should be for not understanding this particular part? Is it possible that even mentally retarded person would fail to understand?

3. Bosnian Serb agencies reporting about mass graves of Muslims

4. Court in Belgrade, SERBIA, beginning trial for six soldiers accused (among many) for killing 200 Croats from Vukovar hospital

5. Serbian media reporting about raising number of nazi incidents in Serbia, including BURNING OF MOSQUES IN BELGRADE AND NIS, BEATING OF ROMAS, etc...

Edit: If that along with the fact that Serbia-Slovenia war was fought EXCLUSIVELY in Slovenia, Serbia-Croatia war EXCLUSIVELY in Croatia, and Serbia-Bosnia war EXCLUSIVELY in Bosnia, with, as I said before, not a single bullet fired from Slovenia, Croatia or Bosnia on any serbian town or city (you are unable to find any other claim even in your cheapest chetnik propaganda), well, if all of that is not enough, then:


...you have all the right in the world to be blind. You have all the right in the world also to be bigoted towards Croats, Muslims, Islam, Catholics, Bosnians and against whoever you want (of course, while that's just in your head and not in actions).
But if you are only barely trying to be objective in any of cases that interest you, then you should be rather think about strength of your arguments (almost exclusively serbian links, serbian documentaries, etc...) and arguments on other side (SERBIAN links about real truth - and let me remind you that Serbia is not Iraq - there is no some occupation government in Serbia that would maybe print stuff under influence of american occupying troops - Serbia is completely independent country)

As for WW2, I tried to explane you that it's just another case of cheap serbian propaganda, but if you refuse to listen, then again - well, that's your right. About what Croatian Nazis did in WW2 we completely agree, but person with minimal knowledge about WW2 know at the same time that leader of Anti-Nazi movement in all ex Yugoslavia was Croat. So, can you tell me how is that possible? Serbs were only good guys, Croats were bloody murders, but leader of Anti-Nazi movement was Croat? Croat from Croatia, of course.

If you want real truth - only that could be called real good guys in WW2 in Balkans would be Slovenes. Because 99% of them fought against nazism. Both Serbs and Croats fought nazism in large numbers, but were also nazis in large number, and same goes for Bosnian Muslims.
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 01:39 am
e_brown, I don't know how to put it...in a way, I totally and completely agree with you, I just think that you are making wrong conclusions from correct opinions and correct definitions.
After your first post, some comments came that actually may be called bigoted, although I would rather call them fear of Islam. It surely is form of bigotry, but benign, because I am sure that most of participants would not abuse or avoid Muslims in their neighbourhood in any way (swolf, however, is terribly afraid of Islam what you can see in his other posts and he would like to start Holy War, but he was not there when you first came)

What I meant to say is: you can't call every fear bigotry. You can call it irational, you can try to break it with arguments, you can be even pissed off that someone thinks that, but you cannot call them bigots only because they are afraid. Especially when they have some (very shaky, not correct, but still...) ground for that - worst terrorism in World today, and aimed against largest number of people is, ACCIDENTLY, islamic terrorism
Immidiately I will tell you that I am NOT blaming Islam for that, that I am NOT afraid of Muslims, that after all, once again, my country is neighbouring Muslim country and my first door neighbour is Muslim and I was never afraid for a single second that evil Bosnians will come to get us, or that my neighbour is terrorist.
I am only saying that I CAN understand (although I am not approving it, and I agree with you that it's wrong) that some people might be afraid.


And everything else that goes on between Ahmad and me is debate in which, I am sure, there is respect on both sides. I would debate American about everyhting bad I think about Bush's government, and I already did that several times, and I don't think that it's bigotry against Americans.

However, I will admit one thing. Just as same as I think that Ahmad MAYBE made small mistake with not adding at least few words in his post as explanation, I SURELY made same mistake in my first post and it MIGHT sound as attack, although it wasn't and considering tone of our conversation, I am sure Ahmad understands that....
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 04:32 am
swolf wrote:

I'll say it again, I am not a member of the orthodox church (yet), although that could change.


I would rather suggest you Mel Gibson's church.
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 04:38 am
and as for your pathetic links, in 10 minutes I will give you numerous links about whatever you want, just ask: would you like to know more about Holocaust? Or would you like to see that Holocaust never happened? would you like to know about nazi scum? or would you like to find out that all thing about Hitler is just a western plot?
would you like to know about bad, cruel and bloody Croats, Serbs, Israelis, Palestinians, Americans, Iraqis, Muslims, Christians...??

So, spare me of pathetic links and rather try to read what Serbs are saying themselves - just for your eyes special re-run of most important fact:

2. Leader of Serbs from Croatia ADMITING numerous ethnical crimes towards Croats, stating that HE FEELS ASHAMED, and ASKING FORGIVENESS (once again: serbian link, not some croatian, bosnian or american propaganda) - how stupid someone should be for not understanding this particular part? Is it possible that even mentally retarded person would fail to understand?

http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=26639&dd=27&mm=01&yyyy=2004
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 07:32 am
MyOwnUsername wrote:
and my dear s(erbian)wolf, as I also already said - person with IQ higher then 37 would be more then satisfied with numerous links I provided from serbian side about real truth...


I think the basic idea here is that NATO bombs those people into the stone age, destroys the entire civilian infrastructure of the country, and then withholds any sort of aid for rebuilding until a certain level of "contrition" has been shown by the victims, false statements made, a handful of erstwhile politicians handed over to the kangaroo court at the Hague...

Tell you what, pal. There is a sort of a short list of things I'd pay a hundred dollars to watch, and I used to think that sort of thing was entirely wishful thinking, but then I actually got to watch one of those things happen last year, i.e. Arnold telling the dufe out there in California (Davis) he'd been terminated...

The thing at the top of that list now would be having the spetznaz rescue Slobodan Milosevic. Actually, if they could do that and shoot the Hague to pieces in the process I suspect a lot of people would pay TWO hundred dollars to watch; that would be a legitimate two hundred dollar ticket.

I'll say again, you could get an idea of the size of the audience for that one by checking the Balkans threads on FreeRepublic:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=any;o=score;s=balkans

Basically, the ordinary rank and file republicans who do the footwork for the republican party which runs this country have figured out that we bombed the wrong side in 1999.

http://www.icdsm.org/sloba3.jpg

http://www.icdsm.org/
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 07:42 am
Another version of the story about Serbia acting as safe haven for allied airmen; a Jew trying to convince his fellow Jews that America bombed the wrong side in 1999....

http://www.jbuff.com/c120700.htm

Again, the basic idea of dog-wag III (Kosovo) was to take Chinagate and the Juanita Broaddrick rape story off the front pages of American newspapers.
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 07:59 am
only problem with those claims is that NATO bombing happened years after Serbian agression on Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia, and that, in fact, I wasn't supporting NATO attacks on Serbia, because, UNLIKE YOU, I live here, and as well as I know (and I FELT) what was happening in Croatia or Bosnia, I know what was happening in Kosovo too.

As of other things, fact that you would pay to see one of biggest war criminals in modern times free says enough about you. And that has NOTHING to do with Serbs. Majority of them would pay to see him convicted. Luckily, they will not have to pay. They will get it for free.

Fact still remains that you are completely ignoring strongest arguments in this debate, such as statements of serbian officials, war leaders, generals, etc...statements from serbian media. So, if you think that your small devoted group knows better then Serbs themselves, well, that's your basic human right to think that, but it's pretty ridiculous.

And as for links, I'll repeat myself: you can find some links that justify just about any idea that ever existed. If you REALLY think that links of ghost serbian and american organizations can compare with statements of serbian war leaders, provided from official websites of serbian media, and not some similar ghost organizations of any origin (I didn't even wanted to provide you with links of neutral international organizations or groups, I used ONLY official serbian websites).

Fact remains that you haven't answered single question:
a) if Serbs were only good guys on Balkans in WW2 how come leader of anti-nazi movement (leader of all Serbian anti-nazi fighters as well) was Croat? And second by importance was Slovene?
b) what shall we do with fact that serbian war leader in Croatia admits guilt, feels ashamed and begs for forgiveness?
c) and what shall we do with serbian vice-admirals and montenegrian presidents admiting their actions?
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 08:18 am
some more SERBIAN sources for your pleasure:

"This country has been Nazi-fied," says Sonja Biserko, chairwoman of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia

http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/1997/12/19/intl/intl.3.html

Members of the Zvornik Brigade, which belonged to the Drina Corps, participated in the executions in the village of Orahovac (paragraphs 123-124 of the judgment) and in the village of Nezuk (para. 127). Members of the same brigade transported Muslims to the execution site at the Petkovci dam (para. 125), and the Drina Corps military police brought the civilians to the Branjevo farm, another execution site (para. 126).

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/07/serbia8573.htm - Human Rights Watch quoting Bogdan Ivanisevic's article from serbian magazine Danas.

Draskovic clearly said that the Serbian nazism remained undefeated. Since, as Crnjanski put it, people here forget rapidly and a lot and become shamelessly furious if one tries to brush up their memory, Draskovic was asked to specify what the Serbian nazism is, how it is manifested, what its symbols are and what parties or persons advocate it. He said nazism was in the ethnic cleansing, destruction of houses and mosques, conversion to Christianity, beating and murdering. Draskovic added that we still did not know what happened to a group of ethnic Muslim citizens of Serbia who had been kidnapped three years ago.

http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/serbian_digest/219/t219-7.htm - serbian magazine "Vreme", quoting Vuk Draskovic, today serbian minister of externall affairs.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 08:25 am
swolf wrote:
Sofia wrote:
Would you not agree that if I started a thread glorifying Christian tenets of loving one another, and that the Christian religion espoused turning the other cheek, rather than resorting to violence....


That one bears just a bit of thought to comprehend properly.

Quote:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;


Jesus said to turn the other cheek when somebody 'smites' you. Notice that he doesn't
really say anything about the case in which the other guy tries to shoot you in
the back under cover of darkness, rape and kill your wife and daughters,
massacre your village and make a pyramid of skulls of the local populace, tear
the village down to the last stone and salt the fields, or anything of that
nature. In fact, there are a number of assumptions built into the statement
which Christ makes: he is assuming, more or less, that something like the Pax
Romana is in place, that everybody in the picture is living under the same law,
can communicate, and that no really lethal intentions are in play.

Now, the path he lays out is sufficiently difficult to follow GIVEN those assumptions.
WITHOUT those assumptions, all bets are off. You might find some way to deal
with barbarians in a Christian manner and more power to you if you can, but
there is no way in which you can be REQUIRED to deal with barbarians in a
Christian manner.


swolf, I hope you are kidding.

"Do not resist evil" seems pretty clear to me.

But if you won't listen to the words of Christ, listen to His example. He did live under this so called "Pax Romana" you are talking about where "no really lethal intentions [were] in play".

Yet in this society He was brutally beaten. Then He was nailed alive to a hunk of wood and then left to die an agonizing death. This is brutal torture in my view.

If the biblical account is true He had the power to prevent this from happen yet he accepted it. More than this, He prayed for the forgiveness of his torturers while they were torturing Him.

I deeply respect this part of the Christian faith.

A Christian is one who follows Christ. Both the words and example of Christ say that a Christian will deal with anyone, even those you consider barbarians, in a "Christian" manner.

What else does love your enemies mean?
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 08:26 am
and here is what SERBIAN magazines say about YOU (well, not you directly, but still...)

These stereotypes include the following: Croats are genocidal, Muslims are suicidal, independent journalists and opposition leaders cooperate with foreign intelligence agencies, certain nations hate Serbs, the New Order, and the international conspiracy against Serbs. These stereotypes now have the authority of the Ten Commandments. Anyone who thinks, writes or acts outside their framework becomes a traitor, enemy of the people or a member of the ``fifth column.''

It is interesting to note reactions which followed the appearance of the ``Protocol of the Zion Wise Men,'' an antiJewish pamphlet. Somehow all the various statements made by different parties and institutions leave the impression of having been written by the same author. All condemn the above mentioned forgery, and at the same time underscore the ``antiSerbian activities of Jewish intellectuals,''

Will our shame outlive us?

http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/serbian_digest/match.cfm?urlfile=http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/serbian_digest/133/T133-9.HTM&qquery=atrocities#hit
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 08:28 am
e_brown, no, he is not kidding unfortunately. In another topic he is clearly calling for Holy War if I am right that
"Soon you will all have to choose sides"
and posting pictures of campers (representing Christians) brutally killed by grizzlies (representing Islam)
means that....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/01/2024 at 05:40:23