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

They killed 70 Christians this time:



http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Kenya-Somalia-unrest-university/2015/04/02/id/636055/?ns_mail_uid=94127627&ns_mail_job=1615242_04022015&s=altdkt_nbr=2wdunq1k



Btw, there are a lot of great comments in the 'comments' section at bottom of article.

"At least 70 Kenyan students were massacred Thursday when Somalia's Shebab Islamist group raided a university, the interior minister said, the country's deadliest attack since US embassy bombings in 1998."

Truly awful, by why does religion factor in when Muslims kill in Africa but it doesn't when Christians kill in Africa?

Muslims kill for God and Christians kill for fun.

Originally posted by Mindset
Muslims kill for God and Christians kill for fun.
They both kill for fun.

Typical terrible coverage by american news.

http://www.nrk.no/emne/terror-mot-hoyskole-i-kenya-1.12294541

Star is certainly right in that this had religious motives, as christian students were separated from muslim ones and then killed.

Almost 150 students were killed, and they've apprehended the 5 suspects.

i'll just assume that all the christian inspired killings in africa get the same treatment here...in which case we'll surely see a thread "religion of 'love and forgiveness' strikes again".

LOL. Any "Christian" who kills in the name of Christ is not following the teachings of Christianity. True Christians don't go around burning people alive, chopping their heads off, or burying women and children alive. Can't believe people are actually so dense as to compare Christians to these mass killing murderers.

"T-Those g-guys don't c-count!!!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. Any "Christian" who kills in the name of Christ is not following the teachings of Christianity. True Christians don't go around burning people alive, chopping their heads off, or burying women and children alive. Can't believe people are actually so dense as to compare Christians to these mass killing murderers. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)


Your point? I don't really see what that wiki page proves.

I'm referring to the slaughter of the inhabitants of Jerusalem by Christian Crusaders, people endorsed by the Church.

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. Any "Christian" who kills in the name of Christ is not following the teachings of Christianity. True Christians don't go around burning people alive, chopping their heads off, or burying women and children alive. Can't believe people are actually so dense as to compare Christians to these mass killing murderers.

...The irony.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
I'm referring to the slaughter of the inhabitants of Jerusalem by Christian Crusaders, people endorsed by the Church.



Well, yeah... Of course terrible things were done during the Crusades but that was what- 800 or 900 years ago? So, you think that all the terrible acts that muslims have committed recently are justified because of things that happened close to a millennium ago?

Murder is never justified.

The fact they happen to be Muslim has nothing to do with how awful their actions are however, and if you want to bring up their religion, I will bring up how Christians have been slaughtering people in the name of Christ since its inception as a religion, up unto the modern period where African Christians have been murdering Muslims.

By all means, FA, please list your sources that show modern so-called "Christians" murdering people on the scale that the muslims of today are doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Tripura

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Covenant,_The_Sword,_and_the_Arm_of_the_Lord

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Tripura

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Covenant,_The_Sword,_and_the_Arm_of_the_Lord None of those count.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Tripura

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Covenant,_The_Sword,_and_the_Arm_of_the_Lord



Appreciate you showing proof of what you claim. It's more than what most people do.


I don't have time right now to read all of the articles but I read most of the first one. It seems that those killings were committed in retaliation for one of their leaders having been assassinated even if it turned out that those they killed had nothing to do with it. Not justifying what they did but that's not the same type of things as what ISIS has done recently. ISIS carries out much worse crimes with no other justification than that their victims are non-muslim and they think that Allah has commanded it. Or at least that's what they say. Whether they actually believe that or are just using it as an excuse to kill I don't know.



I will read the other articles probably tomorrow if I have time. Gtg for now. It's Saturday night, afterall.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Tripura

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Covenant,_The_Sword,_and_the_Arm_of_the_Lord
This is nothing compared to the mass murders committed by Islamists in the Middle East and Africa.

i guess that makes it ok then.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
This is nothing compared to the mass murders committed by Islamists in the Middle East and Africa.

Wow you sure showed me

Pop quiz!

What's the biggest Muslim country?

Answer, Indonesia.


Is it known for these type of things? Nope, it's not.

See, the reason why people call out blaming Islam as a whole as a bad thing to do, is because we have huge samples, 204 million Muslims in the same place, that indicate that it's not belief in Islam that causes these problems.


And, importantly, not only do many of the other Muslims in the world not support attacks like this, but plenty actively fight against the violent extremists.


Not all Muslims are the same, as one can easily tell by examining them, and lumping them all together is a foolish way to handle things. In no small part because it makes it harder to deal with those who actually are a problem.

Uh, key difference: the fascist, supremacist and violent ideology is intrinsically part of quran and hadith. Unhuman sharia is also part of those texts.

NONE of those groups/incidents you linked has any base whatsoever in the christian text and jesus teachings. On the contrary, christian ideology was important part of human rights development in history.


And yes, the vast, huge difference in amount of violent incidents between islam and any other faith, is because that violence is written and part of their core beliefs. Tell me what happens to gay, "adultery" women and apostates in islamic countries, each and every day?

Tell me what the prophet did to aisha and the hadith teachings on women and how do you thing it influences violence on females in islamic countries (and against "infidel" occidental women/girsl).

The contrast between jesus techings and Muhammads, is brutal.

Originally posted by Squirtle
Tell me what happens to gay, "adultery" women and apostates in islamic countries, each and every day? The same thing that happened to gays, adultery women and apostates in Christian countries for centuries.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
The same thing that happened to gays, adultery women and apostates in Christian countries for centuries.

Really? are you completetly ignoring all my points just like that with your fallacious answer?

quote for all of us please, jesus teachings about how we should deal with gays, women and apostates. I'll give you quotes from the prophet.

also, tell me the personal spiritual behavior and beliefs of the "christian" countries rulers, and link them the jesus teaching, so we can compare how "christian" they were right? I'll do the same with muslim rulers and quran/hadith.

I'll give you a free clue: one of those groups do follow the actual, written, CORE beliefs to the point. Who it might be? mmmmm

Originally posted by Squirtle
Really? are you completetly ignoring all my points just like that with your fallacious answer?

quote for all of us please, jesus teachings about how we should deal with gays, women and apostates. I'll give you quotes from the prophet.

also, tell me the personal spiritual behavior and beliefs of the "christian" countries rulers, and link them the jesus teaching, so we can compare how "christian" they were right? I'll do the same with muslim rulers and quran/hadith. Is the bible not the official book of Christianity, or do Christians only reference the hundreds of pages that have nothing to do with Jesus when it suits them to do so (such as, say, when they wanted to justify the slave-trade)?

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Wow you sure showed me
We're not allowed to post extremely graphic videos in this forum.

I'm sure you can find all the evidence in the internet.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Is the bible not the official book of Christianity, or do Christians only reference the hundreds of pages that have nothing to do with Jesus when it suits them to do so (such as, say, when they wanted to justify the slave-trade)?

Please answer my points and stop moving the goalpost, or stop answering if you are not going to have an honest debate.

Your points are fallacious. The fact is that Christians have done a plethora of horrific acts throughout human history and justified it with scriptures from their "holy book", the bible.

Trying to claim some sort of moral superiority over Islam because they've done the same thing is thus hypocritical. One could argue that the majority of Christians have more or less renounced the violent aspects of bible scripture in favor of Jesus' teachings, but then you'd have to note that 99% of Muslims live by the peaceful elements of the Quaran as well. Literally 99%- even if millions of Muslims were violent extremists, that's still less then one percent of the Muslim population.

Once again you avoided any debate on the points I presented, there's no point on wasting any more time with intellectually dishonest guys like you, to ignore you go.

I accept your concession.

Don't forget to list the number of people you have on ignore in your sig.

Originally posted by Tzeentch


The fact is that Christians have done a plethora of horrific acts throughout human history and justified it with scriptures from their "holy book", the bible.



Prove this, please.

List the specific horrific act these so-called "Christians" have done and give the scripture or scriptures they used to justify their action.

Even Richard Dawkins admits the Christian religion is benign compared to Islam;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Ks4pCO5O8

I'd be very interested in learning if a counter exists to his assertions:


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3:35
I would be thoroughly in favor of education in the Bible as literature.
You can't understand English Literature without the Bible.
You can't take your allusions ...
This IS a Christian country, historically it's a Christian country,
You can't understand English History or English Literature without a knowledge of the Bible.

...

By the way, I should say, the act of collective worship, I don't approve of it, but nevertheless:
The Christian religion ... is benign by comparison ...
The penalty for apostasy in the Christian religion is not death.
There is no penalty for apostasy at all in the Christian religion.
The Christian religion is comparatively benign, and we should respect it as such. -- Richard Dawkins
4:33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How would Hitler handle the Muslim problem?

Well,how about this?. Actually both ideologies have many things in common.

Btw is funny how some people say "you can't claim moral superiority of X over Y" as if we were talking about impossible things to prove, like the existence of god of unicorns in another galaxy.

Ideologies are ideas, even moral ones, and yes... we can pretty much stablish that some ideas are superior to other ideas, from many points of views, and do this objectively, as rational human beings.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
How would Hitler handle the Muslim problem?
Fun fact: Hitler admired the early Islamic caliphates for their military successes and approach to law and order. He believed that had they been of Aryan stock, they'd have conquered the entire world.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
How would Hitler handle the Muslim problem?
He would do what he did to the Jews if he knew they'd be this extreme nowadays.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
He would do what he did to the Jews if he knew they'd be this extreme nowadays.
So, two things.

1) It's hard not to read this as "man, if only Hitler had gone after Muslims instead of Jews."
2) One of Hitler's policies during the war was to foment Arab rebellions and nationalist movements in the British controlled parts of the Middle East like Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Egypt.

Man, too bad the Allies stopped Hitler before he could save us from those pesky Muslims.

Originally posted by Squirtle
Uh, key difference: the fascist, supremacist and violent ideology is intrinsically part of quran and hadith.


Hey, here's an idea: Let's focus on what people actually do and the parts they really follow, rather than, you know, tarring literally hundreds of millions of people with behavior they do not do?


If most Muslims don't actually listen to those parts, what does it matter?

Yeah, let's not forget that the Old Testament says it's okay to turn on your ex-allies and slaughter them in their sleep if they're no longer useful to you and of a different ethnicity.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yeah, let's not forget that the Old Testament says it's okay to turn on your ex-allies and slaughter them in their sleep if they're no longer useful to you and of a different ethnicity. Hmm, maybe I should give this whole religion thing a second shot.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Prove this, please.

List the specific horrific act these so-called "Christians" have done and give the scripture or scriptures they used to justify their action.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Religion/slavery.htm
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Native_Americans_and_Christianity
https://books.google.com/books?id=GFPs8v0TyuwC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=1+Samuel+15+native+americans&source=bl&ots=UbtbCkRd2P&sig=qlEs0KVjnmIpERBMdwetMA1XWQM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=F8khVaSjKo_8oQSl24AY&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=1%20Samuel%2015%20native%20americans&f=false

If you toss a No True Scotsman at me, I'm going to go to your house and take your women. Fair warning.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yeah, let's not forget that the Old Testament says it's okay to turn on your ex-allies and slaughter them in their sleep if they're no longer useful to you and of a different ethnicity.

Which story is that, sounds like real life.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Which story is that, sounds like real life.
I'm trying to remember. I think it was the one with the Gibeonites.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm trying to remember. I think it was the one with the Gibeonites.

Sounds like what Obama did to Israel.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Sounds like what Obama did to Israel.
Obama slaughtered Israelis as they slept? Lol.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Obama slaughtered Israelis as they slept? Lol.

Loosely speaking with this Nuke deal, Israel will be slaughtered. And Obama could have stopped it. So yea directly or indirect its the same thing. The bible tells a story of people. People do bad things. Then and now.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Obama slaughtered Israelis as they slept? Lol. He might have.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Obama slaughtered Israelis as they slept? Lol.

I think you meant Mel Gibson. It is Easter.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Loosely speaking with this Nuke deal, Israel will be slaughtered. And Obama could have stopped it. So yea directly or indirect its the same thing. The bible tells a story of people. People do bad things. Then and now.
By loosely, I take it you mean "crazily."

Israel has a sizable nuclear arsenal. They have more than mutually assured destruction with Iran even if Iran gets a nuke. Come off this.

Israel wants a more aggressive American Iran policy not because of the danger of a nuclear armed Iran, but because it wants America to do its heavy lifting for it in containing Iran's conventional ambitions and proxies.

I'm sure by your definition, anything short of America invading Iran would be a betrayal of Israel. If that's the case, then I think loyalty to Israel isn't worth it.

There's a lot of talk about how dangerous Iran would be with a nuke, but really, there isn't a single major example of Iran launching a direct preemptive attack on an enemy since the 1979 revolution. Israel on the other hand...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
By loosely, I take it you mean "crazily."

Israel has a sizable nuclear arsenal. They have more than mutually assured destruction with Iran even if Iran gets a nuke. Come off this.

Israel wants a more aggressive American Iran policy not because of the danger of a nuclear armed Iran, but because it wants America to do its heavy lifting for it in containing Iran's conventional ambitions and proxies.

I'm sure by your definition, anything short of America invading Iran would be a betrayal of Israel. If that's the case, then I think loyalty to Israel isn't worth it.

There's a lot of talk about how dangerous Iran would be with a nuke, but really, there isn't a single major example of Iran launching a direct preemptive attack on an enemy since the 1979 revolution. Israel on the other hand...


This deal is absolutely a bad deal. We will never agree anyways.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
So a country that chants "Death to America and Israel" calls us the great Satan and says "Israel should be wiped out" should get nukes in your opinion?

This deal is absolutely a bad deal.
Dude, how many times do I have to explain this? I don't want Iran to have nukes, but if they really want them and if they think they need them, they'll get them, so we have to take their incentive away.

As for the chants, I think I should explain to you the concept of political rhetoric and how it's different from an actual statement of intent.

Tell me the alternative. Explain on behalf of Netanyahu and all the other naysayers what you would have done in Obama's position.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
So a country that chants "Death to America and Israel" calls us the great Satan and says "Israel should be wiped out" should get nukes in your opinion?

This deal is absolutely a bad deal.


I agree, TI. OV and others can't see that Iran doesn't care much about their own destruction as long as they can take Israel with them. In their minds, destroying Israel is their god's commandment and doing so they will be rewarded with eternal life. They're fanatics who don't care about mutual destruction. The fact that Israel has nukes would be no deterrent to them whatsoever.



Allowing even the slightest chance of Iran having a single nuke is way too dangerous.

Originally posted by Star428
I agree, TI. OV and others can't see that Iran doesn't care much about their own destruction as long as they can take Israel with them. In their minds, destroying Israel is their god's commandment and doing so they will be rewarded with eternal life. They're fanatics who don't care about mutual destruction. The fact that Israel has nukes would be no deterrent to them whatsoever.



Allowing even the slightest chance of Iran having a single nuke is way too dangerous.
Thank you for this nuanced understanding of Iran that shows your considerable scholarship on the subject.

Perhaps you'd like to begin drafting the plans for an invasion of Iran, as that's the only way you can remove all chance of them getting a bomb. It will only take...oh I don't know, half a million soldiers, at least. Israel probably won't even chip in.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Dude, how many times do I have to explain this? I don't want Iran to have nukes, but if they really want them and if they think they need them, they'll get them, so we have to take their incentive away.

As for the chants, I think I should explain to you the concept of political rhetoric and how it's different from an actual statement of intent.

Tell me the alternative. Explain on behalf of Netanyahu and all the other naysayers what you would have done in Obama's position.



How many times have the thrown out or not allowed inspectors in, and you trust them now because of this deal?

I would increase sanctions and international support and have Israel strike there facilities.

Iran directly funds terrorism, you think they will follow a deal?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
How many times have the thrown out or not allowed inspectors in, and you trust them now because of this deal?

I would increase sanctions and international support and have Israel strike there facilities.

Iran directly funds terrorism, you think they will follow a deal?
Now because of the sanctions we have leverage we didn't before.

Increase the sanctions? Now you're just saying things that sound plausible without knowing what they really mean. There's not much more the US and its allies can do to Iran. We could block shipment of things like medicine and spare plane parts (needed to repair Iran's aging commercial airline fleet), but what's that really going to do but make the Iranian people hate us more?

What do you mean "increase international support?"

Striking their facilities, if Israel is even capable of it (Iran is a big country, they have lots of facilities, and Israel has never attempted such a long range mission against a prepared opponent) would only slow the Iranians down and increase their resolve. If the Israelis believed this was a credible option, they'd have done it.

America has supported terrorism too in the past, but you'd say we're trustworthy, wouldn't you?

Originally posted by Omega Vision

America has supported terrorism too in the past, but you'd say we're trustworthy, wouldn't you?

Lol oh man, we on different worlds bro.

Cheers

Honestly how on earth do you think this deal is going to do anything. Literally they think America is Satan, you think they are going to follow their "deal with the devil"

I mean cmon man, what world do you live in.

Wake up man, just wake up. I know we can't do anything about it, but don't drink the kool aid.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Honestly how on earth do you think this deal is going to do anything. Literally they think America is Satan, you think they are going to follow their "deal with the devil"

I mean cmon man, what world do you live in.

Wake up man, just wake up.
Man it's like you're a soundboard cycling through the same quotes.

Notice you didn't respond to a single one of my points, just broke out into inarticulate yowling.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Man it's like you're a soundboard cycling through the same quotes.

Notice you didn't respond to a single one of my points, just broke out into inarticulate yowling.

Responding to pipe dreams is not worth my time.

History speaks for its self.

Iran cannot be trusted. Not then not now.

Originally posted by Q99
Hey, here's an idea: Let's focus on what people actually do and the parts they really follow, rather than, you know, tarring literally hundreds of millions of people with behavior they do not do?

Why would we do that when discussing an ideology? it's like saying: why talk about the nazi doctrine when millions of its followers were not personally killing jews right and left? or if we talk about marxism, maoism or whatever.

Most people following or agreeing with an ideology are not the actual enforcers, those are the few. Most of the time followers would not agree 100% with the ideology, but they support most of and are influenced by it.

It doesn't matter if 85% are not ok with personally murdering somebody, many nazis saved lots of jews and other people for example, and most of nazism believers never killed even a fly, does it mean nazism is ok?
The important part on identifying a dangerous ideology is analysing the core beliefs, that is actually the only way to do it...

Originally posted by Q99
If most Muslims don't actually listen to those parts, what does it matter?
Most muslims? are you whishful thinking or outright lying? because is not even close , more than 80% of world muslims live on islamic nations, and from that huge demographic most of them support sharia way of living.

Even in moderated places you can find the dangerous ideology of islam crawling wherever it has a chance.
https://youtu.be/kJk_AiK-4No
https://youtu.be/JRF_yPQy-Qo

If things haven't changed a bit for apostates, gay or women in all the islamic nations (and all the to-be future caliphates) for more than thousand years you have to ask: why? and when analysing the core beliefs of ISLAM you have the answer.

Even El-Sissi knows it, and wants to make some reforms, but he is truly one of a few lone wolves in the big islamic nation (not to mention his position is in big part due to his own political goals). Then you have lots of ex-muslims exposing the dangers of islamic ideology... but we are supposed to ignore all the evidence and say is "the religion of peace"? because is not: is a supremacist, dangeours ideology that goes against most our cultural values, just like nazism was a dangerous, supremacist ideology.

Also my main points still remains unanswered.

And just for the kick of it: even if we say those links from FinalAnswer were based on christian ideology (they weren't, but lets just say), and then we say YES christian ideology is as dangerous as islam... how in the world it means we can't expose islam a dangerous ideology?

Originally posted by Star428
They killed 70 Christians this time:



http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Kenya-Somalia-unrest-university/2015/04/02/id/636055/?ns_mail_uid=94127627&ns_mail_job=1615242_04022015&s=altdkt_nbr=2wdunq1k



Btw, there are a lot of great comments in the 'comments' section at bottom of article.
How is religion responsible for this incident? Did a Prophet sanctify this act?

Also, Somalia is a warzone. Bad stuff happens there frequently.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
How is religion responsible for this incident?
Jeez I dunno... how about:
1-Al-Shabaab is an islamic group
2-"Student said he could hear them opening doors and asking if the people inside were Muslims or Christians, if you were a Christian you were shot on the spot."
So yes, this was religion motivated.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Did a Prophet sanctify this act?
Muhammad is good enough for you?.

From quran
surah 2 191-193: "kill them wherever you find them (...) And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone)."

surah 3 151: "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah." (christians are somewhat included as polytheists because of the trinity doctrine).

surah 8 12: " I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

surah 9 29: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book (jews and christians). "


From hadith
sahih bukhari 52: "The Prophet (...) was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (women and children) are from them (pagans)." (Yes. is perfectly fine to terror attack women and children in the name of allah!)

muslim 1:"the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

Ibn Ishaq: "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah."

and on and on... we can go all day on this

sources:
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/
http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nora/html/home.html

Deuteronomy, Exodus, Chronicles has a bunch of bits about killing those who follow another God and non-believers. So it seems once again Muhammad was just tracing from the OT.

Everyone knows that if you follow any of the scriptures in the Old Testament then you're not a real Christian, Rob.

Those pages are just in there for filler.

Originally posted by Robtard
Deuteronomy, Exodus, Chronicles has a bunch of bits about killing those who follow another God and non-believers. So it seems once again Muhammad was just tracing from the OT.

1- I'd like you to give precise quotes on those. One key difference between old testament writting and quran/hadith is that the first are close-ended, they describe actions within an specific historic and geographical context, most of the time even specific event related.
Islam teachins are open ended, true muslim should follow them till armageddon comes, till the end of times, or till all of earth is under islam.

2- the goal of old testament people was to stablish themselves on the promised land. The goal of islam is to conquer the entire earth.

3- one ideology is linked to one the basis of ethics and human rights development (christianity). The other is linked to such amount of non-stop carnage since more than 1400 years that I can literally post every day walls of links that political correct media often ignores. And that's not mentioning the internal carnage and human rights violation within islamic nations.

4- there is a jewish nation, with all it's rights and wrongs... they have democracy, women are treated as humans and you can profess any religion you want. Do you want me to recall some daily basic human rights violation of sharia ruled (aka ISLAMIC) nations?.

5- one of them has never changed in more than thousand years, and never will, the reason is on point 1. So one of them is political, militant and dangerous, and it will be till the end of times (whatever that may be) the other is just another religion.

https://youtu.be/QxzOVSMUrGM

@Tzeentch: Uh, your sarcasm is misplaced. The teachings of Christ supersede the laws of the old testament.... Try again.

Originally posted by Squirtle
1- I'd like you to give precise quotes on those. One key difference between old testament writting and quran/hadith is that the first are close-ended, they describe actions within an specific historic and geographical context, most of the time even specific event related.
Islam teachins are open ended, true muslim should follow them till armageddon comes, till the end of times, or till all of earth is under islam.

2- the goal of old testament people was to stablish themselves on the promised land. The goal of islam is to conquer the entire earth.

3- one ideology is linked to one the basis of ethics and human rights development (christianity). The other is linked to such amount of non-stop carnage since more than 1400 years that I can literally post every day walls of links that political correct media often ignores. And that's not mentioning the internal carnage and human rights violation within islamic nations.

4- there is a jewish nation, with all it's rights and wrongs... they have democracy, women are treated as humans and you can profess any religion you want. Do you want me to recall some daily basic human rights violation of sharia ruled (aka ISLAMIC) nations?.

5- one of them has never changed in more than thousand years, and never will, the reason is on point 1. So one of them is political, militant and dangerous, and it will be till the end of times (whatever that may be) the other is just another religion.

1) HYG, one from each I named and all KJ versions from biblegateway.com:

-He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Exodus 22:20

-And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, 13 but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman. Chronicles 15:12-13

-And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage Deuteronomy 13:10

2) So a "it's okay to conquer and kill when we do it" excuse. LoL! Seems like you're bashing Islam for being an overachiever.

3) LoL! Did you not see the recent links Tzeen posted. Slavery and the wholesale mass murder of America's natives wasn't all that long ago in the big picture

4) So? We're talking about Islam and Christianity. BTW, Israel is a massive human rights violator.

5) Fearmongering

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
How is religion responsible for this incident? Did a Prophet sanctify this act?


Oh, I don't know. Perhaps because the article states that several of them were yelling "God is great!" while they were killing Christians. There's also the facts that Squirtle mentioned in a post a few replies up.

Originally posted by Star428
@Tzeentch: Uh, your sarcasm is misplaced. The teachings of Christ supersede the laws of the old testament.... Try again.

HYG, Star428:

-Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

-For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:17-18

The "law" would be the Old Testament

&


-Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

-Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

-All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. Matthew 23:1-3

Jesus telling his disciples to adhere to the Law. Jesus wasn't revolting against the Law of the Jews, he was revolting against those in power who were abusing it.

What the **** is up with all these pro-Jihadists still refusing to acknowledge the fact that this was a criminal act against Christian students?
Is this a ****ing Jihadist message board?

Don't you guys watch/read the news?
It's been said so many times that the students that were murdered were Christians who were separated from the Muslims.

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. Any "Christian" who kills in the name of Christ is not following the teachings of Christianity. True Christians don't go around burning people alive, chopping their heads off, or burying women and children alive. Can't believe people are actually so dense as to compare Christians to these mass killing murderers.

But Muslims who kill in the name of Islam are real Muslims?

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
This is nothing compared to the mass murders committed by Islamists in the Middle East and Africa.

Murder is murder. Not some "Nuh uh! They killed way more people than we ever did!"

Originally posted by Wei Phoenix
But Muslims who kill in the name of Islam are real Muslims?

Yes.

Originally posted by Squirtle
Yes.

And Christians who kill in the name of Christianity are fake Christians?

Originally posted by Wei Phoenix
But Muslims who kill in the name of Islam are real Muslims?


Questions.


1. Is the religion of Islam based on the Quran and Hadith, or something else?

2 Are all Muslims commanded to kill in the name of Islam? Are even a significant portion of Muslims commanded to kill in the name of Islam in the Quran and Hadith?

3. Presuming the answer to either question in #2 is "Yes", is there text countermanding the commandments to kill in the Quran and/or Hadith, or at least an edict limiting the amount and period of time this commandment is applicable to Muslim believers?

Originally posted by Wei Phoenix
And Christians who kill in the name of Christianity are fake Christians?

Yes.


Now, ask me: why? I'll redirect you to:

1- read all the links I've posted.
2- read jesus words on matthew, mark, luke, and john gospels.

After that I'll answer any question you may have.

Originally posted by Squirtle
Jeez I dunno... how about:
1-Al-Shabaab is an islamic group
2-"Student said he could hear them opening doors and asking if the people inside were Muslims or Christians, if you were a Christian you were shot on the spot."
So yes, this was religion motivated.
Criminals can be religiously motivated, doesn't means that their actions are Islamic.


Originally posted by Squirtle
Muhammad is good enough for you?.

From quran
surah 2 191-193: "kill them wherever you find them (...) And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone)."

surah 3 151: "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah." (christians are somewhat included as polytheists because of the trinity doctrine).

surah 8 12: " I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

surah 9 29: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book (jews and christians). "


From hadith
sahih bukhari 52: "The Prophet (...) was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (women and children) are from them (pagans)." (Yes. is perfectly fine to terror attack women and children in the name of allah!)

muslim 1:"the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

Ibn Ishaq: "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah."

and on and on... we can go all day on this

sources:
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/
http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nora/html/home.html
Oh, here comes the "selective quoting."

Have you read Holy Quran properly and are aware of the context behind these statements?

I guess not.

What about these?

......You shall resort to pardon, advocate tolerance, and disregard the ignorant.

"...... You shall not kill - GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand."

"You shall not kill any person - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. ....."

"......, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. .............."

"There shall be no compulsion in religion...".

"GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable."

"If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient."

"...... Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them."

Source: http://www.islamology.com/Overview/Terrors/Isam&violence.htm

Quran represents a collection of revelations that relate to different events in the time of the referred prophet and some historic events. It is important to understand the context behind the revelations, and this is is only possible by properly understanding Quran.

Islam permits aggression only against those individuals who are Anti-Islamic and want to kill and/or oppress Muslims. Clear?

Originally posted by Robtard
1) HYG, one from each I named and all KJ versions from biblegateway.com:

-He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Exodus 22:20

-And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, 13 but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman. Chronicles 15:12-13

-And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage Deuteronomy 13:10
Did you read the context of those quotes? I'm going to say you didn't because they prove exactly what I said:
"One key difference between old testament writting and quran/hadith is that the first are close-ended, they describe actions within an specific historic and geographical context, most of the time even specific event related.
Islam teachins are open ended, true muslim should follow them till armageddon comes, till the end of times, or till all of earth is under islam."

The quotes you provided were regulations for the jewish people in a specific time period and an specific situation. In other words, they were narrations of history, not eternal commandments (like in the quran/hadith).

Originally posted by Robtard
2) So a "it's okay to conquer and kill when we do it" excuse. LoL! Seems like you're bashing Islam for being an overachiever.
You are very dense, or just being obtuse. What has that to do with my point?
Of course every nation has blood on their hands in the seek of it's own territory. I'm exposing islam for the danger of it's violent, militant, political and supremacist aspect.
"Overarchiver"? so... and ideology that commads it's followers to fight (culturally and literally) infidels till islam is the only religion in the world is fine to you? nazism shared all those political aspects, I guess that ideology is ok too right? if not, why not?

Originally posted by Robtard
3) LoL! Did you not see the recent links Tzeen posted. Slavery and the wholesale mass murder of America's natives wasn't all that long ago in the big picture
Did you not see my first replies on this thread? none of that is based on jesus teachings or ideology. Only politics and power, like 99% of the time in western history.
Secularism -in different aspects- was western trade mark since roman times and before, heck even constantine used religion only for his political goals, never really following it's ideology.

Originally posted by Robtard
4) So? We're talking about Islam and Christianity. BTW, Israel is a massive human rights violator.
You were the one putting bible and quran/hadith on the same moral ground. I posted empiric evidence of the contrast between those ideologies natures.
Life under islamic ideology is a testament of it's violent, supremacist, mysoginist and destructive nature. Is was like that +1400 years ago, it is like that now and it'll ever be like that.
Start another thread about bashing israel if you want, what you said doesn't contradict one iota of my point.

Originally posted by Robtard
5) Fearmongering
You are not even trying do you?... if you are going to give this trollish reply instead of actually debating what I said with facts or serious information, please avoid "debating" me alltogheter.

I'm highly disturbed by some members who keep defending Islam like it's the most peaceful religion in the world (despite the fact that it's the complete opposite, ever since it was established.)

Maybe some of you are linked to these ****ing terrorist groups.

Where did anyone make the claim that Islam is the most peaceful religion in the world?

I'm highly disturbed by your stupidity.

That's not what he said. He said he's disturbed by some members who are "defending Islam like it's the most peaceful religion in the world." He never said that anybody actually came out and said it.

d-do you think I'm linked to a terrorist organization, Star-sempai?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Criminals can be religiously motivated, doesn't means that their actions are Islamic.
Wrong, it does mean it when those actions are based and supported by their sacred text and their main religious scholars.


Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD

Oh, here comes the "selective quoting."

Have you read Holy Quran properly and are aware of the context behind these statements?

I guess not.

What about these?

Nothing selective about them, can you post what context I left out? I can literally post pages and pages of stuff like that from both, quran and hadith, I can actually back up my claims, unlike you.

From your quotes, ALL were abrogated by medinan and later shurahs so there's no point at all on bringing them. You did know about it right? if so why you even bother quoting them? what was your intention?
I'l reply however to some of them, the more "juicy" ones if you like.

-5 is hillarious, as it was clearly directed at jews, not muslims. You are kidding me right?

-2 ahh the infamous "There shall be no compulsion in religion"! sadly like I said, it was abogated by LOTS of later surahs. Even one of the most respected, influential and brilliant scholars in muslim history said about this surah: "Therefore all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the jizya, they should be fought till they are killed."

Even in mecca, later when he achieved power, the surah you quoted was abrogated with "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (9:5).

Just for a laugh, even from the same surah: ""And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion be only for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers."

-60 cute isn't it? let's just all be BFF! too bad (you know where this go) it was told when the prophet was still weak on medina. Later in time it was abrogated with friendly surahs like:
"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." (5:51)
or "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide."

You do know for example, that muslim women are forbidden to marry non muslim men? http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-scholar/family/marriage/477357-can-a-muslim-girl-marry-a-christian-boy.html
If they do it, they can be killed under ISLAMIC law. Why do you think it is?

I'm still waiting for those evil, bloodthirsty jesus words on how should we deal with infidels, apostates, gays and women.


Btw, it was never my intention to "bash" islam, but saying jesus teachings and christian ideology is on the same moral ground that islam is a profoundly intellectually dishonest assertion. A very ignorant one even.

I'm not christian and as an agnostic my interest on this debate is really fading, I think I've proved my points, the links are there, the information is there.

Maybe I'll keep replying but for me at least, a debate is about seeking some form or better understanding, not about "being right" or biased fallacious argument to make a point. So far, I have no motivation to keep replying. Also is 3am here, good night.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Where did anyone make the claim that Islam is the most peaceful religion in the world?

I'm highly disturbed by your stupidity.
You fail at reading comprehension.

Go back to Grade 3 English class.

Tell us some more about how we support terrorism by not sipping your ass kool-aid.

Originally posted by Star428
By all means, FA, please list your sources that show modern so-called "Christians" murdering people on the scale that the muslims of today are doing.

It's true Christians don't. However, the God the Christians worship is a mass murderer on a scale that dwarfs ANYONE human in history. This is a creep who floods an entire planet because the people were "bad".

To be fair, he totally DID spare one dude and some animals so..yeah. He just killed everyone because he loves people so much he wanted them to come straight to heaven right away. Except for Noah because f*ck that guy, dude is a party pooper.

Like I said, religion is ultimately a subjective interpretation. There are terrible Christians out there as well, such as the WBC or Cromwell. Ultimately though, no one individual's or groups actions and represent an entire ideology.

That being stated, in comparison to Christianity, it is far more difficult to forgive Islam for the violence done in it's name. The reason for this goes back to subjective interpretation. The reason that some Christians and even the Pope are able to support gay rights is because although the OT contains much homophobia and other terrible acts, it can be interpreted that Jesus retconned it with the NT, so it is easily more palatable to modern day human rights. Islam is the exact opposite. Whereas the Pope, arguably the most prominent representative of Christianity, can support gay rights, the most prominent representatives of Islam are known as terrible human rights violators who have people imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed for even the slightest defiance of their beliefs or laws. Combined with the growing number of terror groups killing in it's name, some of which are allegedly funded by state officials, and it's no wonder that many are seeing Islam more of a cult than a religion.

Muslims are very quick to decry ISIS or Al Qaeda, but ask them about the human rights abuses of the Saudis and they'll try to give some kind of justification. Muslims need to stop ignoring this and start demanding international reformation on a government level to end the theocracies occurring in several nations, especially Saudi Arabia. Trying to strictly adhere to or justify the barbaric practices of the Koran all the time with no adaptation to modern human rights really paints the religion in a Jonestownian light.

NOTR: This is just my opinion based on personal experiences, including my dad, who is a Sufi Muslim

I get that freedom of religion is a thing, but I guess my problem is..it's one thing if a random person on the street believes in a crazy magic man in the sky. When our WORLD LEADERS believe this as well..it suddenly becomes pretty frightening.

We even have people who are in political positions who are creationists. That is scary, these people are in charge of making major decisions, yet they think dinosaurs and people f*cking lived together.

The Founding Fathers did not in any stretch of the imagination want religion and government to be this intertwined. It's kind of crazy to see all these people talking about how much they love America, yet don't seem to care that the original ideals for the country have been utterly obliterated. Even our currency, which should have nothing to do with religion, says "In God We Trust" on it.

Originally posted by Squirtle
Did you read the context of those quotes? I'm going to say you didn't because they prove exactly what I said:
"One key difference between old testament writting and quran/hadith is that the first are close-ended, they describe actions within an specific historic and geographical context, most of the time even specific event related.
Islam teachins are open ended, true muslim should follow them till armageddon comes, till the end of times, or till all of earth is under islam."

The quotes you provided were regulations for the jewish people in a specific time period and an specific situation. In other words, they were narrations of history, not eternal commandments (like in the quran/hadith).


You are very dense, or just being obtuse. What has that to do with my point?
Of course every nation has blood on their hands in the seek of it's own territory. I'm exposing islam for the danger of it's violent, militant, political and supremacist aspect.
"Overarchiver"? so... and ideology that commads it's followers to fight (culturally and literally) infidels till islam is the only religion in the world is fine to you? nazism shared all those political aspects, I guess that ideology is ok too right? if not, why not?


Did you not see my first replies on this thread? none of that is based on jesus teachings or ideology. Only politics and power, like 99% of the time in western history.
Secularism -in different aspects- was western trade mark since roman times and before, heck even constantine used religion only for his political goals, never really following it's ideology.


You were the one putting bible and quran/hadith on the same moral ground. I posted empiric evidence of the contrast between those ideologies natures.
Life under islamic ideology is a testament of it's violent, supremacist, mysoginist and destructive nature. Is was like that +1400 years ago, it is like that now and it'll ever be like that.
Start another thread about bashing israel if you want, what you said doesn't contradict one iota of my point.


You are not even trying do you?... if you are going to give this trollish reply instead of actually debating what I said with facts or serious information, please avoid "debating" me alltogheter.

-IOW: You don't understand the Bible. It's okay, many don't.

-Irony

-Jesus unheld the laws in the OT. Jesus was a Jew. The Bible has been used to support atrocities just the same by some. You're welcome

-IOW: "My holy book is better than yours, now watch me prove it by cherry-picking scripts!" Both Jesus and I laugh at your futile attempts. LoL! BTW, you're the one who brought in Israel into the convo, silly.

-Correct, I don't really have to try when you're so awful at this with your blatant Bible ignorance, cherry-picking and silly fearmongering tactics. Which of the "islamisevil" sites are you copy-pasting your poor arguments from?

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
I'm highly disturbed by some members who keep defending Islam like it's the most peaceful religion in the world (despite the fact that it's the complete opposite, ever since it was established.)

Maybe some of you are linked to these ****ing terrorist groups.

Incorrect. It's not defending Islam, it's combating ignorance, fear-mongering and hatred wherever it rears its ugly misshapen head like a true hero

Originally posted by Robtard
-IOW: You don't understand the Bible. It's okay, many don't.

-Irony

-Jesus unheld the laws in the OT. Jesus was a Jew. The Bible has been used to support atrocities just the same by some. You're welcome

-IOW: "My holy book is better than yours, now watch me prove it by cherry-picking scripts!" Both Jesus and I laugh at your futile attempts. LoL! BTW, you're the one who brought in Israel into the convo, silly.

-Correct, I don't really have to try when you're so awful at this with your blatant Bible ignorance, cherry-picking and silly fearmongering tactics. Which of the "islamisevil" sites are you copy-pasting your poor arguments from?
Haha yeah you teach me troll! againg not debating any point and just throwing your fallacies... why did I waist time with you? why I'm still doing it? not anymore, to ignore you go.

Originally posted by Squirtle
Haha yeah you teach me troll! againg not debating any point and just throwing your fallacies... why did I waist time with you? why I'm still doing it? not anymore, to ignore you go.

IOW: You still can't refute a point I've made and you're unable to fortify your own points and position, so you accuse me of your own shortcomings while running away like a coward

ps "again" and "waste" are the words you're looking for.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I know some people think that the issue is integral to Islam because the Qu'ran- allegedly dictated to someone who was illiterate by the direct voice of authority- is unquestionable, whilst The Bible- written in its own mythology by men- allows far more room for creative interpretation if need be.

I am unsure on that myself-

Why are you unsure, please tell me:
How can we study an ideology?
Are they all the same?
If they are not the same, why? how do we know?

Relativism can only get you so far in the real world. Not all ideologies are the same, as not all religions are the same. Islam is unique in it's political and militant dimension.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
There is no point blaming Islam- it won't get us anywhere. What we need is an exceptionally slow and patient process of the general encouragement of human rights and liberal values that will slowly undermine all forms of extremism. At this point in history, that brings us into conflict with Islam more than many other things, but that is mere correlation.

Yes there is, recognizing the problem is the very first step for reforming and fixing it. You can't just ignore the reality behind "the religion of peace" and hope that... magically all will go well in the end, while piles of corpses keep growing and half of our species keeps being treated as subhuman sexmachines.

Your wishful thinking is well intended but ultimately futile as it ignores some important aspects:

-the ideological nature of islam, very unique and very different than all the others main religions.
-the political dimension of islam, again very very unique.

So, in +1400 years nothing has changed because of this ideology being written in stone, but you hope for magical change?

Can you read valmiki, lao tse, gautama, jesus teachings... compare them to the hadith and tell me they are on same moral ground for human values?
Even completely ignoring the theoretical aspects (why would we do that?) when studying an ideology, let's focus on empirical evidence: list all the terror groups based on their teachings (valmiki, lao tse, gautama, jesus) till this day, so we can make a list comparing that to islam based ones till this day.

Originally posted by Squirtle
Why are you unsure, please tell me:
How can we study an ideology?
Are they all the same?
If they are not the same, why? how do we know?

Relativism can only get you so far in the real world. Not all ideologies are the same, as not all religions are the same. Islam is unique in it's political and militant dimension.



Yes there is, recognizing the problem is the very first step for reforming and fixing it. You can't just ignore the reality behind "the religion of peace" and hope that... magically all will go well in the end, while piles of corpses keep growing and half of our species keeps being treated as subhuman sexmachines.

Your wishful thinking is well intended but ultimately futile as it ignores some important aspects:

-the ideological nature of islam, very unique and very different than all the others main religions.
-the political dimension of islam, again very very unique.

So, in +1400 years nothing has changed because of this ideology being written in stone, but you hope for magical change?

Can you read valmiki, lao tse, gautama, jesus teachings... compare them to the hadith and tell me they are on same moral ground for human values?
Even completely ignoring the theoretical aspects (why would we do that?) when studying an ideology, let's focus on empirical evidence: list all the terror groups based on their teachings (valmiki, lao tse, gautama, jesus) till this day, so we can make a list comparing that to islam based ones till this day.

To the first question, why I am unsure- that's what the rest of my post addresses. The issue is human nature and cultural development and I do not believe the evidence backs a fundamental difference. Islam is not fundamentally unique at all in its political and militant dimension- it's distinct that way now in some cases, but Christianity used to be the same (and there are elements that wish Christianity still was). In fact, I would say the Papacy represented a much more fundamental religious political power base than anything Islam ever had.

To your latter 'yes there is' point- well, no, you see, because what you are recognizing there is not ther actual problem at all. and all you will do is brick wall any attempt at progress. It is not Islam we should be targeting by default- it is unacceptable behaviour. You have to make a strong effort to dissociate these things else you widen the divide and create more resistance. Your way is not progressive; in fact, it brings us backwards. One of the significant causes of the modern day global political situation is how much the West demonised these cultures as 'other'. Fundamental Islam became a way for them to fight back; a monster we helped create.

Like I mentioned, Islam used to represent the more enlightened culture, so your 'nothing has changed in 1400 years' comment is simply untrue. There's nothing magical about the change I believe in- I think all human cultures have the potential for social progress.

Islam today definitely has a problem- no doubt there. But it's not a problem simply because of what Islam is- it is entirely possible for Islam to b a peaceful philosophy, much as it is possible- as it used to be- for Christianity to be a giant force of oppression and evil. It's a problem of cultural development and people trying to assert themselves in a world that shut them out. Recognising this is needed for progress.

You are still avoiding the main points. Let's start again from the begining:
Do you believe all ideologies are the same? yes/no

Also what you believe or don't believe is irrelevant. Facts are relevant. I can believe in god or unicorns, but if I have don't have the evidence it means zero.

There is a fundamental difference between christianity and islam as showed in both: in the theoretical aspects (written texts and scholars interpretations), an the empirical aspects (life of muhammad, life under islamic law, islamic jihad).

Also please, quote for us the political and militant dimension of jesus teachings and his "kingdom of heaven" and his "render unto caesar the things that are caesar's, and unto god the things that are god's".

Tell us how jesus, or gautama or lao tse, or valmiki tried to rise an empire under their ideologies by unprovocally attacking, raping, pillaging and behading it's neightbors like muhammad (the most exemplar muslim to imitate) did. Tell us please, as they are all the same. Right?

PS: almost forgot, tell us more about this "Islam used to represent the more enlightened culture" so we can debate that too. I'll probably be able to reply in 7 hours when I return home.

No, I'm not avoiding any main points at all- I think you;re missing my points far more than anything else. Even your claim about irrelevance is in itself irrelevant, a complete non sequitur from what I was saying. When I say "I do not believe the evidence backs a fundamental difference", it should be pretty obvious that that is a considered position after looking at the evidence, and that I have just had to spell that out for you reflects either inadequate attention to me or bad faith on your part. I reject your argument of fundamental differences; my reasoning is already outlined in my previous posts, though I will pause just to mention that one of your empirical points- life under Islamic law- backs precisely what I say, because in the medieval period, life under Islamic law was considerably more tolerant than life under Christian law, and in an awkward irony, Islamic rule used to be the place where Jews fled to avoid religious persecution. Meanwhile, put Jihad up against the Crusades and see who wins the brutality war.

How you can not have seen the answer to your rather simplistic question "do you believe all ideologies are the same" is confusing to me as it is what my entire posting is about. No I do not think they are. I was discussing why they are not. For me, the reasons for the modern day difference are the issue. You saying it is fundamental to Islam's character is something I dispute on the grounds that Christianity has, in factual history, been at least as bad at times.

Your reference to Jesus and scripture is irrelevant; I am only interested in how organisations and ideologies have behaved. Christianity's brutal and evil legacy in history- in many cases specifically disavowed by modern Christian churches in order to distance themselves from such evil- is a matter of historical record and not appreciating that that represents either historical ignorance or, again, bad faith.

Christianity and Islam are both ultimately Abrahamic religions worshiping the omnibenevolent monotheistic Yahweh (or Allah, still ultimately the same thing though). The difference, IMO at least, only lies in how much it's followers are willing to disregard the undeniably-obsolete discriminatory dogmas (both religions have them) of their hundreds/thousand-year-old religious texts and adapt to contemporary secular human rights recognition. As shown in my above example with the Pope, it seems Christianity is having an easier time doing this (maybe due to the aforementioned wiggle room of interpreting Jesus as having retconned the OT), and it thus makes Islam seem barbaric in comparison.

Originally posted by Lestov16
The difference, IMO at least, only lies in how much it's followers are willing to disregard the undeniably-obsolete discriminatory dogmas (both religions have them) of their hundreds/thousand-year-old religious texts and adapt to contemporary secular human rights recognition.

I agree, personally the government ought not recognize any marriage, why is that the governments business anyway? Just makes lawyers rich as far as I can see.

Guns and marriage, are of the same debate. Don't want it, it's all good, dont't have one then.

But if someone does, it's all good, go for it. Ultimately it's folks being a busybody pushing their agenda. That is always bad news. And people like that frequently are in charge and when that happens, absolute power, corrupts absolutely.

Makes me wonder when the SCOTUS later on this year makes gay marriage recogniton mandatory in all USA states, what the push back is going to be. I can hear it now, some people will say "they are pushing this down our throats". That would be rape, if that happened, and makes me wonder just what exactly is in their mouth. LOL.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's true Christians don't. However, the God the Christians worship is a mass murderer on a scale that dwarfs ANYONE human in history. This is a creep who floods an entire planet because the people were "bad".

To be fair, he totally DID spare one dude and some animals so..yeah. He just killed everyone because he loves people so much he wanted them to come straight to heaven right away. Except for Noah because f*ck that guy, dude is a party pooper.


LOL. I've already responded to blasphemous posts like this in the religion forum. God has never MURDERED anyone, dude. There is a huge difference between cleansing the earth of guilty sinners and starting over fresh and killing someone without cause. Killing does not automatically equal murder. Look up the definitions in the dictionary, moron.



I will not respond or even read anymore of your posts in this thread because it's obvious you just came in here to show your ignorance and bash God rather than stick to the topic at hand.



Piss the **** off.

Don't throw around straight flames like that. Star428. That final comment was completely unnecessary. Surtur is not off-topic and you are not entitled to act like that just because you disagree.

That said- Surtur, please watch it on the swearing

Looks like a mod is now breaking the rules of the forum and derailing a thread as well. Fabulous. How did this turn into a "know-it-all" atheists showing their ignorance thread? No, mr. moderator, the bible is not "mythology" but keep telling yourself that if it makes ya feel better, dude. We'll see how ya feel bout that stupid statement when your burning in Hell. I'm done with this ****ing thread since even moderators are breaking their own god**** rules now and going off topic. I guess it's ok for them to break the rules when it suits their purposes though.

You certainly are done in this thread- if you resort to childish and aggressive posting like that again you will be banned; that's your warning.

Your definition of 'off-topic' needs serious work. The posts are all about Islam's status as a peaceful religion or otherwise and why that may or may not be; a comparison to Christianity is exceptionally appropriate in that regard. Again, it's not off-topic because you disagree. Be careful throwing that accusation around as well.

imho civility is impossible when the title/topic's purpose is to single out one abrahamic religion as evil while dismissing/defending the others.

http://i.imgur.com/xVTdGI1.jpg

Originally posted by Lestov16
Like I said, religion is ultimately a subjective interpretation. There are terrible Christians out there as well, such as the WBC or Cromwell. Ultimately though, no one individual's or groups actions and represent an entire ideology.

That being stated, in comparison to Christianity, it is far more difficult to forgive Islam for the violence done in it's name. The reason for this goes back to subjective interpretation. The reason that some Christians and even the Pope are able to support gay rights is because although the OT contains much homophobia and other terrible acts, it can be interpreted that Jesus retconned it with the NT, so it is easily more palatable to modern day human rights. Islam is the exact opposite. Whereas the Pope, arguably the most prominent representative of Christianity, can support gay rights, the most prominent representatives of Islam are known as terrible human rights violators who have people imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed for even the slightest defiance of their beliefs or laws. Combined with the growing number of terror groups killing in it's name, some of which are allegedly funded by state officials, and it's no wonder that many are seeing Islam more of a cult than a religion.

Muslims are very quick to decry ISIS or Al Qaeda, but ask them about the human rights abuses of the Saudis and they'll try to give some kind of justification. Muslims need to stop ignoring this and start demanding international reformation on a government level to end the theocracies occurring in several nations, especially Saudi Arabia. Trying to strictly adhere to or justify the barbaric practices of the Koran all the time with no adaptation to modern human rights really paints the religion in a Jonestownian light.

NOTR: This is just my opinion based on personal experiences, including my dad, who is a Sufi Muslim
Well said.
I applaud your honesty.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
imho civility is impossible when the title/topic's purpose is to single out one abrahamic religion as evil while dismissing/defending the others.


Why? X is B, Y is B, so Y is X? why can't we single out one abrahamic religion "as evil" it the facts prove it is? why can't we dismiss the others if facts again say so? are we supposed to ignore evidence now? way to debate..

Originally posted by Squirtle
Why? X is B, Y is B, so Y is X? why can't we single out one abrahamic religion "as evil" it the facts prove it is? why can't we dismiss the others if facts again say so? are we supposed to ignore evidence now? way to debate..

Again, you could argue there is no point at all in argue about which religion is "better". From that stance, any debate in this subject is dishonest.

Originally posted by Bentley
Again, you could argue there is no point at all in argue about which religion is "better". From that stance, any debate in this subject is dishonest.

Why? why there is no point on debating if socialist ideology is better than maoist?
Why there is no point on debating if radical sects are better than budhism?
What's the difference? an idea could be debated to see how good or bad it is, religious ideologies are ideas corpuses and frameworks and can be debated the same way.

From which stance? from objectively going to the sources and analysing the core beliefs? that is "dishonest"? really??


...anyways, I'm not able to invest more time on this thread, hope the information I've posted was interesting at least, cheers!

Originally posted by Squirtle
Why? X is B, Y is B, so Y is X? why can't we single out one abrahamic religion "as evil" it the facts prove it is? why can't we dismiss the others if facts again say so? are we supposed to ignore evidence now? way to debate..

more like x committed an act and y committed an act, but we'll ignore y and focus on x exclusively. not only that but y is completely innocent even though historical fact says otherwise. its a fallacious sham.

"way to debate"? at which point was i debating? do you know what 'debate' even means? now get madder and school me with more irrelevant pseudo-logic.

It's all a matter of the subjective interpretation and morality of the individual. "Love thy neighbor" can mean anything. Those 3 words don't absolutely retcon the barbarism of the OT, but it can be interpreted that way to allow moral flexibility in our world's ever-evolving regard for human rights. But people don't have to interpret it that way and there are many Christians who don't and instead interpret it in a way that justifies and/or induces their hatreds, prejudices, and violence under the guise of dogma.

Ultimately though it all goes back to the only thing that ever really matters in this world: public image
-The horrors of the Catholic Church of medieval times is largely forgiven, but certainly not forgotten, as taking place in an ignorant and uneducated time when our knowledge of the world and value of human life was still in it's metaphorical infancy. Today though, such practices would have no excuse, which is why the Pope, who is arguably the world representative of the Christian religion, and many Christians have used "love thy neighbor" as a modernist adaptation to our world of human rights.

-Meanwhile, the opposite seems to be occurring with Islam. While there are those who interpret in a peaceful way, there seem to be a lot who interpret in a way that justifies hatred, prejudice, and violence. The problem here lies within the public image. The Pope is known as a beacon of kindness and good will to all. There are certainly countries who interpret the Bible in a way that inspire hatred, but ultimately, if the Pope, effectively the posterboy of Christianity, says gays and human rights are okay, that is how the mass public will interpret it. Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, the heartland of Islam, it is ruled by a brutal near-totalitarian theocracy in which the slightest infractions will get you imprisoned, tortured, and/or executed. So when Al Qaeda commit a mass murder, and Muslims say Islam is not that violent, people turn their heads to Saudi Arabia, the heartland of Islam and see the brutality taking place, and it's extremely hard not to be skeptical. Islam's public image is in the phucking toilet, and many Muslims think it's simply because of the terrorist groups but it's really stemming from the fact that the Saudi family, effectively the posterboys of Islam, perpetrate brutal state-run terrorism/human rights violations on it's citizens.

Islam is no different in Christianity in terms of it's dogmas, as both were written in a time where brutality was the norm, but Christianity (in terms of the Pope) shed it's dogmas to adapt to the modern world, whereas Islam (in terms of the Saudi family) refuses to stray from it's strict dogmas (especially regarding homophobia, misogyny, and general intolerance of freedom of choice/belief), causing the mass public to view it as an obsolete doomsday cult instead of a spiritual religion.

Islam has the potential to be recognized just like Christianity as a religion of love and joy, but until it's leaders begin adapting to the new world of human rights like The Pope, it will be vilified as a dangerous hatred-breeding ideology because that's exactly WTF it looks like from an outside observer, and it's nigh impossible to blame them.

ultimately though, as Ush said, the continuous evolution of human intelligence and thus empathy and human rights will eventually trump our hatreds, but it's going to be a long and VERY agonizing progression.

.

Well, looking a squirtle's long glut of text there- though honestly, breaking up your argument into tiny quote chunks really does make it awkward to follow and weak.

Your main thrust remains rooted in that non sequitur. You keep trying this line that nothing is relevant unless it can be directly linked to what a so-called holy book says in its support. Like I said, I am only interested in behaviour, not some academic debate about what the books mean. Completely irrelevant to your opinion, Christian ideology simply was used in the justification of brutal acts throughout history. You can;t see this was 'false' Christianity because it was ALL of it- this was the organisation 'Christianity' that the world recognised. They would say you are wrong and non-Christian in your interpretation of the Bible. You can argue back against that as much as you like- it makes not one jot of difference to how they behaved and what they did. And to be honest, the interpretation at the time that 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' as only applying to Christians (though even there they didn't follow it up) is no more absurd on interpretation grounds than dumping all that stuff about killing homosexuals or adulterous women and the like in the modern day. The Inquisition saw the torture and horrific abuse of enemies of the Church as a fundamental expression of the love of Christ- what they saw as love is different to what Christians generally do now. Your obsession with referring back to the dogma makes you incapable of recognising the realities of history and this debate- values lay in the interpretation of the time. That IS what Christianity was like back then, regardless of what the Bible does and does not say. You can't divorce the Crusades from Christianity- they are the primary representation of the time It doesn't matter what the Bible and Quran say. That's a useless obsession. What matters is the meaning people saw and see in it, and why. The ideology is not in the book- it is in the minds of the people.

And then, as pointed out, Christianity changed over time in response to social/cultural upheaval from the renaissance onwards. But it didn't change because of anything the Bible said- it already said what it said and that didn't stop anyone killing in Christianity's name. Christianity changed because of social upheaval not actually connected to religion itself- indeed, in most cases founded on the challenging of religion. If Islam had gone through the same process, it would be in the same place today It didn't, but that was nothing to do with Islam itself. It is the way history panned out.

Writing off Christian-based violence to politics and power- but denying that same excuse to Islamic countries- is absurd cognitive dissonance. Meanwhile, 'three centuries' is just something you made up; the Christian violence was constant. It;s also impressive that you put all that effort into talking about Bibles being banned (actually only done in particular locations and points of time, not a general approach) as some sort of way of excusing the Bible itself, but again do not extend that courtesy to the Qu'ran, the vast majority of whose adherents could not read. All anyone was ever doing was going off what people told them in those days, and on all sides anything was manipulated for effect. For example, militant Qu'ran expansionists were never told that the Qu'ran specifically forbids forced conversion (indeed, there was an example of uneducated African Islamic terrorists in prison who are equally taken aback today when informed of this- the manipulation goes on) and goes out of its way to state that to you, your religion, to me, mine. This is all just part of a broad picture of religious authority of any type being shaped as necessary, Christian or Islam alike.

Meanwhile, of course Islam also showed intolerance at times (aside from anything else, it was an age of intolerance from humanity in general, so this can only ever be a relative judgement), but quite famously during the times of the Crusades they were astonishingly tolerant in the Holy Land itself, compared to Christian genocidal approaches. Islamic cultures have never been big on personal representations in visual arts but your claim that only the medieval west showed artistic achievement is laughably absurd. Far more Jews were persecuted by Christians than Muslims.

You must move away from this obsession with Biblical text. It is the interpretation and use of religion that is important and relevant- and what you say the Bible means is far from definitive; what you say a 'true' Christian is, likewise. Modern Christianity will keep deviating from that text also, just in morally positive ways- like gay marriage and the ordination of women. Getting into some particular 'what does the Bible literally say?' war is the provenance of baiting atheists looking for a fight or academic/irrelevant discussion within Christianity itself, a kind of petty point scoring exercise in pedanticism that does not actually produce any answers or evidence.. Like I say, increasingly it is just a guidebook, not the source of truth, and so it can be for the Qu'ran. What is or is not Christian/Islamic is NOT down to what (you think) the books say. It is down to how its adherents behave. The book is just a book. It is exactly the same, incidentally, when analysing Marxism or any ideology. Heck, there are almost no Marxists now that base their ideology on Marx's work- it has developed since then. To judge a Marxist ideology, you judge them on their beliefs and actions. If you tried to judge them based on Marx's original work, you'd get it totally wrong. You need to have some semblance of context and nuance in your analyses. It really is lacking.

In short, you have let this myopic focus of yours distract you from the actual reality. That being so, it's left you unable to engage in the actual argument here. But that said, you still throw around spurious phrases like 'no reasoning needed, just evidence'. You need to take a good, long think about what reasoning is and why it has value- especially in matters philosophical like this. Again, all my relevant backing for what I say is in my previous posts.

In the end, we understand the ideology much better than you do- because you've obsessed yourself with the wrong thing. You need to take a step back and start again. I suspect your actual motivation here is that you just really want Christianity to be intrinsically better, but that's a skewed viewpoint. From an objective view, there's no reason to think that and history bears that out. It's really about humans and cultural development; religion is just another tool that gets used. Christianity has gone further down that development in modst modern cultures than Islam has in most of if its cultures, but the culture trumps the religion. And the ultimate logic, in the end, is that Christianity and Islam alike will become merely historical curiosities. It will happen to Christianity first if the modern day is anything to judge by. Anglicanism is already developing itself out of existence.

And so- back to my point. Islam has a big problem today- but not because of what it is, because of the way history has developed in cultures associated with Islam. It would be the same way regardless of their religion; you could swap The Bible and the Qu'ran and be in pretty much the same place today, because the same process that made the West question and re-interpret the Bible would have done the same to the Qu'ran. We can see evidence in this in Islamic countries that have moved away from dogma showing the same sort of development as many Christian countries, and in Christian cultures that have not moved away from dogma that are just as bad as the worst Muslim areas.

So by attacking Islam directly as the problem, all we do is alienate much of the world and prolong the issue. If we instead encourage by diplomacy and good example about this vital cultural counter-balance needed to religion that caused it to become questioned and altered, the Islamic problem would solve itself. Human rights and progressive political and philosophical thought is the answer, but it is a slow process.

So, fight for human rights. Oppose abuses of women in many Islamic cultures; oppose the outrageous treatment of homosexuals. But do the same in Christian countries with the same issues. We confront the behaviour, not get bogged down in a fake ideological war based on irrelevant textual obsession. That is the way for humanity to progress.

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. I've already responded to blasphemous posts like this in the religion forum. God has never MURDERED anyone, dude. There is a huge difference between cleansing the earth of guilty sinners and starting over fresh and killing someone without cause. Killing does not automatically equal murder. Look up the definitions in the dictionary, moron.

LOL dude, saying gods name in vain is a SIN. Even thinking about screwing another mans wife is a sin. Please continue to sit there and say killing anyone guilty of sin is not murder and just a "cleansing".

But okay, how about this: one day you disobey mommy and daddy. They tell you to make your bed and you totally don't. I then kill you because of that. Well, I'm no murderer right? Just cleansing sinners and whatnot, since you totally sinned by disobeying your parents. I'm glad I could help you to never sin again. I'm sure God will high five me for ridding your evil from the planet, right? How do you think Satan punishes the mom and daddy disobeyers?

Also wait, wasn't there a story in the bible about Jesus disobeying his parents when they told him not to go to temple and he went anyways? Then again would that count? Since Jesus is supposed to be his own kid, right? So technically his only parents are himself so he doesn't have to really care what Mary or Joseph say. Oh that Jesus, he loves his loopholes.

Originally posted by Squirtle
Why? why there is no point on debating if socialist ideology is better than maoist?
Why there is no point on debating if radical sects are better than budhism???

No, there is no point. This isn't some competition.

Criticize what it's bad on the practice and move on from abstract shadows. Debating in strict ideas won't change anything and won't help anyone understand how things work. Is a tiresome and pointless exercise.



Originally posted by Squirtle
What's the difference? an idea could be debated to see how good or bad it is, religious ideologies are ideas corpuses and frameworks and can be debated the same way.??

Morality changes depending on the culture, good and bad are passing things. Corpuses are interpreted, switched, transvestised. You can debate on ideas and concepts as long as you're willing to change your preconceptions and definitions.

Arguing to reach a definition is fighting a losing battle, such is the nature of language, it's a convention and if you need to define too thinly you're using it wrong.


Originally posted by Squirtle
...anyways, I'm not able to invest more time on this thread, hope the information I've posted was interesting at least, cheers!

It's a wise decision one way or another, there isn't a debate to be had in these poor dispositions.

Originally posted by Ushgarak


You keep trying this line that nothing is relevant unless it can be directly linked to what a so-called holy book says in its support. Like I said, I am only interested in behaviour, not some academic debate about what the books mean.

Completely irrelevant to your opinion, Christian ideology simply was used in the justification of brutal acts throughout history. You can;t see this was 'false' Christianity because it was ALL of it- this was the organisation 'Christianity' that the world recognised. They would say you are wrong and non-Christian in your interpretation of the Bible.

You can argue back against that as much as you like- it makes not one jot of difference to how they behaved and what they did ...




You CAN say the Catholic Church was, and is, false Christianity.

The 10 minute to 12 minute 48 second mark of the following video addresses why this is so in detail; I can give a summary for anyone to wary of YouTube to click this link:

https://www.youtube.com/user/paden981?v=blYqM4HaWdw


What you're saying is not true, either. It is adherence to the teachings of Christ, confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the faithful following of the commands written in the Gospels that determine if one is a Christian.

You can CALL other programs or things "Christian", but merely saying that does not make it so, anymore than declaring yourself, as opposed to Barack Obama, POTUS, makes you, in fact, the President of the United States of America.

In point of fact, the Bible itself makes a distinction between "world recognition" and authentic Christianity.

We can also look at how crazy and petty the first four of the ten commandments make this "God" look. Here is my problem with going on about God cleansing "sinners". I can sum up the first four commandments: don't believe in other gods besides him, don't say his name in vain, keep holy the sabbath day because god rested on that day so you have to rest as well or you deserve execution(this is in the bible), and finally: obey your parents.

The final one looks good on paper right, obey your parents? After all, your parents DO deserve your respect and love. However, what is God? Don't Christians call him their "father" ? Since how does the phrase "our father who art in heaven" make any sense if they don't feel God is their true father? So in other words, the thing about honoring your parents is just another roundabout way for God to tell you to obey HIM. Isn't that disturbing? That's some Big Brother type stuff, not signs of a benevolent deity who loves us unconditionally.

My final point is: dude makes it a point to say not worshiping him is a sin. Yet rape? Pedophilia? Racism? Totally not worth mentioning, but I'll be damned if you don't keep holy that Sabbath(or rather, YOU will be damned).

Originally posted by Surtur


dude makes it a point to say not worshiping him is a sin. Yet rape? Pedophilia? ... Totally not worth mentioning ...


The two items I quoted from you above ARE mentioned in the Bible.

There's a whole page someone devoted to answering the first:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html



As for pedophilia:


Ephesians 5 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

5 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; 2 and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.


1 Corinthians 6:9-11

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Matthew 18 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

18 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

no matter how many times you re-package that 'no true scotsman' fallacy, it will never become true.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg


no matter how many times you re-package that 'no true scotsman' fallacy, it will never become true. sorry.




I don't think this false objection of yours will survive sustained examination.

Despite being anti-religious, even Rational Wiki has the following to say:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Broadly speaking, the fallacy does NOT apply if there is a clear and well understood definition of what membership in a group requires and it is that definition which is broken (e.g., "no honest man would lie like that!", "no Christian would worship Satan!" and so on).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even Richard Dawkins seems able to recognize the Christian religion is more peaceful than the Islamic one. It's something when even Christianity's biggest opponent recognizes that ...

The religion itself is not more peaceful. It's followers just happen to be at this point in time because they already went through the human rights violation phase long ago, and in some places still are.

ergo, there are zero "true Christians", because man is flawed and every Christian at one point has done something not in line with Christianity.

Glad we cleared that up

'True Christians' only seem to be able to detect that particular fallacy when it's applied as an excuse for atrocities committed in the name of islam.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
The two items I quoted from you above ARE mentioned in the Bible.

There's a whole page someone devoted to answering the first:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html



As for pedophilia:


Ephesians 5 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

5 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; 2 and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.


1 Corinthians 6:9-11

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Matthew 18 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

18 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

You misunderstand, I meant that the rape and pedophilia totally weren't worth mentioning in the 10 commandments. 4 rules coddling a petty jealous God? Check! See, God's rules regarding stupid silly crap like saying his name in vain? Those are the petty things I should have to hunt down to find.

In other words it seems God, who supposedly loves us unconditionally, is more concerned with how we treat him then how we treat each other. Life must be rough for an immortal all powerful divine being. It's a hard knock life indeed.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
neither ... effeminate

So you can go to hell for not acting manly? Um.....what a peaceful religion?

Originally posted by Lestov16
So you can go to hell for not acting manly? Um.....what a peaceful religion?

"neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting"

Even some shit-talking and joking around nets you an eternity of suffering.

Originally posted by Robtard
nor foolish talking


Well, there goes Star's entrance to heaven

Maybe he'll convert to Islam.

Is it all about oil?

Originally posted by Surtur
You misunderstand, I meant that the rape and pedophilia totally weren't worth mentioning in the 10 commandments. 4 rules coddling a petty jealous God? Check! See, God's rules regarding stupid silly crap like saying his name in vain? Those are the petty things I should have to hunt down to find.

You shall not kill seems to include general physical and psychological violence as far as theology goes.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
America has supported terrorism too in the past, but you'd say we're trustworthy, wouldn't you?

America?

No, America is a country.

The US Government, is it trust worthy? Really depends what we are talking about.


Since they spy on everyone, no, the US Government is not trustworthy. They are very dishonest and very very evil if we think of this from a spying.


But in some ways, we are the most charitable nation (if we go by pure aid numbers, not a per capita basis).



My overall opinion is that the US Government is not trustworthy. We are bullies that spy on everyone. I want to stop that.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I don't think this false objection of yours will survive sustained examination.

Despite being anti-religious, even Rational Wiki has the following to say:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Broadly speaking, the fallacy does NOT apply if there is a clear and well understood definition of what membership in a group requires and it is that definition which is broken (e.g., "no honest man would lie like that!", "no Christian would worship Satan!" and so on).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even Richard Dawkins seems able to recognize the Christian religion is more peaceful than the Islamic one. It's something when even Christianity's biggest opponent recognizes that ... There is no "clear and well understood definition" of what a "true Christian" is, otherwise there wouldn't be over a billion Catholics referring to themselves as Christians.

I'm not sure why you keep throwing Richard Dawkins thoughts on Christianity around. I don't think anyone in this discussion gives a shit about Richard Dawkins or what he has to say about this subject.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You CAN say the Catholic Church was, and is, false Christianity.

See it is precisely this sort of internecine struggle that makes it impossible for someone from your viewpoint to make an objective view. Aside from anything else, there are likely far more Catholics than whatever you purport to be 'true' Christianity based on an interpretation of the Bible that you think is superior but for which there is no actual objective justification of 'better' for. I am unsure on what basis you can shut them out so absolutely. Like I say, the ideology is in the minds of the people. They may base it on the Bible (in different ways), but what it ends up practically being depends on a complex set of cultural beliefs that go far beyond what one book says. Your ruling out of Catholicism as being Christian is basically saying that Christianity did not exist in centuries past (I assume Orthodox is no good for you either?). That's a statement which has lost all connection with reality- it is literally useless. There was a giant organisation called Christianity at the time which had a massive effect on world affairs. They are part of the dominant historical definition of Christianity. You saying 'they weren't Christians', when the entirety of Christian identity was in fact set by what they were, is tremendously irrelevant. The best you can say is "We wouldn't consider them good Christians today,"- very different.

Like I said earlier, Dawkins was primarily referring to Anglicanism- is that one good enough for you, or are they all fake as well?

In the end, if you want to distance your version of Christianity from a different version that commits evil acts- that's fine; people can objectively recognise that different Christian sects have different views. But when you claim that your version is the true and right version and cannot be contested, you cannot actually raise any evidence to support that and hence you will be disbelieved. Scripture is no good as that's a matter of interpretation. I'd have a lot more respect if you claimed your version of Christianity was the 'best' rather than 'true' version, as at least that is logically conceivable, hard as it would be to prove.

By extension, when you claim that Islamic sects that promote violence and oppression are likewise the 'True' form of Islam and not just one interpretation that has become dominant in this time, it seems spurious- more like you are just demonising that which you have no wish to understand.

#bluewaterrider

So I take it that you do not celebrate Christmas, as that is not a "true Christian" holiday

Don't waist your time with these guys Blue, they are so much fixed on their own mindset for objective facts or reasoning to mean anything. You'll never have an honest debate here.


No matter how many quotes you provide constrasting objective violent quran/hadith with objective peaceful gospels.

No matter how you objectively contrast demential, violent muhammad life (written as exemplar in hadith LOL) with peaceful jesus/lao tse/gautama/valmiki/etc lifes.

No matter that muslims must follow the prophet "exemplar" life. No matter how life under sharia is. No matter how you can exactly and 100% match islam teachings with islamic terror groups/jahadist actions (but can't do the same with some medieval crap and the gospels).


Heck, if you follow some of these guys arguments to its logical consequence you must conclude nazism ideology is fine, lol. That shoud tell you something...

oh please spare us the "i'm here for you bro" circlejerk. it's still not going to correct your lack of reasoning ability any more than it will validate your routine 'no-true-scotsman' assertions.

Originally posted by Squirtle
objective peaceful gospels


Originally posted by bluewaterrider
1 Corinthians 6:9-11

....fornicators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate.... nor drunkards...shall inherit the kingdom of God

Saying that non-married sexual partners, cheaters, "effeminate"men (which could very much mean homosexuals), and alcoholics will burn in hell of eternity is "objectively peaceful" to you?

The title of the thread is very arrogant.

The problem is not religion, the problem is man.

Originally posted by Squirtle
Don't waist your time with these guys Blue *waste

Originally posted by Lestov16
Saying that non-married sexual partners, cheaters, "effeminate"men (which could very much mean homosexuals), and alcoholics will burn in hell of eternity is "objectively peaceful" to you?

Not exactly related, but your post made me think of this.

Matthew 10:34
(Jesus speaking)
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."




So, yeah.

Originally posted by LLLLLink
Not exactly related, but your post made me think of this.

Matthew 10:34
(Jesus speaking)
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."




So, yeah.

A sword? The Master Sword?

Originally posted by Bentley
You shall not kill seems to include general physical and psychological violence as far as theology goes.

In some ways it is almost worse that God lumped in all these horrible things under "don't kill", but taking his name in vain needs a specific edict.