Posted on 06/22/2006 3:26:54 PM PDT by bnelson44
You mean other than the fact that they don't refer to themselves by those terms and those terms belay a series of lies designed to undermind our country's willingness to fight the proper foe? But other than that, sure, go ahead, by all means use them.
You mean other than the fact that they don't refer to themselves by those terms and those terms belay a series of lies designed to undermind our country's willingness to fight the proper foe? But other than that, sure, go ahead, by all means use them.
Thus far Christianity, Judaism, and Islam agree on their conception of God. Is this enough for all three to refer to 'God' and mean the same thing? I think that it would be safe to say that all three share a similar conception that crystalizes in the word 'God,' in a way that is radically different from, say, a Hindu or Buddhist's conception of deity (or lack of such a conception). If a Hindu speaks of 'God' I can be sure he has nothing close to classical monotheism in mind. But if a Muslim or Jew speaks to me of 'God' I can be pretty sure that we share many basic conceptions.
Yet there are still massive differences between our conceptions. I believe, and the Christian faith orthodoxly recieved, says of God that yes He is One, but He is God in Trinity, and that the Second Person of the Trinity has become man. For a Jew or Muslim this is extremely problematic to say the least. But can we still share the term 'God' and imagine ourselves having some common ground in using it?
That goes not only for Muslims, but for Jews and non-Trinitarian Christians: if I speak of God to them are we talking about the same thing? I think the answer is yes and no. It cannot be an unqualified yes, for the non-Christian (yet still monotheist) conception of God is non-Trinitarian, and Trinitarianism is at the very core of the Christian faith and understanding of God. It cannot be sacrificed whatever Episcopelian bishops say. Yet I do not think that I must speak of 'god' when I am refering to Jewish, Islamic, or otherwise non-Trinitarian monotheists: there is enough common ground for us to all speak of God even though we do not mean the exact same thing, when in fact we have very serious and important divergences.
Allah is the moon god, chosen by the false prophet from a pantheon of 'gods.'
Yep. That's why a møøselimb coworker of mine strenuously and vocally objected to my "God Bless America" sign that I put in my cubicle ON 9/11!!!
Let's just call them "Raghead scumbags" and leave it at that.
By the way; I've been wondering. When did "Moslem" become "Muslim" and why?
REAL Prophets climb mountains to be closer to God.
They don't crawl into a hole to listen to the hissings of a Serpent.
It's no accident that møølimbs pray with their faces to the dirt, and their arses pointed at Heaven.
Good article.
Insightful post: your #10.
If they called themselves "Oh wonderful One's - Oh God's Gifts to Mankind" would you call them that? These guys are on the money -- we need to do the defining. Not them.
This gets repeated a lot but it isn't true. The Arabic word for god is ilah, not allah. Allah is a proper name, like Jehovah or Zeus, refering to a specific individual rather than a general concept of deity.
Arab Christians use Allah in their religious language
Yes they do; they didn't before Islam gained dominance of the middle eastern regions, though (900 AD or so). Political and cultural domination of a region inevitably results in such contamination of the native population.
Thus far Christianity, Judaism, and Islam agree on their conception of God
I don't agree. Just having a few similar traits (omnipresent, omniscient, etc) doesn't mean the concept is the same, especially when there are numerous traits that are incompatible.
But can we still share the term 'God' and imagine ourselves having some common ground in using it?
Certainly; at least if you don't care what particular deity you happen to be worshipping. If we're only concerned about some vague concept of God and we really know in our rational minds that God doesn't really exist or that our concept of God isn't really accurate and it's all made up anyway, then sure; it's fine. But if God is real; if God actually exists as a person, then I think he would get as annoyed by having people worship an imposter as you or I would if someone stole our wallet and went around pretending to be either of us.
That goes not only for Muslims, but for Jews and non-Trinitarian Christians: if I speak of God to them are we talking about the same thing?
I think your answer of "yes and no" applies here fairly well. It is possible (such as Christians might assert that the Jews believe) to have an incomplete view of God, just as it is possible (as the Jews might assert or Christians might assert over other denominations) to have an erroneous view of God. But in the case of Jews and Christians it is fairly clear that at least the same entity is being discussed. In the case of Islam we're dealing with a different entity altogether.
The problem is that you simply can't ignore the real facts just because a proponent of the religion asserts that you should. The problem is that Islam claims to be an Abrahamic faith, but that Ibrahim actually worshiped this other god named Allah all the time and that the Jews and Christians got it all wrong. Islam makes certain claims that can't possibly be true. Ignoring the religious claims and looking at secular history, we know the Kaaba was a temple for a pantheon of gods (among whom was Allah) and that before Mohammed came along there was no philosophical nor historical connection to the Jewish or Christian faith.
In short, we know Islam is based on lies. Perhaps Judaism and Christianity are also false religions as some atheists might claim, but in their case at least they are internally self-consistent. There is no obvious historical evidence that proves Christianity to be false, but the same cannot be said for Islam. If as a greek I were to destroy the temples of all the other deities of the greek pantheon and assert that Zeus almighty is the only true god, that doesn't mean that Zeus then becomes the same entity as Jehovah or Allah or Dave, and it certainly doesn't mean that I should translate "Dave" as "God" just to placate someone who might think Dave is so great that he should be worshipped as the creator deity.
ping
ping
Works for me
Let's just call them "dead"--and ASAP
If you want to start calling them Musfidun and their campaigns of destruction hirabah, go right ahead. Let me know how many people understand you. When asked what you mean, say mujahdeen and jihad. Then people will get you.
This article says that we should change the terms we use not for our own benefit, but rather because of connotations in other cultures. If we're talking about using these different terms in propaganda in Muslim countries themselves, fine. But reforming our language here at home is not going to sell.
No it is not. I have been in international sales for 30 years and know that the correct word gets your point across. It would be like you calling yourself a New Yorker and me doing the same. Truth is, to my neighbors I refer to you as a damn yankee, and if I wanted to irritate you, I would call you that to your face.
In politics and war, never let the other guy get in his comfort zone.
These a-holes can call themselves whatever they want, but that doesn't change the facts that the words described in this article to denote criminalty and degeneracy are more correct and appropriate.
Unfortunately, I think it's too late now. It's a pity the PR guys on our side didn't think of this stuff back five years ago.
I think you're missing the point. They refer to us as "crusaders," you know. We don't use or accept that term; they use it to persuade other Muslims to a false understanding of us. Why should we use the terms for them that they use, which terms have positive connotations to the Muslim world? Instead, we should use terms for them that have extremely negative connotations to the Muslims. At worst, using these alternate terms will have no effect. At best, they will draw some Muslims away from the terrorists. I don't understand your objection with this at all. Even if you believe all Muslims are our enemies and must be defeated, why not attempt to sow some discord in their ranks?
Okay. That's informative. Anyone with the inclination can call them what these guys suggest.
I'll just call them terrorists and what they practice, terrorism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.