Islam does not hate christianity

No. First off, how can a question be a strawman? A strawman is a claim based on a misconstruction of the argument. Since I am making no claim it cannot be a strawman. I was responding to buz when he said. He agrees that the policy of destroying the homes of militants and suicide bombers is necessary. I was asking HIM a question about how he justifies this in his Christian moral framework. The whole world has been telling them that they are wrong. Some of my posts previous to this lists some of the worldwide comdemndation of Israel's tactics. Even their allies condemn their actions. Even the US. This is an unsubstantiated claim. If have a basis for this then show us. It appears that this comes from your resolute opinion that Islam is violent and religiously imperialistic. If you have support for this claim other than your speculation then lets hear it. Uh no. I was talking to buz and what he said. It might be a strawman of what he was saying and it might not be. It more for effect anyway so so what? The fighting continues because every resolution for peace has called for Israel to abide by UN resolutions. Since they refuse no peace can be reached. I don't think the Palestinians asking Israel to adhere to international law is too much to ask.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 02-28-2005 10:28 AM

---

By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, "...contentious but futile protest vote by democrats." By the time Jeb Bush is elected president you will be so wasted you wont even notice the war in Syria.
-- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

quote:

---

My point has been that the ISRAELI side of the story is not heard. ASK THEM for heaven's sake, don't ask me!

---

The reason I am asking you, faith, to tell me what the Israeli side of the story is, is because you seem to have your finger on the pulse of the Israeli side of things.Didn't you say that you have been studying it for several years?Surely, being more expert than I am, you must have the ability to form some kind of hypothesis of why the Israeli army would torch a Palestinian family's crops and bulldoze their olive trees, don't you?What is your educated guess as to why they would do that?

No it is not the proper name of their God. Allah literally translates into "The God".Forbidden You do not get to define what Allah means. They do!This message has been edited by Jazzns, 02-28-2005 10:35 AM

Thanks Jar. I do understand. I just felt that this was my torch to pick up.

Arab Christians still use Allah when talking about God. If you think your point about the proper name of God in Arabic is correct then please explain this before you pat yourself on the back.{ABE}Also see my previous message to buz Message 303.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 02-28-2005 10:40 AM

---

By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, "...contentious but futile protest vote by democrats." By the time Jeb Bush is elected president you will be so wasted you wont even notice the war in Syria.
-- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Oh, so any time Israel runs its soldiers through token proceedings, we're supposed to believe that's justice?As it turns out, the civil investigation has not been completed; criminal charges have still not been cleared against him. He's merely been cleared by a military oversight board; a seperate criminal investigation proceeds against him. And, of course, we don't even known who we're talking about - his name, though he's not a minor, is still not yet public.I don't see the justice. Can you explain it to me? How is that grounds for clearing him? Iman Al-Hams isn't really dead because the witnesses were lying? She wasn't really shot 15 times? Then who did her family bury? Yet, what he did was found by the military investigation not to be contrary to Israeli policy. As you pointed out, they cleared him.What do you think that means? You're arguing from both sides of your mouth - on the one hand, he didn't do anything wrong according to Israeli policy, yet a sentence later, you're caling it the actions of a soldier "who went nuts.". Which is it? It's not surprising to see you bend over backwards in these rhetorical gymnastics to protect Israel, no matter the human cost.

quote:

---

This is the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

​

It goes like this:

​

"No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

​

Angus MacGregor, who has always lived in Glasgow, puts sugar on his porridge.

​

Angus MacGregor is not a true Scotsman."

---

If the sugar use defines the Scot, then Angus is a not.

quote:

---

You are simply redefining, to adhere to our modern cultural sensibilities, what it means to be Christian in order to distance yourself from the atocities committed by Christians.

---

I acknowledge atrocities committed by some who call themselves Christian. There is no biblical directive for Christians to commit atrocities. Therefore, those who do, are not.I can call myself a brain surgeon, but unless I know the routine, I'm a fraud. I can call myself the emperor of China....well, you know.

quote:

---

Matthew 7:16, 17, 18: By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

---

quote:

---

As a man thinks in his heart, so is he Proverbs 3:27

---

A man who thinks like a killer, is a killer, not a Christian.

quote:

---

This is the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

​

It goes like this:

​

"No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

​

Angus MacGregor, who has always lived in Glasgow, puts sugar on his porridge.

​

Angus MacGregor is not a true Scotsman."

---

If the sugar use defines the Scot, then Angus is a not.

quote:

---

You are simply redefining, to adhere to our modern cultural sensibilities, what it means to be Christian in order to distance yourself from the atocities committed by Christians.

---

I acknowledge atrocities committed by some who call themselves Christian. There is no biblical directive for Christians to commit atrocities. Therefore, those who do, are not.I can call myself a brain surgeon, but unless I know the routine, I'm a fraud. I can call myself the emperor of China....well, you know.

quote:

---

Matthew 7:16, 17, 18: By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

---

quote:

---

As a man thinks in his heart, so is he Proverbs 3:27

---

A man who thinks like a killer, is a killer, not a Christian.

Can you tell when to trust your eyes and when not to?
Can you cite an example in life of when you didn't trust your own eyes?

---

-one word to describe me, spectacular yes

quote:

---

That's what God says. (that Jews need to be eliminated)

---

Where?OT god-commanded elimination of certain peoples is a foretaste, and well-describes the reasons for destruction. Check it out.God-commanded - not any other.This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 02-28-2005 15:05 AM

But that's the fallacy - that's not the definition of "Scotsman"; at any rate its certainly not the definition offered at the beginning of the argument. You commit the No True Scotsman fallacy when you redefine something mid-argument in response to a counterexample.That's why it's such a pernicious fallacy; you commit the fallacy of begging the question while using a fallacy of equivocation to conceal it. Ad-hoc redefinition of "Christian". "Christian" merely refers to those who assert that they follow the teachings of Christ. Whether or not their actions demonstrate that they do follow those teaching is quite irrelevant. They're still Christians if they claim to follow Christ.

Angel messengers:10:5 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins [were] girded with fine gold of Uphaz:10:6 His body also [was] like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.10:7 And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves.10:8 Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me: for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength.10:9 Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard the voice of his words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground.10:10 And, behold, an hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and [upon] the palms of my hands.10:11 And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak unto thee, and stand upright: for unto thee am I now sent. And when he had spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling.10:12 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.10:14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision [is] for [many] days.=========The story of Balak. Starting with Numbers 22:22 But now the anger of God flared up at him for going, and the angel of the LORD stationed himself on the road to hinder him as he was riding along on his ass, accompanied by two of his servants.
23 When the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing on the road with sword drawn, she turned off the road and went into the field, and Balaam had to beat her to bring her back on the road.
24 Then the angel of the LORD took his stand in a narrow lane between vineyards with a stone wall on each side.
25 When the ass saw the angel of the LORD there, she shrank against the wall; and since she squeezed Balaam's leg against it, he beat her again.
26 The angel of the LORD then went ahead, and stopped next in a passage so narrow that there was no room to move either to the right or to the left.
27 When the ass saw the angel of the LORD there, she cowered under Balaam. So, in anger, he again beat the ass with his stick.and so on.

Thank you, but I disagree. A scot is born one, regardless of what he eats. And, therefore, the analogy is moot.A Christian is so by choice. He loses the definition by his actions.
You abide by the rules of the club, or you are out, and you can call yourself by the name of it ad infinitum, but you are still out.
A conversion is necessary, steps are necessary to become Christian. Simply born into an area where there are some, is not enough. A relationship with God is not a collective, but a one on one.
To maintain membership is a daily struggle, moment by moment. Error requires forgiveness, and if not asked, exclusion from the club.If sugar eating would define membership in the Scot club, and if the Scot were to eat sugar, he'd be out of the club.Do you see it?OK with me if you don't.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Albert, I agree!

quote:

---

Straw man. Misrepresentation.

​

No. First off, how can a question be a strawman? A strawman is a claim based on a misconstruction of the argument. Since I am making no claim it cannot be a strawman. I was responding to buz when he said.

---

Sorry, I answered out of turn. But it is a straw man. You certainly are making a claim, as in "Do you still beat your wife?" that's no question. But I'll leave you and Buz to sort out the rest since it wasn't my place to answer.

You need to learn the definition of a straw manStraw man - Wikipedia No I am not. He expressed his support for their actions. I am asking him how he reconciles that with his Christianity and the principles thereof. This is a legitimate question. No ulterior motive intended.

---

FOX has a prety good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show