In a conversation about whether the United States should use Disproportionate Retaliation. That is the notion in the event a nation attacks your nation you will retaliate with an extreme attack to leave them incentives to not respond. I actually didn’t participate in that bit of the conversation. I made a comment on the issue of whether Islam is violent. I’ll edit my comment here because Twitter is a garbage media site that doesn’t allow anyone adequate room to respond.
https://twitter.com/Payne4TXSHRD120/status/1353142934699446273
Ronald Payne:
The fear of Disproportionate Retaliation is only real if the threat of it will actually occur as contrasted from such threat being mere words. Obama threats were only words. Israel actually does carry out its policy of Disproportionate Retaliation…
Richard Beaulé:
And is a nation in endless conflict as a result, a population forced to undergo security measures that would never fly in the U.S., and STILL lives under constant threat of bombs and attacks. No peace there, just as I said. Another poor example on your part.
TheSire:
While I’m not a big fan of Israel. It’s in a constant war because of the wicked Islamic ideology.
Ronald Payne:
I disagree… The Islamic Faith itself is not the problem. The problem is crazies who claim the Islamic Faith as their justification to perpetrate EVIL. The same concept can be said of Christians and Jews, take Abortion as one example. Many claim to be, and yet they are not…
TheSire:
If Islam isn’t a motivating factor, then why does anyone appeal to it as justification for terror? We may argue it’s because they have mistaken the message of their sources or that those sources give credence to the violent ideology.
If they are wrong, then it seems we can easily conclude your right. The problem is that looking at the historical evidence they have the better case. For example, Muslims often hope for the death of apostates. Here’s a popular Muslim apologist:
You don’t get anything similar in Christian statements or Christian sources. It seems to me quite obvious that you can’t warrant the idea from Christianity. The KKK often thought to be Christian but nobody thinks racism has a biblical basis.
Lastly, the focus on the nation of Israel is that Muslims wish to claim back one of their holy sites. They believe it to be rightfully theirs.
Ronald Payne:
I support 1A and the Right of any Person to believe in ANY Religious Faith, or no Religious Faith, and to PEACEFULLY practice their Religion, or not to practice any Religion at all…
TheSire:
My argument isn’t against the first amendment. My argument is to argue certain religions are violent. The ancient Aztec religious practice of cannibalism is an example. That doesn’t mean the religion isn’t true. God may require us to be violent. These religions happen to be false and that entails the violence caused because of them is usually unwarranted/immoral. Furthermore, this is my explanation of the conflict in the Middle East.
Richard Beaulé:
Can’t agree on that.
TheSire:
There are some issues here. The crusades and inquisition were conducted by Catholics. I don’t think Catholicism is true.
Furthermore, you didn’t listen to my criteria closely. It has to have historical evidence (which would be a statement from authoritative sources). In your article it states:
“Lightning believes that Jesus Christ will return to Earth in the form of a Chinese woman.”
Do you really think this has evidence? The Bible teaches Jesus will return the way he left. Your article sites many things that are hardly Christian.
Richard Beaulé:
Religion is based on faith. When dealing with issues and beliefs of faith, evidence isn’t always the primary criterion.
I understand your criterion. But faith only requires you believe, and those groups do. At the end of the day, evidence or not, that is their justification for their actions.
TheSire:
The problem is that faith is arbitrary. People can place faith in anything. The question is are they rightly placing their faith and that faith justifying the violence. You have a burden then I’m arguing these cults are true representatives of the Christian faith.
If you were consistent with your criterion then you would concede these terrorist groups are true representations of Islam because they claim they believe it. But that’s merely to concede my point that Islamic Terrorists are the case because of Islam.
The understanding of faith and it’s relation to reason is more complicated than you’re making it out to be. You’re presenting a view I don’t hold. I think faith under girds reason. I don’t think faith is set against reason.
Richard Beaulé:
That question is itself a subjective judgment, one I’m not interested in arguing.
TheSire:
That’s not subjective. You’re being obtuse because you’re not comprehending the argument or haven’t got an actual reason to reject it.
From the Quran, Surah 9:29 Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, nor abide by the religion of truth—from among those who received the Scripture—until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.
Very peaceful.
The Council 