Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Many time's in quarell we forget that Muslim(Alah) and Chrsitian(God) have one and unified Lord.So basically they believe in the same things,just differently.Muslim also accepts the New Testament and consider the Jesus as a prophet.
So why are there so many conflicts between them?
Is it HOW to believe more important,than in WHO to believe?

My 2-cents worth: religionistic one-upmanship stemming from a profound and unconscious fear of not being real.

Originally posted by Arel

Is it HOW to believe more important,than in WHO to believe?

Doesn't that become the same thing?

Originally posted by Arel
Many time's in quarell we forget that Muslim(Alah) and Chrsitian(God) have one and unified Lord.So basically they believe in the same things,just differently.Muslim also accepts the New Testament and consider the Jesus as a prophet.
So why are there so many conflicts between them?
Is it HOW to believe more important,than in WHO to believe?

As most are batshit insane.

Originally posted by Arel
Many time's in quarell we forget that Muslim(Alah) and Chrsitian(God) have one and unified Lord.So basically they believe in the same things,just differently.Muslim also accepts the New Testament and consider the Jesus as a prophet.
So why are there so many conflicts between them?
Is it HOW to believe more important,than in WHO to believe?

Not according to the extremist Muslims.

Extremism on both sides is the root of the problem.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not according to the extremist Muslims.

Extremism on both sides is the root of the problem.

I'll partially agree.

The root of the problem is that to see the underlying unities in the religions, one must view their texts and teachings as metaphors, not literal truth. Once you make it literal (Jesus as the actual Son of God, Mohammad as his prophet, etc.) you become dogmatic. This is right; ergo, anything else isn't right. It forms the base of the divide between any two ideologies, religious or otherwise.

Beyond that, yes, most of the outward animosity is due to extremism, which thankfully is in the minority in most sects. These minorities are highly publicized, however, due to the prominence of their actions, so stereotypes and widespread fear/hatred begin to occur.

The flip side of that coin is non-extremist Christianity and/or Islam. For such an emphasis on blind faith in either religion, at any level, added to the subjectivity of interpretation of religious meaning, and you foster a climate where extremist violence will occur. The "good" religious who don't condone such behavior are still tacit accomplices to it due to the fact that they endorse the ideas (faith; adherence to religious texts as dogmatic truth) that lead to such behavior. The fact that not all succumb to such violence is not the point; that some inevitably will when presented with such ideas is the point.

So long as those two things exist, faith and literal belief in outlandish paranormal religious claims, such animosity will exist.

Ummm

I hate to point this out...

but the conflict is entirely secular and its modern incarnation is American provoked.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Ummm

I hate to point this out...

but the conflict is entirely secular and its modern incarnation is American provoked.

There are people in both religions who hate or fear the opposing side for religious reasons. It might not be the majority, but it exists. Calling it "entirely" anything is clearly false.

And while I won't formally refute you, since you have a point that some of it is driven by American political and/or cultural forces, we also can't simply ignore 9/11 and its profound statement on this topic. I wouldn't exactly call that "American provoked."

You wouldnt call 9/11 American Provoked?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You wouldnt call 9/11 American Provoked?

Hrn. One could, I suppose, trace its roots through history to a myriad of causes that defy nationalistic boundaries, and would include American influence. But no, I wouldn't. Whatever transgressions were made by America (I'm not so naive as to pretend there were none) certainly weren't at the level that an act like 9/11 was an inevitable consequence of them. 9/11 was Muslim extremism waging their war on both another religion and another culture.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Hrn. One could, I suppose, trace its roots through history to a myriad of causes that defy nationalistic boundaries, and would include American influence. But no, I wouldn't. Whatever transgressions were made by America (I'm not so naive as to pretend there were none) certainly weren't at the level that an act like 9/11 was an inevitable consequence of them. 9/11 was Muslim extremism waging their war on both another religion and another culture.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You wouldnt call 9/11 American Provoked?

I don't think the cold-blooded murders of approximately 3,000 people were provoked, no. Even if you think they were, I'd like to remind you of the Khobar Towers incident in Kenya and the bombing of the USS Cole. They were performed by Muslim extremists and what did America do about it? Nothing. Osama bin Ladin was put at Public Enemy Number 1 in the FBI and the United States military did not receive any special orders whatsoever, at least the US Air Force did not. If someone here was in the other services at that time, please correct me.

I'm not saying America is entirely innocent, but it is not entirely to blame, and you certainly are not saying that terrorism is the solution to a conflict, are you?

There can be religious tolerance since both religions encourage charity and thoughtfulness and I'm sure the Koran has a passage about loving one's enemies as the Bible does. It is the personalities of some extremist people who like to bully others that keeps evil in the world and they will use religion and anything else they can to justify it. Bin Ladin, for example, if brought up in a secular country versus a theocracy, would use something other than his twisted version of Islam to justify his crimes, be it money or politics or whatever. Think what you want of America's leaders, but for a country whose population is mostly Christian, they are not resorting to using religion as an excuse for their actions. If you believe in their choices, fine, but if you don't, you probably think that money is behind their choices. So religion is not the sole underlying factor on why the Western world and the Eastern world have so many conflicts.

Yes, ok thats an interesting point.

On an issue such as terrorism I don't think its possible to argue with the 9/11 Zealots.

So I do not see how much of the US/Arab-world conflict is US provoked. Great lengths were taken to the point of President Bush addressing the nation that mainstream Islam is not to blame for all the violence in that part of the world.

What it is is greedy people who take advantage of the fact they live in a theocracy and brainwash people who are already desperate and uneducated into thinking new ideas about their religion, like it's okay to be a suicide bomber because it makes you a martyr. People like the Taliban don't dislike America because of its Christians. The Taliban dislikes America because it is one of the only countries in the world who stands up to them.

At War College and also in World Studies, we learned the agendas of Al-Quaida and the Taliban.

1. Establish themselves as leaders of their region.
2. Kick out outside forces (this includes tourists, expatriots, missionaries, etc in addition to military forces)
3. Destroy Israel.
4. Conquer the rest of the world a little at a time.

None of these goals have anything to do with Islam. They use Islam as a crutch and expect people to let them go ahead and do their thing because it is part of their religion. Meanwhile, the rest of the population in that area suffers and does not have the means to change their situation. There can be no uprising because these regimes give the people the bare minimum and tell them that they should be grateful for what Allah has given them and leave it at that.

I think the fact that many American Muslims and American Christians can get along and even be friends proves that it is not the ideals of these religions alone that causes conflict. It is the personalities of certain individuals.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
So religion is not the sole underlying factor on why the Western world and the Eastern world have so many conflicts. Generally speaking, I would agree with this. Religion is however, and unfortunately, the system of thought and behavior most intensely misused because of the "God" Factor (you just can't beat divine license to kill).

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Think what you want of America's leaders, but for a country whose population is mostly Christian, they are not resorting to using religion as an excuse for their actions.

Have you looked at your dollars or coins lately? "In God We Trust"

Politicians always say "god is on our side" or "god is behind america."

what's the diff?

Other than a few instances of President Bush mentioning God in terms of the war on Iraq (which is not based on religion), I have not heard a politician reference God like that. Most of them are pretty open about their belief systems, whatever they may be, but it's usually considered a bad move in politics to use God's Will as your chief motivation.

I fail to see how a few hangers-on of the Revolution like the designs of our coins makes America a religious country. I consider it quite secular, due to its "melting pot" emphasis and its focus on a separation between any church and state.

muslims do not beleive in the new testament. and to answer your question RELGIOUSLY{which accounts for less than half of the problem at best, the other half being political} both relegions are intolerant, self righteous and zeolous, as well as imposing and nihhlistic. conflict was bound to happen. but yea, america is currently the major reason due to its long standing foreign policy.

I need some clarification, leonheartmm, as to what foreign policy you are refering. President Clinton's foreign policy was very different from President Bush's.

Originally posted by chithappens
And pretty open about their belief? Name some non-Christian politicians.

Barak Obama

Originally posted by inimalist
Barak Obama

What? I thought he was a Christian...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? I thought he was a Christian...

that, uh, was actually the joke...

I think it actually proves chit's point though, that a presidential candidate can be slandered by insinuating that they are A MUSLIM!!!!!

Originally posted by inimalist
that, uh, was actually the joke...

I think it actually proves chit's point though, that a presidential candidate can be slandered by insinuating that they are A MUSLIM!!!!!

The truly sad thing is that if he was a Muslim, he would not have a chance.

Originally posted by Arel
Many time's in quarell we forget that Muslim(Alah) and Chrsitian(God) have one and unified Lord.So basically they believe in the same things,just differently.Muslim also accepts the New Testament and consider the Jesus as a prophet.
So why are there so many conflicts between them?
Is it HOW to believe more important,than in WHO to believe?

Christianity and Islam are almost the same religion, the only real difference is the view of Jesus. That aside, both tell followers to be humble. The New Testament says to turn the other cheek. And the Koran preaches religious tolerance as well. But as with any group, its the assholes who stand out. Crooked cops make the news, embezzling CEO's make the news, and religious nutjobs make the news.

Tell them: "You go and have your religion, and I shall have mine".
- The Koran 109:6

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Christianity and Islam are almost the same religion, the only real difference is the view of Jesus. That aside, both tell followers to be humble. The New Testament says to turn the other cheek. And the Koran preaches religious tolerance as well. But as with any group, its the assholes who stand out. Crooked cops make the news, embezzling CEO's make the news, and religious nutjobs make the news.

Tell them: "You go and have your religion, and I shall have mine".
- The Koran 109:6

Hmmmm So, they are both evil.

Originally posted by Arel
Many time's in quarell we forget that Muslim(Alah) and Chrsitian(God) have one and unified Lord.So basically they believe in the same things,just differently.Muslim also accepts the New Testament and consider the Jesus as a prophet.
So why are there so many conflicts between them?
Is it HOW to believe more important,than in WHO to believe?

Christian Arabs call god Allah. And Christians generally refer to God as Deus or Theos depending on which branch of Christianity you belong to...
And aren't you forgetting Jews?! What about Jews?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Christian Arabs call god Allah. And Christians generally refer to God as Deus or Theos depending on which branch of Christianity you belong to...
And aren't you forgetting Jews?! What about Jews?
What about Jews?!O_o

Originally posted by willofthewisp
I need some clarification, leonheartmm, as to what foreign policy you are refering. President Clinton's foreign policy was very different from President Bush's.

no, i am referring to the LONG standing foreign policy, of continuous interference in the affairs of other countries{which inevitably include much of the third world, and hence, practically all of the muslim world over the last 60-70 years} and neo colonialism. ofcourse, seeing as how touchy muslims are, all political and economic attacks and mechanations of america seem like an attack on ISLAM{ not saying there isnt truth to that seeing the very strong protestant ethic in american political history} and obviously, this promotes hostility.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no, i am referring to the LONG standing foreign policy, of continuous interference in the affairs of other countries{which inevitably include much of the third world, and hence, practically all of the muslim world over the last 60-70 years} and neo colonialism. ofcourse, seeing as how touchy muslims are, all political and economic attacks and mechanations of america seem like an attack on ISLAM{ not saying there isnt truth to that seeing the very strong protestant ethic in american political history} and obviously, this promotes hostility.

America has had a similar impact in Latin and South America

I agree, between democrat or republican, they all seem to have foreign intervention at the top of their priorities.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Christianity and Islam are almost the same religion, the only real difference is the view of Jesus. That aside, both tell followers to be humble. The New Testament says to turn the other cheek. And the Koran preaches religious tolerance as well. But as with any group, its the assholes who stand out. Crooked cops make the news, embezzling CEO's make the news, and religious nutjobs make the news.

Tell them: "You go and have your religion, and I shall have mine".
- The Koran 109:6

Nice find. Yet that's one line. I'll bet you could find lines to justify violence as well. Which is right? Thus the problem with religious texts.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Nice find. Yet that's one line. I'll bet you could find lines to justify violence as well. Which is right? Thus the problem with religious texts.

That was apparently abrigated, which means that the verse applied to Mecca at the time but doesn't now.

I think it also says in the Quran to face to Rome it was then abrigated and muslims now face to Mecca.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Nice find. Yet that's one line. I'll bet you could find lines to justify violence as well. Which is right? Thus the problem with religious texts.

It wasn't a hard find, since its one of the more prominent lines and creeds in the religion. The lines that justify violence, only justify revenge; the Koran never condones being an aggressor. So that line is supersedes any that speak about violence.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The lines that justify violence...

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Thus the problem with religious texts.

...there's also Phantom's caveat to consider, and how easy it is for people to circumvent a line through some loophole ("well, that was intended for {insert city, time, rule, etc}, but this other edict supercedes it". Basically, it's impossible to defend objective, definite interpretation of religious texts. As soon as you create rigid dogmas that have supposedly divine backing, you're going to have problems. This goes for any religion.

Peaceful Muslims use lines such as that, and reasoning such as your own, to defend themselves and their religion, without realizing that it is the same practice that creates the problem in the first place. The conclusions are different, but the system (the Koran/Bible/etc. being the Word of God) is set up in such a way that such differing interpretations are inevitable. Thus, the peaceful adherents of a religion justify themselves admirably, but not their religion, for they fail to address the true problem.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
...there's also Phantom's caveat to consider, and how easy it is for people to circumvent a line through some loophole ("well, that was intended for {insert city, time, rule, etc}, but this other edict supercedes it". Basically, it's impossible to defend objective, definite interpretation of religious texts. As soon as you create rigid dogmas that have supposedly divine backing, you're going to have problems. This goes for any religion.

Peaceful Muslims use lines such as that, and reasoning such as your own, to defend themselves and their religion, without realizing that it is the same practice that creates the problem in the first place. The conclusions are different, but the system (the Koran/Bible/etc. being the Word of God) is set up in such a way that such differing interpretations are inevitable. Thus, the peaceful adherents of a religion justify themselves admirably, but not their religion, for they fail to address the true problem.

Notice how you conveniently cut off the last half of my quote. It condones eye for an eye, not being an aggressor. Islam is a religion of laws, and like any law, there is punishment for offenses. Sometimes, the punishment is violence. You seem to think that it says its ok to walk around and kill random people, despite also having an unambiguous line that says to be religiously tolerant in no uncertain terms. Its not a loophole.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Notice how you conveniently cut off the last half of my quote. It condones eye for an eye, not being an aggressor. Islam is a religion of laws, and like any law, there is punishment for offenses. Sometimes, the punishment is violence. You seem to think that it says its ok to walk around and kill random people, despite also having an unambiguous line that says to be religiously tolerant in no uncertain terms. Its not a loophole.

I read the whole quote. It wasn't intended to be devious. The rest of your quote, and the explanation here does nothing to circumvent my point.

Also, a hearty lulz to this: "You seem to think that it says its ok to walk around and kill random people." So I'm a murderer now because I dislike people who use religion to violent ends? Shoddy logic there, chief.

Anyway, I'm a bit stunned that you continue to miss the point: I couldn't care less if a line is unambiguous and preaches tolerance. That's great, actually. The point is that as long as there is an "unfallible" divine being backing a religion's texts and scriptures, people will find justification for their violence in the words somewhere. And the fact that it is a dogmatic religion that is the one "true" religion, this is right in their eyes. The fact that you or I can look at the Koran and not have it inspire hatred for others in us is irrelevant (though I remain skeptical that you don't harbor hatred). That fact that it happens, and people throw their own lives away as well as others' because of subjective religious study, IS the issue.

Thought experiment: make all religion metaphoric and continue to use it as a teaching tool to help us through life, but don't make any of it literal truth. How many people of any belief are then going to throw their lives away for it, or use it to justify violence in the name of their god? Not all violence would go away, but a considerable amount sure as hell would. As long as religious texts exist that claim to be literal truth, the bad consequences will exist.

So congrats on proving Islamic violence wrong. If I had the money, I'd fund a trip for you to go to the most war-ravaged areas of the Middle East. I'm sure the people there just accidentally missed the line....

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Notice how you conveniently cut off the last half of my quote. It condones eye for an eye, not being an aggressor. Islam is a religion of laws, and like any law, there is punishment for offenses. Sometimes, the punishment is violence. You seem to think that it says its ok to walk around and kill random people, despite also having an unambiguous line that says to be religiously tolerant in no uncertain terms. Its not a loophole.

Yes, I've heard this before. All the people in the World Trade Center were guilty.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Also, a hearty lulz to this: "You seem to think that it says its ok to walk around and kill random people." So I'm a murderer now because I dislike people who use religion to violent ends? Shoddy logic there, chief.

It seems more like he was referring to what he felt were your expressed beliefs about Muslims.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Anyway, I'm a bit stunned that you continue to miss the point: I couldn't care less if a line is unambiguous and preaches tolerance. That's great, actually. The point is that as long as there is an "unfallible" divine being backing a religion's texts and scriptures, people will find justification for their violence in the words somewhere. And the fact that it is a dogmatic religion that is the one "true" religion, this is right in their eyes. The fact that you or I can look at the Koran and not have it inspire hatred for others in us is irrelevant (though I remain skeptical that you don't harbor hatred). That fact that it happens, and people throw their own lives away as well as others' because of subjective religious study, IS the issue.

Considering everyone believes something even if they don't believe in a divine entity and that they almost always are convinced that they are absolutely correct the only way to address the problem would be the total elimination of free thought. Eliminating religion would do nothing but alter the targets.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Thought experiment: make all religion metaphoric and continue to use it as a teaching tool to help us through life, but don't make any of it literal truth. How many people of any belief are then going to throw their lives away for it, or use it to justify violence in the name of their god? Not all violence would go away, but a considerable amount sure as hell would. As long as religious texts exist that claim to be literal truth, the bad consequences will exist.

They'd simply justify it in a different way or not bother to justify it at all. If people are capable of rationalizing being violent and destructive when they believe the consequences could be hell gives no reason to assume that by eliminating one source of hatred would have any effect on the amount of violence in the world. All it would do would be to highlight the huge number of crimes that people commit that have absolutely nothing to do with their religious beliefs.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, I've heard this before. All the people in the World Trade Center were guilty.

Perception or alternately: eggs, omelet

The reason we are all so intense when we talk about what we believe is because each of us know we are right, just like everyone else.

- Me

Originally posted by chithappens
The reason we are all so intense when we talk about what we believe is because each of us know we are right, just like everyone else.

- Me

I know that everyone is just as wrong as I am.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I read the whole quote. It wasn't intended to be devious. The rest of your quote, and the explanation here does nothing to circumvent my point.

Also, a hearty lulz to this: "You seem to think that it says its ok to walk around and kill random people." So I'm a murderer now because I dislike people who use religion to violent ends? Shoddy logic there, chief.

Anyway, I'm a bit stunned that you continue to miss the point: I couldn't care less if a line is unambiguous and preaches tolerance. That's great, actually. The point is that as long as there is an "unfallible" divine being backing a religion's texts and scriptures, people will find justification for their violence in the words somewhere. And the fact that it is a dogmatic religion that is the one "true" religion, this is right in their eyes. The fact that you or I can look at the Koran and not have it inspire hatred for others in us is irrelevant (though I remain skeptical that you don't harbor hatred). That fact that it happens, and people throw their own lives away as well as others' because of subjective religious study, IS the issue.

Thought experiment: make all religion metaphoric and continue to use it as a teaching tool to help us through life, but don't make any of it literal truth. How many people of any belief are then going to throw their lives away for it, or use it to justify violence in the name of their god? Not all violence would go away, but a considerable amount sure as hell would. As long as religious texts exist that claim to be literal truth, the bad consequences will exist.


It doesn't justify unprovoked, mindless violence. State laws don't either, but they occasionally use violence as punishment. Here in AZ we still have the gas chamber as a form of legal execution, but only a judge can condemn someone to it. That's my point; the violence the Koran justifies is punishment. Read the book, and much of your media-inspired preconceived notions will disappear.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

So congrats on proving Islamic violence wrong. If I had the money, I'd fund a trip for you to go to the most war-ravaged areas of the Middle East. I'm sure the people there just accidentally missed the line....

I've been to Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Anyways, they're not fighting over religion; they're fighting over land politics.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It doesn't justify unprovoked, mindless violence. State laws don't either, but they occasionally use violence as punishment. Here in AZ we still have the gas chamber as a form of legal execution, but only a judge can condemn someone to it. That's my point; the violence the Koran justifies is punishment. Read the book, and much of your media-inspired preconceived notions will disappear.

Continuing to miss the point. You're making the same assumptions about my argument that you did earlier. Hell, my last couple posts answer your latest statement just as well.

I'm not saying Islam is a violent religion. Or Christianity. I'm saying that it is used as such in both cases, as will any religion be that sets itself up as literal truth with divine backing. There's the problem: Religion as dogmatic truth. The individual words and scriptures that are being used are ancillary to the point.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I've been to Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Anyways, they're not fighting over religion; they're fighting over land politics.

Right, but they fight us over religion.

Hell, we can even take this out of an Islamic context. Christians persecuting homosexuals: same thing. Persecuting out-of-wedlock sex: same thing. persecuting, well, anything. In the minority? Of course. But an inevitable side affect of religious texts that claim to be divine word. The hate is in people, not in the religion. But religion is the lynch pin that allows them to justify themselves as well as rally others to their cause.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Continuing to miss the point. You're making the same assumptions about my argument that you did earlier. Hell, my last couple posts answer your latest statement just as well.

I'm not saying Islam is a violent religion. Or Christianity. I'm saying that it is used as such in both cases, as will any religion be that sets itself up as literal truth with divine backing. There's the problem: Religion as dogmatic truth. The individual words and scriptures that are being used are ancillary to the point.



Right, but they fight us over religion.

Hell, we can even take this out of an Islamic context. Christians persecuting homosexuals: same thing. Persecuting out-of-wedlock sex: same thing. persecuting, well, anything. In the minority? Of course. But an inevitable side affect of religious texts that claim to be divine word. The hate is in people, not in the religion. But religion is the lynch pin that allows them to justify themselves as well as rally others to their cause.

Everything you said is right. And the reason I posted that line from the 109th sura was to show that Islam has a built-in mechanism against conversion by coercing. So you're right; those that kill in the name of God, either overlooked it or act in spite of it.

Originally posted by chithappens
The reason we are all so intense when we talk about what we believe is because each of us know we are right, just like everyone else.

- Me

Yeah, but I've got something none of those other guys have. A good feeling about it.

Lulz at chit's comment. True for the most part. Except it's possible to hold things as provisional truths, subject to further or contradictory evidence. Too many religions place an emphasis on faith, which requires no evidence and actually flies in the face of it most times. Dogmatic faith truly is when "one knows that they are right" despite the equally-strong faith of others which might contradict it, or empirical evidence which may contradict it.

Long story short: switch to a scientific worldview (DO IT! ). Getting rid of infallible dogmas is the first step to letting reason in the door, and truly realizing that you may not be right, even while you search to better your knowledge. It'll also help avoid the religion-inspired violence of this title's topic.



313

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
That was apparently abrigated, which means that the verse applied to Mecca at the time but doesn't now.

I think it also says in the Quran to face to Rome it was then abrigated and muslims now face to Mecca.

Obvoulsy though that is a matter of opinion. I wasn't saying that what I posted was the correct and only interpretation. Just putting in my 2cents.

Originally posted by chithappens
The reason we are all so intense when we talk about what we believe is because each of us know we are right, just like everyone else. Or, the reason we are all so intense is because of...
...a profound and unconscious fear of not being real. We use mouth-noise to compensate.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Hrn. One could, I suppose, trace its roots through history to a myriad of causes that defy nationalistic boundaries, and would include American influence. But no, I wouldn't. Whatever transgressions were made by America (I'm not so naive as to pretend there were none) certainly weren't at the level that an act like 9/11 was an inevitable consequence of them. 9/11 was Muslim extremism waging their war on both another religion and another culture.

I wonder, if a bunch of Iraquis would now pull something like that and, lets say, kill a mere 5000 people...would that have been US provoked in your opinion?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah, but I've got something none of those other guys have. A good feeling about it.

Oh God! I'm quoting that, LOL

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Lulz at chit's comment. True for the most part. Except it's possible to hold things as provisional truths, subject to further or contradictory evidence. Too many religions place an emphasis on faith, which requires no evidence and actually flies in the face of it most times. Dogmatic faith truly is when "one knows that they are right" despite the equally-strong faith of others which might contradict it, or empirical evidence which may contradict it.

Long story short: switch to a scientific worldview (DO IT! ). Getting rid of infallible dogmas is the first step to letting reason in the door, and truly realizing that you may not be right, even while you search to better your knowledge. It'll also help avoid the religion-inspired violence of this title's topic.



313

I can't think of a "religion" that is not faith-based with a promise of some great reward or "renewal" at death.

If you went into your yard and said the same thing on a soapbox they would hunt you down for being a witch-man.

Originally posted by Mindship
Or, the reason we are all so intense is because of...
We use mouth-noise to compensate.

Sadly, that applies to everything.

You ever notice that if you have conversations like these face to face with someone you are unfamiliar with they just get louder and LOUDER until they some how won by volume?

Originally posted by chithappens
Sadly, that applies to everything. Aye, lad.

You ever notice that if you have conversations like these face to face with someone you are unfamiliar with they just get louder and LOUDER until they some how won by volume? This has also happened with people I am familiar with. Regardless, I usually find that telling them in a quieting tone, "Louder don't make you righter," often (if temporarily) lowers their volume.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I wonder, if a bunch of Iraquis would now pull something like that and, lets say, kill a mere 5000 people...would that have been US provoked in your opinion?

It would depend on the circumstance. I can think of scenarios where I'd answer yes and others where I'd answer no.

Originally posted by chithappens
I can't think of a "religion" that is not faith-based with a promise of some great reward or "renewal" at death.

If you went into your yard and said the same thing on a soapbox they would hunt you down for being a witch-man.

Right, which is why it wasn't an endorsement for a religion, but more a non-religious stance. I'm atheist, but realize that such a stance is a big leap for many, so I generally try to espouse reason, logic, and science as either supplements to religion, or as replacements for dogmatic faith while still maintaining some belief in transcendent reality.

Originally posted by chithappens

I can't think of a "religion" that is not faith-based with a promise of some great reward or "renewal" at death.


How about the countless religions native to the North American continent?

See, that's one complaint that I have against religious critics, especially the more famous ones; they only concentrate on Christianity and Islam (and occasionally Hinduism), but all the while ignoring others around the world.

That's why I put "religions." I already mentioned the Native Americans earlier

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Long story short: switch to a scientific worldview (DO IT! ). Getting rid of infallible dogmas is the first step to letting reason in the door, and truly realizing that you may not be right, even while you search to better your knowledge. It'll also help avoid the religion-inspired violence of this title's topic.



313

What happens when we go to war over which version of scientific truth is accurate?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How about the countless religions native to the North American continent?

See, that's one complaint that I have against religious critics, especially the more famous ones; they only concentrate on Christianity and Islam (and occasionally Hinduism), but all the while ignoring others around the world.
Historically, it would seem, Christianity and Islam have generated the most fervor, shed the most blood.

Originally posted by Mindship
Historically, it would seem, Christianity and Islam have generated the most fervor, shed the most blood.

Which isn't relevant. It's already been stated in this thread that the existance of any form of dogma is evil. People that would be described by most standards as "good" have been demonized simply because they follow a religious belief system. Violence is clearly not the issue.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which isn't relevant. It's already been stated in this thread that the existance of any form of dogma is evil. People that would be described by most standards as "good" have been demonized simply because they follow a religious belief system. Violence is clearly not the issue.
I wasn't addressing abuse of doctrine. I was just responding to something Quiero Mota said...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
...religious critics...they only concentrate on Christianity and Islam...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How about the countless religions native to the North American continent?

See, that's one complaint that I have against religious critics, especially the more famous ones; they only concentrate on Christianity and Islam (and occasionally Hinduism), but all the while ignoring others around the world.

They're the easiest to debunk, and also have the most adherents. It's trying to reach as many people as possible. Take those two together, and you're talking about over half the world's population. Especially the English-speaking world, a lion's share of which are Christian, it doesn't make as much sense to talk about the others. Native American tribal religions don't help create government policies....so if you see religious influence as a net negative, you speak out against the influential ones.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What happens when we go to war over which version of scientific truth is accurate?

That doesn't happen. Science is remarkably reciprocal, and if one's findings supplement or replace another scientist's, they readily assimilate it into their work. Or they conduct further tests to either confirm or refute it. "Wars," if you will, are fought in laboratories over which sets of empirical data stand up to rigorous testing.

And any great scientist has lived to see his work proven wrong. It's not a mark of failure, but of progress. Hell, for example, much of the work that won Stephen Hawking his Nobel Prize had to be later retracted upon further findings. But it did nothing to diminish his status, nor his contributions to astrophysics. The only people who seem to be at war with science are usually not in the field but pushing an outside agenda (usually religious).

Thus, why provisional truths based upon evidence are superior to unchanging dogmas. The system itself allows for change, and doesn't place such staunch faith in anything, the same faith that leads to all sorts of religious intolerance, violence, and irrational beliefs.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
They're the easiest to debunk, and also have the most adherents. It's trying to reach as many people as possible. Take those two together, and you're talking about over half the world's population. Especially the English-speaking world, a lion's share of which are Christian, it doesn't make as much sense to talk about the others. Native American tribal religions don't help create government policies....so if you see religious influence as a net negative, you speak out against the influential ones.

No offense but the debunking arguments are completely generic. "God " can effortlessly be adapted to "The Great Spirit isn't real because it isn't falsifiable". Effort in debunking them is a terrible excuse. And what about the Jews? There are tons of them. They're just as dogmatic.

I'll remind you of this:
"I'm not saying Islam is a violent religion. Or Christianity. I'm saying that it is used as such in both cases, as will any religion be that sets itself up as literal truth with divine backing. There's the problem: Religion as dogmatic truth. The individual words and scriptures that are being used are ancillary to the point."

The very existance of those dogmas is part of the problem. Media allows you to fix the beliefs of Christians en masse. Your time would be much better spent going out to all the other ignorant people and enlightening them about how wrong they are.

Your heart is clearly in the right place (in fact I agree with much of the basic premises) but your methods and rationalizations are, frankly, annoying.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
That doesn't happen.

Yes it does. Not in the form of all out war, not now at least, but any science that is inconvenient will get viciously attacked. Take religion out of the picture and science will rapidly turn into dogma, it's an inevitable aspect of human nature. Conflicting theories can and do exist simultaneously and in the absence of religion they will be abused in order to rally people to violence ("Hey those guys across the river are Lamarkians! We have to make them listen to reason."

The entire thrust of arguments seems to move towards absolving humanity of its faults by inventing something to blame (ie Satan made me do it, being Christian made me do it) Religion is not about violence at its core but people use it for that anyway. Science is not about violence at it's core but with a lack of alternatives people will use it for that anyway. It seems like you're trying to assume that current practice will remain identical even if society is fundamentally altered.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Native American tribal religions don't help create government policies....so if you see religious influence as a net negative, you speak out against the influential ones.



Maybe not Native American religion but the basis of democracy came from Native American precedent, at the very least.

"It would be a strange thing if six nations of ignorant savages should be capable of forming a scheme for such a union and be able to execute it in such a manner as that it has subsisted ages and appears insoluble; and yet that a like union should be impracticable for ten or a dozen English colonies."

- Benjamin Franklin while proposing the Albany Plan Of Union (he was speaking of the Iroquois League)

Iroquois

Evidence has also come up to suggest that Africa had a continent wide democracy at one point before being attacked from the north and east simultaneously (but since European ethnocentrism tends to come into play, neither the African or Native American influence is mentioned in "Academia".

Edit: It should also be noted that Europe was all about the monoarchy. They couldn't give a damn less about attempting anything similar to democracy at the time. Divine right ruled, period.

On a side note I think part of the problem may be people that think there's a religion called "Muslim".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
On a side note I think part of the problem may be people that think there's a religion called "Muslim".

Those I always found suspicierous.

Chasing after butterflies......

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No offense but the debunking arguments are completely generic. "God " can effortlessly be adapted to "The Great Spirit isn't real because it isn't falsifiable". Effort in debunking them is a terrible excuse. And what about the Jews? There are tons of them. They're just as dogmatic.

I'll remind you of this:
"I'm not saying Islam is a violent religion. Or Christianity. I'm saying that it is used as such in both cases, as will any religion be that sets itself up as literal truth with divine backing. There's the problem: Religion as dogmatic truth. The individual words and scriptures that are being used are ancillary to the point."

The very existance of those dogmas is part of the problem. Media allows you to fix the beliefs of Christians en masse. Your time would be much better spent going out to all the other ignorant people and enlightening them about how wrong they are.

Your heart is clearly in the right place (in fact I agree with much of the basic premises) but your methods and rationalizations are, frankly, annoying.

Debunking a non-falsifiable deity is indeed impossible. But debunking a God that supposedly intervenes in human affairs in a variety of ways, produce miracles, answers prayers, gives us signs, alters evolution, etc. definitely is falsifiable, because it crosses with the physical world. Science can't disprove a god, period. But it sure as heck can say a lot about Christianity.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes it does. Not in the form of all out war, not now at least, but any science that is inconvenient will get viciously attacked. Take religion out of the picture and science will rapidly turn into dogma, it's an inevitable aspect of human nature. Conflicting theories can and do exist simultaneously and in the absence of religion they will be abused in order to rally people to violence ("Hey those guys across the river are Lamarkians! We have to make them listen to reason."

The entire thrust of arguments seems to move towards absolving humanity of its faults by inventing something to blame (ie Satan made me do it, being Christian made me do it) Religion is not about violence at its core but people use it for that anyway. Science is not about violence at it's core but with a lack of alternatives people will use it for that anyway. It seems like you're trying to assume that current practice will remain identical even if society is fundamentally altered.

Missing the point. It may every well be used as such occasionally. Yet I find it hard to believe that people would throw away their lives over competing theories....they only do so now because their faith promises them a reward. So I think you're wrong to assume that just as much violence would exist. Violence exists in humans, so they'll find an outlet. But science would provide far less an outlet for it than religion.

But my point was espousing a scientific worldview, which is holding things as provisional truths. It promotes listening to other points of view, possibly changing, and is generally hard to draw parallels with violence to. So no, violence wouldn't go away. But someone who truly adopts a scientific approach, rather than simply replace one dogma with another, will indeed become much less prone to intolerance and irrationality.

If they become what you're talking about, then it's not what I'm suggesting at all, but is simply exchanging one irrational faith for another.

....

And hell Sym, we're having a discussion that contains reasonable points and respectful dialogue. If you're annoyed, leave. I have very little patience for those who will flippantly insult viewpoints just because it disagrees with their sensibilities.

Originally posted by Mindship
Historically, it would seem, Christianity and Islam have generated the most fervor, shed the most blood.

Really? I would've guessed the Aztecs, who had to rip out human hearts every day just to ensure that the sun would rise the next morning.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
They're the easiest to debunk, and also have the most adherents. It's trying to reach as many people as possible. Take those two together, and you're talking about over half the world's population. Especially the English-speaking world, a lion's share of which are Christian, it doesn't make as much sense to talk about the others. Native American tribal religions don't help create government policies....so if you see religious influence as a net negative, you speak out against the influential ones.


A single, transcendent existence is easier to debunk then religions that hold that many gods who don't look too far from some Star Wars species who inhabit the tops of certain mountains or the bottom of the ocean?

Also, the greater numbers are irrelevant. If you're gonna call yourself a religious critic, and write a 300-page book that attempts to make religion look like barbaric garbage, cool, I can appreciate a good argument. But at least do yourself and the people buying your book the courtesy of researching more than just 2 or 3 religions.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Really? I would've guessed the Aztecs, who had to rip out human hearts every day just to ensure that the sun would rise the next morning. I believe the Druids ripped out hearts as well. In any event, I don't think either matched the sheer numbers and historic magnitude of intolerance, persecution and destruction wrought by the "Christian" and "Muslim" MGIBTYG mindsets.

(I use quotes because I don't think this mindset is inherent in Christianity and Islam. To paraphrase: Religion doesn't kill. People do.)

Originally posted by Mindship
I believe the Druids ripped out hearts as well.


I think thats very dubious. I think we only have The Romans as evidence for that and they were trying to make The Celts look bad.

Tthe Romans - Christianity, LOL. Funny to see them in the same topic.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I think thats very dubious. I think we only have The Romans as evidence for that and they were trying to make The Celts look bad. Could very well be; I'm hardly an expert on the matter.

Originally posted by Mindship
Could very well be; I'm hardly an expert on the matter.

Sure, just adding my 2 cents.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Native American tribal religions don't help create government policies....

I could be wrong but something tells me they might be able to. What exactly are you trying to say? Religon isn't productive in science and politics?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Debunking a non-falsifiable deity is indeed impossible. But debunking a God that supposedly intervenes in human affairs in a variety of ways, produce miracles, answers prayers, gives us signs, alters evolution, etc. definitely is falsifiable, because it crosses with the physical world. Science can't disprove a god, period. But it sure as heck can say a lot about Christianity.

Or any other religion. That's my point. The mentality that Christianity must be attacked while other things that can be addressed the same way should be left alone simply because they're harder to reach is ridiculous in the era of mass communication. In fact it comes off as a vendetta against Christianity not a crusade again dogmatism, even if it isn't.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Missing the point. It may every well be used as such occasionally. Yet I find it hard to believe that people would throw away their lives over competing theories....they only do so now because their faith promises them a reward.

And in many cases they do it because they genuinely think they're doing the right thing, just look at JIA. Once science offers a truth for people to grasp onto (and they will unless you change the basic nature of humanity) it will become something that is used for manipulation. The only reason it doesn't happen now is that there are other outlets.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
But my point was espousing a scientific worldview, which is holding things as provisional truths. It promotes listening to other points of view, possibly changing, and is generally hard to draw parallels with violence to.

That would be wonderful. However the very fact that it must be espoused as an ideal shows that it won't happen. If people were prone to that sort of activity wouldn't have to go preach about it.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
If they become what you're talking about, then it's not what I'm suggesting at all, but is simply exchanging one irrational faith for another.

Which is human nature. That's what people do and have been doing for centuries. What you need is a fundamental change in humanity not a fundamental change in society. And seriously expecting that everyone can adopt a truly scientific and pragmatic worldview is a pipe dream.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And hell Sym, we're having a discussion that contains reasonable points and respectful dialogue. If you're annoyed, leave. I have very little patience for those who will flippantly insult viewpoints just because it disagrees with their sensibilities.

I'm not sure I follow. I don't care what people believe, that sort of pettiness isn't useful. However if the way an individual acts in a way that if find repulsive or offers some sort of absolute solution that flies in the face of history and common sense I feel that pointing that out is well within my rights. I'd also like to point out that when people "flippantly insult viewpoints" of any theist you're hardly trying to stop them.

I don't like insults of any kind, Sym. If you can find me a place where I've tacitly endorsed insults against any belief system, I'll be both shocked and apologetic. The only people I've insulted are possibly not insults at all, but frank observations of those who are either rude, intolerant, bigoted, etc. against a person or group of people, and I also know for a fact that I've defended theists who were receiving undue criticism. Don't assume things in order to attempt to claim the moral high ground.

And where did I say that everyone will convert to what I was talking about, creating some sort of utopian society? Do you really think I'm that naive? No, I spoke out against what I see to be a negative influence in the world, then you attacked the position not on its merits, but on the fact that you don't think it will ever become the norm for humanity. Of course it won't. But the alternative is never trying to influence the world in a positive way. Heck, why not just give up, since we'll never have a utopia.

Change can happen. Not universal change, but change. Why else would anyone evangelize for their beliefs? Your position seems cynical to me. And the fact that someone can be bereft of beliefs based on faith and dogmas, and use that to achieve a better grasp of tolerance and love for others, is all the proof I need to know that positive change can take place. The fact that an "ideal" will never be attained (which is fairly obvious) doesn't mean that the pursuit of such is fruitless or foolhardy. It just means we measure success in smaller increments.

So please don't take my words outside their original intent in order to knock down a straw man. I'm in near-full agreement with your last post. Yet the irony is that it debunks a non-existent argument.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I don't like insults of any kind, Sym. If you can find me a place where I've tacitly endorsed insults against any belief system, I'll be both shocked and apologetic.

How about page after page of the "Can You Handle The Truth" thread? JIA hasn't done much of anything recently to result in the amount of bashing he's recieved for simple virtue of his beliefs. How about your response to the "How Did Christ Handle Rejection?" thread which was not only prefaced by a rude and irrelevant paragraph but continued to lace additional bits of hatred into the entire rest of the post.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The only people I've insulted are possibly not insults at all, but frank observations of those who are either rude, intolerant, bigoted, etc. against a person or group of people

You've also started that you are intolerant of beliefs in spite of any actions or thoughts by the individuals. You also went off on starter of the "How Did Christ Handle Rejection?" thread without any provocation.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Don't assume things in order to attempt to claim the moral high ground.

I don't. You seem to be making things up though.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
you attacked the position not on its merits, but on the fact that you don't think it will ever become the norm for humanity

I think it would be wonderful if everyone could fly through space and live for millions of years. But if someone decided to base a philosophy on that I would be honest and point out the flaws in the argument to that person especially if they thought that logic had brought them to that position.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
But the alternative is never trying to influence the world in a positive way.

Which is your problem and JIA's problem and the problem of everyone who is as dogmatic as both of you. Any rational person can see that the world doesn't have to be utterly black and white. Rather than doing something you know will never really accomplish anything there is in fact the option of looking for a different way of solving the problem you perceive. Basing a system on something that you know can never reach the level of acceptance where it is relevant in any way is foolish. For some reason you don't seem to want to even consider that there might be an alternative way of making your hatred more state sanctioned.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Your position seems cynical to me.

And your position seems hopeless and willfully blind.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And the fact that someone can be bereft of beliefs based on faith and dogmas, and use that to achieve a better grasp of tolerance and love for others, is all the proof I need to know that positive change can take place.

I know that be can have beliefs based on faith and dogma, and use that to be more tolerant and loving; which is all the proof I need for a counter argument. You need a platform that doesn't work perfectly for any view point before you start proselytizing.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
It just means we measure success in smaller increments.

Like what? There's a threshold where the increment is small enough that no matter how many victories you win you'll never manage to change anything.

Originally posted by chithappens
Tthe Romans - Christianity, LOL. Funny to see them in the same topic.

why...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How about page after page of the "Can You Handle The Truth" thread? JIA hasn't done much of anything recently to result in the amount of bashing he's recieved for simple virtue of his beliefs. How about your response to the "How Did Christ Handle Rejection?" thread which was not only prefaced by a rude and irrelevant paragraph but continued to lace additional bits of hatred into the entire rest of the post.

I barely post in any of JIA's threads. Not sure how that's relevant. But yes, he takes a lot of undue criticism, though part of it is because he refuses to address the points of others and mainly just says what he wants to.

As for the latter, I had a serious response to his question, and yes there was some sarcasm in it. It wasn't insulting, however. It was some sarcasm for levity before addressing the issue. If "additional bits of hatred" refers to how I view Christianity, then, um, not sure what to say. I have nothing against the religion on a personal, emotional level. My problems with it are purely intellectual. If disagreeing with something is tantamount to insulting it, then yes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You've also started that you are intolerant of beliefs in spite of any actions or thoughts by the individuals. You also went off on starter of the "How Did Christ Handle Rejection?" thread without any provocation.

um. wut? I'm intolerant of beliefs in spite of any actions or thoughts by the individuals.???! Thanks for telling me. I didn't know. I'm actually on record as saying numerous times that I'm not so concerned with a person's belief system as how they use those beliefs to either positive or negative ends in the world. And I know that's true because, well, I read my own posts and know what I've written. Your accusation there is nothing more than slander, and is frankly starting to turn me off from talking to you at all.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think it would be wonderful if everyone could fly through space and live for millions of years. But if someone decided to base a philosophy on that I would be honest and point out the flaws in the argument to that person especially if they thought that logic had brought them to that position.

Good. Remaining logical and critical of every viewpoint until firmly established is a good quality to have imo.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is your problem and JIA's problem and the problem of everyone who is as dogmatic as both of you. Any rational person can see that the world doesn't have to be utterly black and white. Rather than doing something you know will never really accomplish anything there is in fact the option of looking for a different way of solving the problem you perceive. Basing a system on something that you know can never reach the level of acceptance where it is relevant in any way is foolish. For some reason you don't seem to want to even consider that there might be an alternative way of making your hatred more state sanctioned.

I don't hate. At all. And it's not just a coy phrase to seem altruistic. I literally can't bring myself to loathe an individual. A deterministic worldview, in which all happens as it must and nothing should or could be different, engenders an acceptance of all people and occurrences, regardless of their nature. So let's get that out of the way.

I'm also not in the business of mixing religious views with political platforms. So the state sanctioned part is more made-up nonsense.

And let me see if I understand this: we should only work for positive change in the world if we think it's possible for all of humanity to accept it? Kinda nihilistic, isn't it? Mind you, I'm not talking about positive change as "pushing an agenda" as you seem to imply. Positive change, to me, is the elimination or prevention of any form of suffering, and the promotion of any form of happiness. I have to do so within the framework of my religious views, true, but it is not the views themselves I am trying to push.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I know that be can have beliefs based on faith and dogma, and use that to be more tolerant and loving; which is all the proof I need for a counter argument. You need a platform that doesn't work perfectly for any view point before you start proselytizing.

Fair enough. It can work both ways. But again, despite my differences with theism, it isn't the views I'm pushing but just a genuine desire to see happiness in the world, regardless of one's beliefs. I often think religious belief creates more negativity and suffering than it prevents, so yes I'll sometimes speak against it. But the goal remains the same.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Like what? There's a threshold where the increment is small enough that no matter how many victories you win you'll never manage to change anything.

I can be happy in my own life, and hopefully create it for others. That's an achievable goal. Maybe I won't "change anything" in terms of the movement of history or the world, but that's never been the aim, nor would it be possible for all but the most influential people. By your definition, none of us will ever "change anything," so we should all just give up, right? I sincerely hope that isn't your message, because it seems to be from your words.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm actually on record as saying numerous times that I'm not so concerned with a person's belief system as how they use those beliefs to either positive or negative ends in the world.


Subjective.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Subjective.

Irrelevant

How?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How?

Because, obviously how he makes judgments is subjective...everyone is subjective in that sense, it doesn't detract from what he is saying in anyway...

Well, first you have to define negative and positive, and then justify/explain why it is so.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, first you have to define negative and positive, and then justify/explain why it is so.

Thats the point!

He does justify it, he takes things into consideration and then judges.

Many people just do their judging or deal in absolutes and dont justify their view- he just spent half a page justifying his...which is why your subjective point was, while true ofcourse, irrelevant.

Ok.

again not gonna bible quote or google to find the quotes nor am I going through this whole thread but pretty sure I remember bible says you are not to judge other religions as they are just one step closer to the right one...something like that...correct...? Leave the muslims be leave the christians be leave the idol worshippers be just sit down and have a brew beer drunk

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Subjective.

Actually, I defined the two in the same post, if you had bothered to read all of it.

Originally posted by Arel
Many time's in quarell we forget that Muslim(Alah) and Chrsitian(God) have one and unified Lord.So basically they believe in the same things,just differently.Muslim also accepts the New Testament and consider the Jesus as a prophet.
So why are there so many conflicts between them?
Is it HOW to believe more important,than in WHO to believe?


Hello there ..


The conflict is over power and wealth not religion ..



long time no see , I just came from the space haha...

Originally posted by Fatima
The conflict is over power and wealth not religion ..

I agree, however, often religions are the ones competing for power and wealth

also, in many cases, the only power obtained in the wake of a conflict is religious

while conflict is unlikely to be only percipitated by religion, it is insinsere to suggest that religion plays no role. Any ideology can play this role.

Thats true perhaps the strongest finding is that so many people blame is intolerant minorities on both sides for the tensions between Islam and the West

Originally posted by Arel
Many time's in quarell we forget that Muslim(Alah) and Chrsitian(God) have one and unified Lord.So basically they believe in the same things,just differently.Muslim also accepts the New Testament and consider the Jesus as a prophet.
So why are there so many conflicts between them?
Is it HOW to believe more important,than in WHO to believe?

Maybe they are just competing for the "who has a better spin on Judaism", award.

Originally posted by Fatima
Thats true perhaps the strongest finding is that so many people blame is intolerant minorities on both sides for the tensions between Islam and the West

lol, without a doubt