|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 14, 2007 16:34:51 GMT -5
phin, We are both well aware that media will selectively report according to their own agenda. You had previously used this to suggest that the media may have over-reported the numbers involved in violent protests of the Jylland's Posten cartoons. How does such an assertation make since in light of this clear indication that media does tend to under-report even lone muslim terrorists?
Edit:spelling mistakes corrected
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 15, 2007 0:03:06 GMT -5
I was trying to make an analogy that would compare the perhaps justifyable reticence of a Christian to consider the possibility that his own interpretation of Christianity was incorrect if his opposition presented it from the standpoint that Jesus' own words were somehow wrong with a Muslim put in the same position if it was argued that Mohammed's words were somehow wrong. Totally hypothetical situation and should not be taken as me saying that Christianity is wrong.
Again, arguing not about the wording but on the practical interpretation of what is meant by the various passages of the Q'uran.
I think you can make the same argument about passages in the Old Testament.
For example...."eye for an eye".
Is that to be taken literally...so that, if your actions cause another person's arm to be broken, yours should be broken as well?
Or might it mean to use judgement and institute proportional justice based on the seriousness of the infraction, to not sentence a jaywalker to 50 years in prison?
Now I do understand that there are those Christians who believe that the Bible is to be taken literally. I do not subscribe to that belief and that might well make me a good deal more amenable to belief in Muslim moderation. But I don't think that automatically disqualifies me from being a Christian either.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 16, 2007 23:54:26 GMT -5
Well, if a Christian is to be quite literal, then none of the harsh laws of the Old Testament were ever directed at anyone but the people of Israel. Judaism is not evangelical. Christians have taken that law upon themselves, but where are they called to impose said law by sword? Islam does call its believers to such a task. In the very words of mo'. Clear, concise words that do not lend themselves well to creative re-interpretation nor mystic obfuscation.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 28, 2007 18:34:03 GMT -5
|
|