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

A fascinating question is: which of these two religions is morally superior? Which teaches us more valuable lessons? Which religion's God is more powerful/kinder/wiser? Which book holds more factual evidence to the existance of an omnipotent being?

I'm particularly interested in members JesusLovesYou and S_W_LeGenD duking it out; that'd be fascinating.

S_W_LeGenD thinks Islam is conducive to free democratic society and JesusLovesYou completely avoids answering any truly hard problems with Creationism and just posts dishonest Creationism propaganda.

So an interesting and honest conversation is probably not likely; but yeah, a good idea anyway.

Both are wrong, so this is like asking which is less wrong than the other.

Which is less wrong Adam?

Your question is invalid.

I'd stand by Christianity on this one... which isn't surprising given that I'm a Christian.

Basically, there are moral epithets within the Bible and traditional Christian theology that I obviously find disagreeable (such as verses referring to stoning people and homosexuality being immoral), however the core values of Christianity I think are justifiable as being very aligned with moral behavior from even a secular argument.

To Islam's credit, given that they both share Abrahamic roots, they both share the Garden of Eden Story, which I think is a rather perfect allegory for why we as humans have the proclivity and capacity for evil, as well as the emergence of personal and moral responsibility in humans in a way animals don't have, which is further expanded as being rooted in arrogance by arrogance being the cause of Satan's downfall as well as the temptation that lead to the fall of man. In Christianity, and if I'm not mistaken Islam as well, there's also the conversation between Moses and God through the burning bush where God states his identity as "I am that I am" which is a statement of self-awareness which I believe to be the ultimate truth and the root of love and meaning and therefore morality.

Where Christianity wins for me is where the two hedge off, with Jesus and his teachings being central to Christianity and Muhammad and his teachings being central to Islam. The life and teachings of Jesus further expand on arrogance being the root of evil with arrogance being the appeal Satan used to try and tempt Jesus with in the desert, a mainstream line of thought in Christian theology considering Pride to be the father of all sin, and a lot of Jesus's teachings placing emphasis on being humble as a counterpoint to arrogance. Some examples of humility being Jesus's criticism of the Pharisees for being pompous and arrogant and self-righteous (which more Christians would do well to remember when conducting themselves in their daily lives), the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector where pharisee prayed to God bragging about how righteous he is whereas the tax collector admitted his faults and begged forgiveness and Jesus approved of the latter and disapproved of the former, as well as his teachings regarding the importance of forgiveness, and even the humility of his birth being born in a manger to a poor family. His life and teachings at least in traditional sense also focus a lot around love with his two great commandments boiling down to act out of love for everyone (which I believe is defensible even secularly as the greatest moral code), the theological implications of God engaging in self-sacrifice through Jesus's death and resurrection, and the fact that when Jesus was being crucified he called for the forgiveness of the people torturing and killing him.

As far as my knowledge of Muhammad goes, the guy whose meant to be the central figure of Islam acted as a warlord and slave-owner, and whereas based on Jesus's words the main moral edict of Christianity is to act out of love for everyone, the main moral edict of Islam seems to be the defense of Islam as an institution, which don't get me wrong Christians have done similar things and violent bullshit in defense of Christianity, but that seems to go directly against Jesus's teachings, whereas war in favor of Islam seems to be something Muhammad would approve of given his participation in it during his life.

To be clear, I'm not defending Biblical Inerrancy, as I believe there are several regressive and outdated edicts within the Bible, however I would fiercely defend the validity and importance of the core values of Christianity and the implications of the example Jesus set forth. I'm not even saying every Christian is superior to every Muslim, given that individuals vary by a case by case basis in their attitudes and actions, however I find more moral value in the core values and theology of Christianity in comparison with Islam.

according to christian morality, christianity is superior

according to islamic morality, islam is superior

according to nazi morality, whichever one hates the jews more is superior

Why hasn't ennin been mentioned? Who is that SWLegend *** anyway?

Originally posted by Emperordmb


... the main moral edict of Christianity is to act out of love for everyone


... the main moral edict of Islam seems to be the defense of Islam as an institution
... war in favor of Islam seems to be something Muhammad would approve of given his participation in it during his life.


No disagreement here.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'd stand by Christianity on this one... which isn't surprising given that I'm a Christian.


It wouldn't be surprising if you were secular either, and you apparently very nearly are. Even people who actively oppose Christianity to the degree of Richard Dawkins agree that Christianity is inherently more peaceful than Islam, however.
Including Dawkins himself:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sOyV-WS4u4c



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

Originally posted by Emperordmb

... there are moral epithets within the Bible and traditional Christian theology that I obviously find disagreeable (such as verses referring to stoning people and homosexuality being immoral)


Stoning people I can understand.

I'm a bit at a loss for how you can claim to be a Christian and think homosexuality is NOT immoral, however. Both Old and New Testaments of the Bible are fairly clear that it IS immoral.

To a degree apparently not found in a book like the Koran, incidentally.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm a Christian.You can stop there, Islam wins.

For me, it's a simple matter of comparing the two central figures of Christianity and Islam: Jesus vs. Mohammed. Hippie vs warlord. What else is there to say?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
For me, it's a simple matter of comparing the two central figures of Christianity and Islam: Jesus vs. Mohammed. Hippie vs warlord. What else is there to say?

Yeah, that's basically what it comes down to for me also. The differences matter a great deal. So overall Christianity wins for the simple fact that it has been much easier to reform. But both are full of dangerous irrationality which have negatively impacted human existence. There's the matter of the Old Testament which is awful, perhaps even worse than the Koran. But at least Christianity does have Jesus in the New Testament to nullify some of that awful Old Testament.

There's a different in emphasis between Islam and Christianity. Islam emphasizes and encourages violence a lot more, but Christianity is not without its violent streaks. There's still plenty of past doctrinal interpretations in Christianity that have resulted in awful amounts of violence and murder, like the Inquisition and burning of witches.

Better question is: which religion(in the way it is currently practiced) is the least compatible with western civilization?

Who believes this shit.

And why must the accuracy of the Bible regarding human nature demand the existence of "divine truth"? Like maybe people are just that smart and insightful.

I take all polls with a grain of salt, but according to a gallup poll from 2011 3 out of every 10 Americans take the bible literally.

The number is apparently similar to figures from the last 2 decades, but the number is also down from the figures we had in the 1970s and 1980s.

In other words it seems slowly less and less people take the bible literally. 3 in 10 is still way too high a figure though IMO. Not all Americans are Christian, so I'd wonder how many Christians out of 10 still take the bible literally.

Originally posted by Surtur
I take all polls with a grain of salt, but according to a gallup poll from 2011 3 out of every 10 Americans take the bible literally.

The number is apparently similar to figures from the last 2 decades, but the number is also down from the figures we had in the 1970s and 1980s.

In other words it seems slowly less and less people take the bible literally. 3 in 10 is still way too high a figure though IMO. Not all Americans are Christian, so I'd wonder how many Christians out of 10 still take the bible literally.

Not to mention the embarrassing poll about almost half of Americans thinking Jesus is coming back.

Hopefully those numbers have dropped some since the last time it was taken.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
So overall Christianity wins for the simple fact that it has been much easier to reform.

Hardly. Christianity, in the West, has largely been tamed by Secularism. Islam is a much younger religion, and as such, is where Christianity was 650 years ago. That has nothing to do with one being inherently easier to reform. Rather, it is a function of how long Secularism has been acting on one versus the other.




Originally posted by Patient_Leech
There's still plenty of past doctrinal interpretations in Christianity that have resulted in awful amounts of violence and murder, like the Inquisition and burning of witches.

There is plenty of violence and murder committed by Christians in the name of Christianity today, even in the West. Hell, Christians in Africa burn people alive for being witches to this day.

If you want me to jump to the defense of Christianity you're barking up the wrong tree... lol. Yes, Secularism has reformed Christianity. And maybe Islam just hasn't collided enough with Modernity. And you have a point about Islam not being around as long. But...

There's not as much in the scriptures of the Koran that could help it reform. Way too much of it is about persecuting and killing infidels. So the way that supposed "extremists" behave in fulfilling jihad is really not a distortion of the scriptures.

Yes, Christianity is awful, too. But the differences matter.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
There's not as much in the scriptures of the Koran that could help it reform.

You say that as if non-fundamentalists of any religion believe in both the inerrancy and totality of scripture. Plenty say they do, but the all pick and choose. Case in point: millions of Western Christians and Muslims who have no problem integrating into secular society.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You say that as if non-fundamentalists of any religion believe in both the inerrancy and totality of scripture. Plenty say they do, but the all pick and choose. Case in point: millions of Western Christians and Muslims who have no problem integrating into secular society.

A couple points you're missing:

1. Even non-fundamentalist Muslims still hold beliefs in doctrines that are in outright opposition to free liberal society, like death for apostates (that is not a doctrine in Christianity).

2. Another thing is that Christianity was not founded by a warlord nutcase, so it doesn't order its followers to wage jihad on infidels including dying in the process as a high, glorious honor.

Those are big differences. Yes, moderates don't take some of these things very seriously and that's good, but many of them would still be in favor of changing laws to make certain things like apostasy and homosexuality illegal (take a look at Saudi Arabia). And that is not conducive to free society. That is theocracy. I don't have exact poll numbers, but I guarantee if you took polls of Moderate Chrsitians vs. Moderate Muslims and asked, "Should the punishment from each respective religion for apostasy be death?" you'd get a lot more "Yeses" from the Moderate Muslims than you would from the Moderate Christians.

Point is they are not the same religion and to equate the two is foolish.

IMO: Jews, Christians and Muslims can find "common ground" in some aspects of their faith.

1. I perceive Quran as the more refined and accurate (extension) of earlier Abrahamic scriptures. Surah Al-Ma'idah and Al-An'am are dedicated to the history of Jews and Christians and address their misconceptions.

2. All Abrahamic faiths refer to the same Cosmic God.

3. I believe that revelations of God are consistent throughout ages.

Take a look at original Ten Commandments for example: http://www.dummies.com/religion/judaism/the-torah/the-ten-commandments-according-to-the-torah/

Absolutely compatible with Islamic teachings.

4. I recognize Moses (PBUH) and Jesus Christ (PBUH) as prophets/messengers of God along with many others. Muhammad (SAW) is the last prophet/messenger of God.

5. I do not generalize about qualities and personalities of prophets - they emerged in different environments and confronted different realities but they were all consistent in their message in regards to belief in oneness of the Cosmic God and to heed his warnings and embrace his teachings.

----

I am not interested in debate about Christianity (versus) Islam. I am all for finding common grounds in the matters of faith and interfaith harmony.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
1. Even non-fundamentalist Muslims still hold beliefs in doctrines that are in outright opposition to free liberal society, like death for apostates (that is not a doctrine in Christianity).
This ruling is a political construct.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kashif-n-chaudhry/does-the-koran-endorse-ap_b_5539236.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/islam-saudi-apostasy-201458142128717473.html

Quran does not suggests death penalty for apostasy.

https://quran.com/2/256
https://quran.com/18/29

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
2. Another thing is that Christianity was not founded by a warlord nutcase, so it doesn't order its followers to wage jihad on infidels including dying in the process as a high, glorious honor.
I clarified before that these judgments are in regards to those who wage war against Muslims and want to exterminate them.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Those are big differences. Yes, moderates don't take some of these things very seriously and that's good, but many of them would still be in favor of changing laws to make certain things like apostasy and homosexuality illegal (take a look at Saudi Arabia). And that is not conducive to free society. That is theocracy. I don't have exact poll numbers, but I guarantee if you took polls of Moderate Chrsitians vs. Moderate Muslims and asked, "Should the punishment from each respective religion for apostasy be death?" you'd get a lot more "Yeses" from the Moderate Muslims than you would from the Moderate Christians.
You endorse homosexuality without understanding its dangers and implications for the society at large.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

https://www.nzaf.org.nz/getting-tested/testing-month/hiv-risk-for-gay-men/

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/cdc-gay-men-2-population-67-all-new-hiv-cases

Keep in mind that the Free Society ideals are not necessarily perfect or good in the long-term.

I described the implications of situation of women in Free Societies in detail here: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=622117&pagenumber=17#post16258806

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Keep in mind that the Free Society ideals are not necessarily perfect or good in the long-term.



So, things like free speech, freedom of the press? Equal rights between men and women? Those aren't good forever, huh... what's the halflife on them?

It's all making sense now: You don't think free society is good, so that's why you like Islam... it's the antidote to free society. Gotcha... haha..

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
A couple points you're missing:

1. Even non-fundamentalist Muslims still hold beliefs in doctrines that are in outright opposition to free liberal society, like death for apostates (that is not a doctrine in Christianity).

2. Another thing is that Christianity was not founded by a warlord nutcase, so it doesn't order its followers to wage jihad on infidels including dying in the process as a high, glorious honor.

Those are big differences. Yes, moderates don't take some of these things very seriously and that's good, but many of them would still be in favor of changing laws to make certain things like apostasy and homosexuality illegal (take a look at Saudi Arabia). And that is not conducive to free society. That is theocracy. I don't have exact poll numbers, but I guarantee if you took polls of Moderate Chrsitians vs. Moderate Muslims and asked, "Should the punishment from each respective religion for apostasy be death?" you'd get a lot more "Yeses" from the Moderate Muslims than you would from the Moderate Christians.

Point is they are not the same religion and to equate the two is foolish.

There are Christians in America who want to make homosexuality illegal. There are sitting elected representatives who suggested putting gays and lesbians in concentration camps. This notion that oppressive Muslim ideologies pose a greater threat than oppressive Christian ideologies in this country is just not true.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There are Christians in America who want to make homosexuality illegal.


If memory serves, homosexual acts, though not people, ARE still listed as illegal according to State Law. They go by the name "sodomy", though, and usually remain unenforced except for special cases. Pretty sure Michigan has one, for instance. I'd stop just shy of betting money that Texas has one, too.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE


There are sitting elected representatives who suggested putting gays and lesbians in concentration camps.


I want to see proof of this one. Unless by "concentration camp" you merely allude to what I wrote above, which is that according to State Law homosexual acts can be punished, like any other breach of law, with jail time.

I suppose I should write *are* as opposed to *which is that*, since I hadn't actually written that yet ...

... or something equivalent that would grammatically flow with what was implied or alluded to. Anyway, you get the idea ...

Lets see, both condone slavery, rape and wholesale slaughter of men, women and children. I'd say neither is morally above the other.

edit: forgot the wholesale slaughter of livestock

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
If memory serves, homosexual acts, though not people, ARE still listed as illegal according to State Law. They go by the name "sodomy", though, and usually remain unenforced except for special cases. Pretty sure Michigan has one, for instance. I'd stop just shy of betting money that Texas has one, too.



I want to see proof of this one. Unless by "concentration camp" you merely allude to what I wrote above, which is that according to State Law homosexual acts can be punished, like any other breach of law, with jail time.

The recriminalization of homosexuality and the incarceration of gays and lesbians is part of the official platform of the Montana Republican party since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws against sodomy.

The pastor of Providence Road Baptist Church posted a video of a sermon in which he says he "wants to round gays up behind an electric fence and wait for them to die off."

These are people and groups with real political power and cultural influence in the United States, unlike members of a small and marginalized minority religion.

Originally posted by Robtard
Lets see, both condone slavery, rape and wholesale slaughter of men, women and children. I'd say neither is morally above the other.

edit: forgot the wholesale slaughter of livestock

The acts you just mentioned...in the modern day which religion do you think condones those acts more?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There are Christians in America who want to make homosexuality illegal. There are sitting elected representatives who suggested putting gays and lesbians in concentration camps. This notion that oppressive Muslim ideologies pose a greater threat than oppressive Christian ideologies in this country is just not true.

Yeah, the Christian influence in America is a big problem, too. I agree. Luckily we have some also very deeply held and politically rooted liberal values that do pretty well at fighting back theocracy.


Originally posted by Surtur
The acts you just mentioned...in the modern day which religion do you think condones those acts more?

Yup, it's not just tolerated in Islam, it's downright encouraged. And Islam is also more creepily married to politics than Christianity is.



But again, why is everyone ignoring the fact that in Islam the punishment for apostasy is death? So free thought is outlawed in Islam. Christianity does not have this doctrine. So for me that makes Islam far more morally abhorrent than Christianity.

^ It does tell you that you can go to Hell for thinking bad thoughts about your neighbor's wife when she wears a skimpy outfit. Not as bad as what you're talking about, but both seem to want you to turn off free thought for blind faith.

Originally posted by socool8520
^ It does tell you that you can go to Hell for thinking bad thoughts about your neighbor's wife when she wears a skimpy outfit. Not as bad as what you're talking about, but both seem to want you to turn off free thought for blind faith.

Not exactly. That's just a sin. Sins can be forgiven. You could even burn children alive and be saved as long as you repent and accept the Lord Jesus Christ into your heart before you die. You only go to hell if you don't accept Jesus into your heart and get saved.

https://img.memecdn.com/jesus-saves_o_2093701.jpg

Christianity does not kill apostates. Heretics at one point yes, but not anymore, and it's not a strict doctrine like it is in Islam.

Fair enough, they just both seem to to tug at free thought too much for my liking. I will admit that Islam seems more violent, at least, by too far a number of its followers right now. I'm pro free religion, but it should not harm or impede the rights of others.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech


So, things like free speech, freedom of the press? Equal rights between men and women? Those aren't good forever, huh... what's the halflife on them?

It's all making sense now: You don't think free society is good, so that's why you like Islam... it's the antidote to free society. Gotcha... haha..
The so-called "Free Society" have its share of imperfections and issues - this is my point.

1. Gender equality is good. I fully support this.

2. Freedom of speech is just a "narrative." We are responsible for our views and their repercussions.

3. Freedom of press sounds good as long as you are not on its receiving end. I am an advocate of "responsible press."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/09/balance-between-free-responsible-press

I do not condone homosexuality, cultural objectification of women and cohabitation - these are unhealthy practices with significant implications for the fabric of society in the long-term.

my main problem with islam is that i can't grow a proper beard

i've often thought about converting, but alas my beard would never truly meet islamic standards

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
my main problem with islam is that i can't grow a proper beard

i've often thought about converting, but alas my beard would never truly meet islamic standards


You don't need a beard to be a Muslim.

if that's what you think then you're not a real hardcore muslim

cause the real hardcore muslims have beard patrols. proven and documented in both Afghanistan under taliban rule and Iraq under Isis rule. And, if you don't have a beard/can't grow a beard, you're basically considered a woman to them thus rape might (will) ensue. And that, my friend, is not a fate I want. Not at all. I swear I don't.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
if that's what you think then you're not a real hardcore muslim

cause the real hardcore muslims have beard patrols. proven and documented in both Afghanistan under taliban rule and Iraq under Isis rule. And, if you don't have a beard/can't grow a beard, you're basically considered a woman to them thus rape might (will) ensue. And that, my friend, is not a fate I want. Not at all. I swear I don't.
LMAO

Who is asking you to migrate to Afghanistan? That place is a mess.

I've had a few offers.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I've had a few offers.
I would stay away from Afghanistan.

I tend to avoid all -istans as a sort of general rule.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
The so-called "Free Society" have its share of imperfections and issues - this is my point.

1. Gender equality is good. I fully support this.

2. Freedom of speech is just a "narrative." We are responsible for our views and their repercussions.

3. Freedom of press sounds good as long as you are not on its receiving end. I am an advocate of "responsible press."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/09/balance-between-free-responsible-press

I do not condone homosexuality, cultural objectification of women and cohabitation - these are unhealthy practices with significant implications for the fabric of society in the long-term.

S_W, do you know who Maajid Nawaz is? You'd probably like him. He's very bravely trying to reform the Islamic Faith. He's a former radical Muslim turned activist basically. He's the kind of voice that needs to be raised up. He did a book with Sam Harris: Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue. I believe it's also available as an audiobook which is what it was really intended to be, a conversation. Sam Harris has a free sample of the book on one of his Podcasts. His Podcast is called "Waking Up," and it's #23.



Originally posted by Afro Cheese
if that's what you think then you're not a real hardcore muslim

cause the real hardcore muslims have beard patrols. proven and documented in both Afghanistan under taliban rule and Iraq under Isis rule. And, if you don't have a beard/can't grow a beard, you're basically considered a woman to them thus rape might (will) ensue. And that, my friend, is not a fate I want. Not at all. I swear I don't.

Haha... I can't tell if you're serious or not.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
2. Freedom of speech is just a "narrative." We are responsible for our views and their repercussions.
Of course our speech should not come without social consequences, and that's part of what freedom of speech allows for since it allows others to criticize your ideas and behavior and present different views of you, but it should be entirely left to social consequences. A person or government should not have the right to threaten you with physical violence, theft, or incarceration for speaking in a way they do not like however, and that is the only way that a government can enforce restrictions on free speech.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
S_W, do you know who Maajid Nawaz is? You'd probably like him. He's very bravely trying to reform the Islamic Faith. He's a former radical Muslim turned activist basically. He's the kind of voice that needs to be raised up. He did a book with Sam Harris: Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue. I believe it's also available as an audiobook which is what it was really intended to be, a conversation. Sam Harris has a free sample of the book on one of his Podcasts. His Podcast is called "Waking Up," and it's #23
Oh yeah I saw that video and I have a lot of respect for that guy. Apparently he's suing the Southern Poverty Law Center for defamation since they called him an Anti-Islam extremist. Well, they are the same people that called the okay hand sign a white supremacy symbol.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
S_W, do you know who Maajid Nawaz is? You'd probably like him. He's very bravely trying to reform the Islamic Faith. He's a former radical Muslim turned activist basically. He's the kind of voice that needs to be raised up. He did a book with Sam Harris: Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue. I believe it's also available as an audiobook which is what it was really intended to be, a conversation. Sam Harris has a free sample of the book on one of his Podcasts. His Podcast is called "Waking Up," and it's #23.
I was not aware.

Thanks for the pointer.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
The so-called "Free Society" have its share of imperfections and issues - this is my point.

1. Gender equality is good. I fully support this.

2. Freedom of speech is just a "narrative." We are responsible for our views and their repercussions.

3. Freedom of press sounds good as long as you are not on its receiving end. I am an advocate of "responsible press."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/09/balance-between-free-responsible-press

I do not condone homosexuality, cultural objectification of women and cohabitation - these are unhealthy practices with significant implications for the fabric of society in the long-term.

If I drew a picture of Muhammad, would that personally offend you?

Originally posted by Surtur
The acts you just mentioned...in the modern day which religion do you think condones those acts more?

Both.

And before you trigger-out because I didn't answer with "ISLAM!!!11!", might I remind you that the Bosnian ethnic cleansing wasn't all that long ago.

Christianity hands down.

Why wasn't this thread a poll?

Originally posted by Robtard
Both.

And before you trigger-out because I didn't answer with "ISLAM!!!11!", might I remind you that the Bosnian ethnic cleansing wasn't all that long ago.

Lol so just to be clear; they both equally condone those acts? As Spock would say: fascinating.

Originally posted by Robtard
Both.

And before you trigger-out because I didn't answer with "ISLAM!!!11!", might I remind you that the Bosnian ethnic cleansing wasn't all that long ago.
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol so just to be clear; they both equally condone those acts? As Spock would say: fascinating.

Rob, for some reason you are ignoring the fact that Christianity has Jesus who sort of did away with much of the OT law. So therefore there is no need for Christians to go around beheading, killing, raping, etc because Jesus will return and people who haven't accepted Jesus will get their just desserts in the afterlife. Islam has no such comparable figure. Islam is full-on bloodshed and savagery through and through. In Islam, Muslims are "strongly encouraged" to carry out violent commands in the name of Allah and his prophet. Jesus makes no such commands. He has some varying moods, but he never condones such violence. Does "turn the other cheek" sound familiar?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Rob, for some reason you are ignoring the fact that Christianity has Jesus who sort of did away with much of the OT law. So therefore there is no need for Christians to go around beheading, killing, raping, etc because Jesus will return and people who haven't accepted Jesus will get their just desserts in the afterlife. Islam has no such comparable figure. Islam is full-on bloodshed and savagery through and through. In Islam, Muslims are "strongly encouraged" to carry out violent commands in the name of Allah and his prophet. Jesus makes no such commands. He has some varying moods, but he never condones such violence. Does "turn the other cheek" sound familiar?

Jesus did no such thing. To the contrary, Jesus states specifically that he did not come to abolish the Old Testament law whatsoever. He told his followers to take up swords, and that he came to turn father against son and mother against daughter. The same New Testament that says to turn the other cheek also says that slaves should obey their masters even if their masters beat them. This peaceful Christianity is as big a fiction as the entire religion.

^ There's a lot of contradictory stuff in the Bible, yes. But Islam doesn't have so much contradictory stuff to allow for as much diversity of interpretation.

Could Jesus REALLY come out and say "I abolish the old testament"? Do you guys remember the OT God? He'd roast Jesus alive if he talked shit. Make him yearn for the days of being crucified and the utter horror that was his 3 day nap(the horror, the cave was damp and lacked wifi!)

But even without that, how can anyone say both religions equally condone this abhorrent behavior? In the here and now?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Jesus did no such thing. To the contrary, Jesus states specifically that he did not come to abolish the Old Testament law whatsoever. He told his followers to take up swords...

Words attributed to Jesus in the Bible and how he's interpreted in light of all the reformation and modern spin that Christianity has undergone are two completely different things. That's why I said he had "various moods."

Look, you don't have to convince me that Christianity is filled with barbaric bullshit. I hate the religion with a passion. But you'll have a hard time convincing me that it's just as easy (or even possible) to interpret Islam as a mild, benign, peaceful religion. It's simply not. At its core it's not.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Words attributed to Jesus in the Bible and how he's interpreted in light of all the reformation and modern spin that Christianity has undergone are two completely different things. That's why I said he had "various moods."

Look, you don't have to convince me that Christianity is filled with barbaric bullshit. I hate the religion with a passion. But you'll have a hard time convincing me that it's just as easy (or even possible) to interpret Islam as a mild, benign, peaceful religion. It's simply not. At its core it's not.

And yet millions of American Muslims have found a way. Meanwhile, African Christians are mutilating genitals and burning people alive.

And more besides. What reality is Leech living in?

Oh the way the left ignors what is really going on in the world is so funny.

But then much like with Islam. Truth has never been one of the Lefts Values.

The Mussies are coming! The Mussies are coming!

help, ma values

You have "values"?

no, the mussies took them all away.

I am sure they will treat them ok. The Mussies are the best of hosts.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
And yet millions of American Muslims have found a way. Meanwhile, African Christians are mutilating genitals and burning people alive.

You're comparing two different extremes. American Muslims are probably the most moderate of all Muslims and African Christians are a particularly extreme non-reformed version of Christianity. You could do that with anything to prove a point. And the general political landscape of the land makes a difference too. Africa is sort of split into half Christian half Islam.

But if you look at the way a supposedly Christian majority country (the US) and an Islamic majority country (say Saudi Arabia or Indonesia) operate it's much more true to reality. Saudi Arabia imprisons apostates or critics of Islam and proponents of women's rights, kills homosexuals, etc. And why? Because their holy books command them to without much room for alternate interpretation.

Islam is inherently structured to be resistant to reform.

You did the same thing by using American Muslims and African Christians. Except you used exaggerated examples. Of course there are exceptions. My point is that you should use examples that reflect more of the reality, what is more the core of the religion. The core of Christianity is Jesus and he didn't go around beheading homosexuals, apostates, and mutilating and raping women. Who was it that condoned those things? I forgot his name... der..

Just saw a video from two days ago in Iran. A man taking public lashings for drinking alcohol. Jesus turned water into wine. Which religion has the better moral compass here?

.

.

.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
And yet millions of American Muslims have found a way. Meanwhile, African Christians are mutilating genitals and burning people alive. Africa is ****ed in general, though. They do that kind of shit with or without Christianity/Islam/etc.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
You did the same thing by using American Muslims and African Christians. Except you used exaggerated examples. The funny thing is the war crimes of African Christians and African Muslims are just new manifestation of the same brutal tribal violence that has plagued the continent for god knows how long.

It's not uniquely African but an aspect of primitive tribal behavior. For another example... the cannibal tribes in Papua New Guinea also believe deeply in witchcraft, and it is those accused of witchcraft that are typically killed and eaten.

The idea that you need a Holy Book to encourage this kind of irrational violence in a tribal environment is laughable. Shamanism is and has been an inherent aspect of tribal life since long before the dawn of civilization. Africans are generally not very far removed from this way of life, and the vast majority of the "religious" violence in Africa happens strictly along tribal lines.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_68Lw7WiUpg/U8kDu-PVLaI/AAAAAAAAQA4/_HsM3mVAtDY/s1600/and_the_winner_is.gif

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
The funny thing is the war crimes of African Christians and African Muslims are just new manifestation of the same brutal tribal violence that has plagued the continent for god knows how long.

It's not uniquely African but an aspect of primitive tribal behavior. For another example... the cannibal tribes in Papua New Guinea also believe deeply in witchcraft, and it is those accused of witchcraft that are typically killed and eaten.

The idea that you need a Holy Book to encourage this kind of irrational violence in a tribal environment is laughable. Shamanism is and has been an inherent aspect of tribal life since long before the dawn of civilization. Africans are generally not very far removed from this way of life, and the vast majority of the "religious" violence in Africa happens strictly along tribal lines.

^ lol, and that is supposed to prove some vague point of yours how? Does it prove that Islam is a religion of peace? No. And if it does, it also proves that Christianity is a religion of peace.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
The idea that you need a Holy Book to encourage this kind of irrational violence in a tribal environment is laughable. Shamanism is and has been an inherent aspect of tribal life since long before the dawn of civilization. Africans are generally not very far removed from this way of life, and the vast majority of the "religious" violence in Africa happens strictly along tribal lines.

Of course throughout history our ancestors didn't need holy books to encourage irrational violence. I'm not arguing (and I don't think anyone is) that violence only comes from religious conflict and is only waged for religious reasons. Of course that's not the case.

But what's more tribal, irrational, and divisive than two groups of people disagreeing on which worldview will send themselves or their loved ones to hell? Why do you think there's such harsh punishments in Christianity and Islam for apostates? Because they may lead their loved ones astray and send them to hell. That's going to conjure up some pretty harsh violence because what is a little suffering in this life if it saves your loved ones from eternal damnation?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'd stand by Christianity on this one... which isn't surprising given that I'm a Christian.

Basically, there are moral epithets within the Bible and traditional Christian theology that I obviously find disagreeable (such as verses referring to stoning people and homosexuality being immoral), however the core values of Christianity I think are justifiable as being very aligned with moral behavior from even a secular argument.

To Islam's credit, given that they both share Abrahamic roots, they both share the Garden of Eden Story, which I think is a rather perfect allegory for why we as humans have the proclivity and capacity for evil, as well as the emergence of personal and moral responsibility in humans in a way animals don't have, which is further expanded as being rooted in arrogance by arrogance being the cause of Satan's downfall as well as the temptation that lead to the fall of man. In Christianity, and if I'm not mistaken Islam as well, there's also the conversation between Moses and God through the burning bush where God states his identity as "I am that I am" which is a statement of self-awareness which I believe to be the ultimate truth and the root of love and meaning and therefore morality.

Where Christianity wins for me is where the two hedge off, with Jesus and his teachings being central to Christianity and Muhammad and his teachings being central to Islam. The life and teachings of Jesus further expand on arrogance being the root of evil with arrogance being the appeal Satan used to try and tempt Jesus with in the desert, a mainstream line of thought in Christian theology considering Pride to be the father of all sin, and a lot of Jesus's teachings placing emphasis on being humble as a counterpoint to arrogance. Some examples of humility being Jesus's criticism of the Pharisees for being pompous and arrogant and self-righteous (which more Christians would do well to remember when conducting themselves in their daily lives), the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector where pharisee prayed to God bragging about how righteous he is whereas the tax collector admitted his faults and begged forgiveness and Jesus approved of the latter and disapproved of the former, as well as his teachings regarding the importance of forgiveness, and even the humility of his birth being born in a manger to a poor family. His life and teachings at least in traditional sense also focus a lot around love with his two great commandments boiling down to act out of love for everyone (which I believe is defensible even secularly as the greatest moral code), the theological implications of God engaging in self-sacrifice through Jesus's death and resurrection, and the fact that when Jesus was being crucified he called for the forgiveness of the people torturing and killing him.

As far as my knowledge of Muhammad goes, the guy whose meant to be the central figure of Islam acted as a warlord and slave-owner, and whereas based on Jesus's words the main moral edict of Christianity is to act out of love for everyone, the main moral edict of Islam seems to be the defense of Islam as an institution, which don't get me wrong Christians have done similar things and violent bullshit in defense of Christianity, but that seems to go directly against Jesus's teachings, whereas war in favor of Islam seems to be something Muhammad would approve of given his participation in it during his life.

To be clear, I'm not defending Biblical Inerrancy, as I believe there are several regressive and outdated edicts within the Bible, however I would fiercely defend the validity and importance of the core values of Christianity and the implications of the example Jesus set forth. I'm not even saying every Christian is superior to every Muslim, given that individuals vary by a case by case basis in their attitudes and actions, however I find more moral value in the core values and theology of Christianity in comparison with Islam.

I'm with DMB on this.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
^ lol, and that is supposed to prove some vague point of yours how? Does it prove that Islam is a religion of peace? No. And if it does, it also proves that Christianity is a religion of peace.

No, it does indeed prove it. A particular religion is only as peaceful as its adherents. Point of fact: Western religions are more peaceful than their African counterparts. This is because 1. pluralism/secularism tames religion, and 2. cultural/tribal conflict is the root of religious conflict. If religions had fixed, i.e. "real" identities that could be compared and contrasted, and graded on a scale of which is better or worse than the other, then there would not be 33,000 denominations of Christianity.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
The funny thing is the war crimes of African Christians and African Muslims are just new manifestation of the same brutal tribal violence that has plagued the continent for god knows how long.

It's not uniquely African but an aspect of primitive tribal behavior. For another example... the cannibal tribes in Papua New Guinea also believe deeply in witchcraft, and it is those accused of witchcraft that are typically killed and eaten.

The idea that you need a Holy Book to encourage this kind of irrational violence in a tribal environment is laughable. Shamanism is and has been an inherent aspect of tribal life since long before the dawn of civilization. Africans are generally not very far removed from this way of life, and the vast majority of the "religious" violence in Africa happens strictly along tribal lines.

A lot of this is correct, but here is the thing: I would wager that most people who do not feel Islam is a religion of peace do not feel that Islam is the *only* religion with abhorrent passages in their holy books and it's not the only religion to cause people to get violent.

I also would think most people do not think you need a holy book to have irrational violence.

What bothers some people is when people try to pretend like religion has nothing to do with some of these terror attacks. Despite countless ones screaming allahu akbar before going on their murder sprees. What bothers me is they try to blame this on anything other than religion.(I am not saying you personally do this).

The usual things people blame are politics, poverty, etc. Those things are definitely factors, however IMO the way these people *react* to these problems stems from Islam. Islam is why they think blowing themselves up in public places is the best way to achieve your goals. It's how they justify decapitating children and flying planes into buildings.

I am not saying all Muslims are like that, the majority of them are not. However, on 9/11 we had thousands of people killed and 6,000 more injured. It took 19 people, just 19, to wipe out thousands of lives in a matter of hours. I truly feel we do a disservice to all those lost on that day(and to all victims of Islamic terrorism) when we pretend Islam wasn't a major factor in all this.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, it does indeed prove it. A particular religion is only as peaceful as its adherents. Point of fact: Western religions are more peaceful than their African counterparts. This is because 1. pluralism/secularism tames religion, and 2. cultural/tribal conflict is the root of religious conflict. If religions had fixed, i.e. "real" identities that could be compared and contrasted, and graded on a scale of which is better or worse than the other, then there would not be 33,000 denominations of Christianity.

It's this backwards belief that religion shapes society as opposed to the other way around that leads people to conclude that if we 'get rid of Islam' terrorism would go away. It wouldn't, if people are prepared to blow up innocents and themselves with them they'll find justification.

Originally posted by Beniboybling


It's this backwards belief that religion shapes society as opposed to the other way around that leads people to conclude that if we 'get rid of Islam' terrorism would go away. It wouldn't, if people are prepared to blow up innocents and themselves with them they'll find justification.

Right. Religion merely provides a powerful language for people to justify the things they want to do anyway. "You know you have made God in your own image when He hates all the same people you do." If you remove the justification of religion, people will simply substitute another one.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech


Of course throughout history our ancestors didn't need holy books to encourage irrational violence. I'm not arguing (and I don't think anyone is) that violence only comes from religious conflict and is only waged for religious reasons. Of course that's not the case.Of course. I just think that people will latch onto the reasons that are convenient for their own ideological narrative. If you are someone who is against religion, then you will emphasize the religious element of violence wherever you find it.

Case in point being Africa. When people bring up the bloodshed and witchhunts etc in Africa they generally do so with the undertone of "see what religion does to people?" But in this case, a lot of this shit was already happening before Christianity or Islam ever made their way into Africa. Once they did, these religions largely mapped onto the African tribal cultures that already existed.

I'm not saying that this is the only way in which people selectively emphasize the causes they find useful to their narrative. The flip side is liberals who will look at the war on terror and the causes of Islamic terror as being purely a result of western imperialism and foreign policy as well as poverty and a lack of education/opportunity. The pretty much ignore any possible religious or cultural causes for the extremism.

Both of these approaches are equally short sighted IMO, and I believe they are designed more for the purposes of pursuing a particular agenda than they are for actually trying to understand why any of this stuff happens.

So I take it on a case by case basis. When a Christian murders an abortion doctor, I certainly don't ignore the religious motivations behind that. Aside from whatever mental instability that person might suffer from, of course. And the same goes for groups like ISIS. I believe that they are really motivated by both a political and religious Utopian vision of bringing forth the new caliphate.

But my main point is people tend to get sloppy and fall into the trap of using the same tool kit to explain every single situation. So you might lump honor killings, female genital mutilation, etc under the umbrella of "Islam" but to my eye these are practices that occur mostly in certain cultures, some of which are Islamic and some of which aren't. So I get the idea that these sorts of barbaric practices are much more something associated with "that part of the world" than strictly with Islam or any other religion.

Look there can be many factors that lead for people to behave this savagely. It isn't always a religion, but sometimes it is. Islam is one of those times.

We just can't ignore it, we can't say it's not Islam. It goes beyond mere savagery. They have rape rules. You can rape a married woman if she is your captive. That goes beyond the savage instinct inherent in all human beings.

This is honestly why I made my other thread about why this religion is so special. If Christians were committing various terror attacks across Europe and quoting scripture or screaming about God as they do it, people would not shy away from the religious aspect. What did Islam do to earn such special treatment?

Originally posted by Surtur
Look there can be many factors that lead for people to behave this savagely. It isn't always a religion, but sometimes it is. Islam is one of those times.
see you just showed your hand here with that last sentence. Until then you were being reasonable. But you very clearly have an axe to grind against Islam in particular.

And here you double down on that axe. No, it does not go beyond anything. Do you have any idea what the cultures of the Arabian peninsula were like prior to Islam?

I'm not giving it special treatment... you are. You're placing it front and center in how you interpret all of this.

I showed my hand and I do not mind it, I will fully admit: Islam is the problem, at least the main problem. Other religions are shitty, others have inspired violence. Now Islam seems to be at the top when it comes to it. I can't see why we should ignore it.

What other cultures were like is irrelevant to me, this is about Islam. They could be better or worse and hey if they were even shittier than Islam it's good they took a few baby steps forward to become a tad less shitty.

You personally do not give it special treatment, but our country seems to. They bend over backwards to avoid calling things Islamic extremism. I remember watching a recent interview where a guy kept shouting "how does it help to call it that?!". Who does that? Who argues something should not be properly labeled? It was liberals on MSNBC I think.

If Christians began blowing shit up all over Europe and shouting about God or Jesus, the Christian aspect would be brought up. With Islam, it's always something else. I still do not get why. What does this religion bring to the table? At least I learned that if someone writes a negative poem about me I can murder them.

Originally posted by Surtur
Who does that? Who argues something should not be properly labeled? Trump and his cucks these days.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Trump and his cucks these days.

So when Obama didn't name radical Islamic terrorists as radical Islamic terrorists....you had the same problem?

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Of course. I just think that people will latch onto the reasons that are convenient for their own ideological narrative. If you are someone who is against religion, then you will emphasize the religious element of violence wherever you find it.

Okay so how do you explain that 100% of Islamists/Extremists/Suicide Bombers (whatever you want to call them) are Muslim?

And combine that with the fact that we don't see Catholic or Taoist suicide bombers? Because the differences amongst religions matter a great deal.

And they have told us ad nauseam what they are doing and why they are doing it.

A simple reading of the Holy Qur'an and its doctrines of jihad easily explains this.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Okay so how do you explain that 100% of Islamists/Extremists/Suicide Bombers (whatever you want to call them) are Muslim?

And combine that with the fact that we don't see Catholic or Taoist suicide bombers? Because the differences amongst religions matter a great deal.

And they have told us ad nauseam what they are doing and why they are doing it.

A simple reading of the Holy Qur'an and its doctrines of jihad easily explains this. 100% of islamists are muslim for a very simple reason that I should hope I don't have to explain

that isn't true for extremists, and it's not technically true for suicide bombers either

but the extremist islamist groups have seized upon suicide bombing largely because it's an effective strategy when you are fighting an asymmetrical guerrilla war

the quran does not justify suicide bombing in any straight forward way, but the extremists are very good at coming up with theological rationalizations, just like any other religious zealot.

i know i recommended the book "the looming tower" before, but i want to recommend it again. it has a lot of insight about the origins of Al-Qaeda and in particular what I am thinking about right now is the explaination for how suicide bombing came into fashion with sunni militants. it is a relatively recent phenomenon. and the whole emphasis on "martyrdom" jihadi groups take is similarly recent. the reason this has become the norm for them is based more on military strategy than on the quran itself. they basically just think that the ends justify the means.

here's a pdf version of the book

http://www.unhas.ac.id/rhiza/arsip/TheLoomingTower.pdf

i have to go to work right now, but some other time i will look for the relevant passages myself. if you care to look yourself, just ctrl f and search for phrases like "suicide" and "martyr"

here's one of the passages i came across, talking about how Al-Qaeda and the sunni militants learned the strategy of suicide bombing from the Shia militants in Hezbollah.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
the quran does not justify suicide bombing in any straight forward way, but the extremists are very good at coming up with theological rationalizations, just like any other religious zealot.

You are ****ing lying to yourself and ignoring the problem.

This is why demagogues like Trump are seizing power because we rational liberals are ignoring the problem...

.
.

lol. i'm trying to be reasonable with you but you aren't returning the favor. either start addressing the points i bring up or **** off.

What I don't think it reasonable is for someone to defend completely irrational beliefs that one doesn't even hold and even disagrees with, beliefs that lead to destructive behavior witnessed on a far-too-common basis.

I hear it claimed all the time that these suicidal notions are not supported in the Quran, but there is definitely plenty of justification that can be interpreted from the texts...



And just a few examples of demonizing infidels...



This is not really a debate. It's a fact. And to obscure the issue is dishonest and counterproductive. Does the text say directly, "Kill others by taking your own life"? I don't know, maybe not. But it doesn't have to be dangerous. And I'm sure if it did, apologists would probably still defend it.

None of those verses mention suicide. "being slain in battle" =! killing yourself in battle.

Suicide is considered a taboo in Islam as it is forbidden both in the Quran and the Hadiths, with the Hadiths describing people who commit suicide going to hell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_suicide#Islam

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

This is not really a debate. It's a fact. And to obscure the issue is dishonest and counterproductive. Does the text say directly, "Kill others by taking your own life"? I don't know, maybe not. But it doesn't have to be dangerous. And I'm sure if it did, apologists would probably still defend it. Ha. This is hilarious. You don't know? I do. It doesn't say that.

I'm not being an apologist for Islam. There are plenty of things I will criticize the religion for. I just try to be fair and factual with my criticisms. I believe suicide bombings have taken off (as I've mentioned, very very recently, historically speaking) as they have proven an effective way to commit terrorism. There's an entire passage in the book I cited you that goes on about how the founding fathers of Al Qaeda actually struggled theologically with the concept of suicide bombing before eventually constructing their rationalization for why it was ok.

Ngl, some forms of Islamic extremism won't be found in Islam, I'll give it that. However, that's not enough to give Islam a pass.

I know it says not to kill yourself. But it's still a slippery slope. Being commanded to fight and die for Allah in hopes of reward promotes a very violent agenda. The problem stems from the belief that this nonsense is of some divine origin and must be obeyed. In other words Islam is the problem. So little nitpicking about what the verses technically say is of little importance when they overall promote such ridiculously obvious violence against non-believers (not to mention women and apostates).

Originally posted by YousufKhan1212
Ngl, some forms of Islamic extremism won't be found in Islam, I'll give it that. However, that's not enough to give Islam a pass.

Yup, even conceding that, calling Islam a "Religion of Peace" is ridiculous. #ICallBullshit

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I know it says not to kill yourself. But it's still a slippery slope. Being commanded to fight and die for Allah in hopes of reward promotes a very violent agenda. The problem stems from the belief that this nonsense is of some divine origin and must be obeyed. In other words Islam is the problem. So little nitpicking about what the verses technically say is of little importance when they overall promote such ridiculously obvious violence against non-believers (not to mention women and apostates). The book was written in a very violent context. There are a number of verses saying to make peace with people if you can make peace with them. But war happened to be a very real part of the birth of Islam. From the get-go they were a community that acted and operated as a quasi-nation state, army and all.

As such, military strategy seeps into the text. I will admit this is a particularly problematic aspect of the Quran, as taken in isolation and out of context, verses can easily be used to justify waging holy war at every opportunity. The way non-violent Muslims respond to this is by pointing to verses which seem to contradict that idea, and stressing that the book be taken as a whole, and that you keep the context of any given verse in mind when citing it.

Generally, both fundamentalist Islamist groups who want to promote terror as well as Christians and Atheists who want to smear Islam tend to like to instead take out a sentence that sounds juicy and read into it as much as they possibly can. Which is what I don't respect. That's not seeking an understanding of the text. It's simple fear mongering.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yup, even conceding that, calling Islam a "Religion of Peace" is ridiculous. #ICallBullshit

So true. Islam is a Religion of submission, not peace.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
The book was written in a very violent context.

One doesn't need to be an Islamic text scholar to be honest about the connection between Muslim violence and Islam. The problem is not that it was written at a violent time in history. It should just be seen as history and nothing more. The problem is that so many millions of people see these texts as the holy word of the Creator of the Universe, which brings the violence of the 7th century into the 21st.


Originally posted by Afro Cheese
That's not seeking an understanding of the text. It's simple fear mongering.

To deny the connection between Muslim violence and Islam is ridiculous and ignores the heart of the problem. I don't think that's fear mongering. I think it's honesty. It's a violent ideology promoting prejudice and intolerance because people see it as God's holy word. So I see the failure to criticize revealed religion as the heart of the problem.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
One doesn't need to be an Islamic text scholar to be honest about the connection between Muslim violence and Islam. The problem is not that it was written at a violent time in history. It should just be seen as history and nothing more. Here you miss the point. The historical context is precisely why the text contains passages that apply during wartime, which are the violent passages in question.

I agree.


I'm not denying the connection. I'm saying that there is an agenda on behalf of some to promote that violent image. Some of them are Muslim terrorists promoting actual violence, and others are critics of the religion who want to emphasize its violent side. Both will tend to overstate the extent to which an honest reading of the Quran promotes endless holy war by honing in on the passages that support this narrative and ignoring the rest. There's nothing productive or honest about that.

It seems like some have an agenda to promote the violent image while others have an agenda to promote this "it's a religion of peace" nonsense.

I would still be interested in the number of radical muslims people think there are. Even .1% would be 1 million.

The people who mainly promote it as a "religion of peace" are a) peaceful Muslims or b) liberal white knights.

I haven't said anything about it being a religion of peace, just to clarify. It certainly seems like the least likely religion to actually fit that description.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Here you miss the point. The historical context is precisely why the text contains passages that apply during wartime, which are the violent passages in question.

It doesn't sound it's just for wartime to me. It's to spread Islam, the one true religion. "Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the worship will all be for Allah Alone."



Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I'm not denying the connection. I'm saying that there is an agenda on behalf of some to promote that violent image. Some of them are Muslim terrorists promoting actual violence, and others are critics of the religion who want to emphasize its violent side. Both will tend to overstate the extent to which an honest reading of the Quran promotes endless holy war by honing in on the passages that support this narrative and ignoring the rest. There's nothing productive or honest about that.

I don't think it can be overemphasized. It definitely doesn't get stressed enough, at least not in the mainstream media. Liberals are too afraid of "Islamophobia," so they don't approach the problem honestly. I honestly was unaware of how horrible the Islamic texts are for a long time. I think a lot of people just don't know. Sure, there's a balance that needs to be struck in dealing with the issue because many millions of Muslims are peaceful, and live by many of our liberal values, but that's not because that's the core doctrine of Islam, it's in spite of it. Many, many other millions of Muslims greatly oppose liberal values vital to a free society and people need to look honestly at what the texts are preaching. It's not tolerance and acceptance of women, homosexuals, and free-thinkers; it's subjugation and totalitarian theocracy, whether achieved through political policy or violence. Either one is undesirable.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
It doesn't sound it's just for wartime to me. It's to spread Islam, the one true religion. "Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the worship will all be for Allah Alone."No, that quote is specifically referring to the wartime that the early Muslims endured. I know it doesn't "sound like" that when you quote it out of context. That was my entire point.

The fact that you would even say something like this basically illustrates my point perfectly.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
No, that quote is specifically referring to the wartime that the early Muslims endured...

...in spreading their theocracy.

How familiar are you with the early history of Islam?

Somewhat. But again, it doesn't take a history degree to see where the problem is stemming from. Just look at Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Iran.

I wasn't asking for credentials. Just how well you know the story of how Islam was created.

I know the general outline.

The last 20-30 seconds are the most important in terms of what the muslim admits:

X3jZfhqfFRs

I'm converting to Islam. Richard Dawkins' fascist Liberal views is one of the reasons.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm converting to Islam. Richard Dawkins' fascist Liberal views is one of the reasons.

But Rob...bacon. Come on now. Bacon.

61g2-EVJ-mo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61g2-EVJ-mo

Edit: Also, I'm Jewish. Yes, there are Black Jews. I know. Crazy.

I'm gonna help you.

61g2-EVJ-mo

Umm. I posted it already, both view-able and clickable link. So?

It's why when I click the video it says an error occurred, right?

Click your video(not the link, the actual video). tell me if it works.

TBF, you have time to edit. Hurry.

61g2-EVJ-mo

Change the J in youtube in the last part to a y. It will work. I changed it to a J so you could see the actual thing you need to put.

Cos user error? Both work for me, son

Dude you clearly just edited it lol.

I have proof you did, but don't make me show it. I still have you original post open in another tab and quoted. Will you admit it or do I need to embarrass you? Up to you.

I flat out have your original post and your edited one both open and quoted.

Um, I edited in the "I'm Jewish part" yes.

Also, I'm not intersted in your quote altering games. Look, I can do it to:

Originally posted by Surtur
Dude you clearly just edited it lol. I also like smelling my own farts.

I have proof you did, it's called my imagination, but don't make me show it. I still have you original post open in another tab and quoted which I can edit. Will you admit it or do I need to embarrass you? Up to you.

ps Someone give me more attention!!1!

Dude, you edited your link. Your first post had the entire link,but when you ost a video from youtube you do not include the entire link, that is not how you do it, it is why your original think didn't work.. You seriously will not admit it? I don't get it. People get the youtube linking wrong all the time.

Originally posted by Surtur
Dude, you edited your link. Your first post had the entire link. You seriously will not admit it? I don't get it. People get the youtube linking wrong all the time.

Maybe plebs do. Not Robtard. Nope.

Originally posted by Robtard
Maybe plebs do. Not Robtard. Nope.

Lol...but you did.

Originally posted by Robtard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61g2-EVJ-mo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61g2-EVJ-mo

Also, I'm Jewish. Yes, there are Black Jews. I know. Crazy.

Your original post.

Your updated post:

Originally posted by Robtard
61g2-EVJ-mo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61g2-EVJ-mo

Edit: Also, I'm Jewish. Yes, there are Black Jews. I know. Crazy.

FFS, you showed you can quote edit, after I just showed how easy it was with editing a post of yours. Come on, Surt. You can do better than that, stop being so petty. Come on. So desperate for a win; I'm tempted in just playing along and letting you have it.

edit: Okay, you can win.

#robtardthemerciful

Originally posted by Robtard
FFS, you showed you can quote edit, after I just showed how easy it was with editing a post of yours. Come on, Surt. You can do better than that, stop being so petty. Come on. So desperate for a win; I'm tempted in just playing along and letting you have it.

edit: Okay, you can win.

#robtardthemerciful

I don't even know what to say to this lol. You made a mistake, it's not a big deal. You are truly going to pretend you didn't?

Okay Rob. Yeah, anything can be edited, but we both know I didn't. Your refusal to ever admit any mistakes is telling.

I feel like an actual screenshot would have cleared this up much more effectively than a quote.

Originally posted by BackFire
I feel like an actual screenshot would have cleared this up much more effectively than a quote.

I didn't screenshot his post, I had his posts quoted and opened in another tab. He is correct anyone could edit this, but I didn't.

I didn't think he'd lie about a youtube link.

I feel like this tells me everything about Rob I need to know. Can't even admit to this. I had an error occurring when I clicked it, suddenly he edited it and it was working.

Then I guess we'll never know the truth. Just one of the great mysteries of human history, like who built the pyramids and what kind of cheese is the moon made of.

Originally posted by BackFire
Then I guess we'll never know the truth. Just one of the great mysteries of human history, like who built the pyramids and what kind of cheese is the moon made of.

Rob and I know the truth, it's enough for me to be honest. I know for sure he is just a troll now.

Funny thing is I was messing with him, wasn't trying to give him a major hard time about the mistake. Then he tried to pretend it didn't happen, I don't get why.

EDIT: It is too bad there is no mod option to see the original post.

Christianity has given us Western Civilization with all the wonders that followed it such as freedom. Islam has given us Sharia Law with all the horrors that followed it such as honor killings.

Freedom didn't come from Christianity. Ancient Greeks had it long before Jesus came about; there were others

And say what you will, but the Islamic world has given us several advances throughout history, denying this is being ignorant

Originally posted by Robtard
Freedom didn't come from Christianity. Ancient Greeks had it long before Jesus came about; there were others

And say what you will, but the Islamic world has given us several advances throughout history, denying this is being ignorant

I know right, like flight.

Originally posted by Surtur
I know right, like flight.

Must you always be a retard? Idiotic ranters claiming one thing doesn't rewrite history. I know you're the "everything Islam is bad!", but try not to be. You're really no different than the idiotic Muslims who claim everyone must submit to Shaira law and other obvious nonsense. Two sides of the same retarded coin.

Originally posted by Robtard
Must you always be a retard? Idiotic ranters claiming one thing doesn't rewrite history. I know you're the "everything Islam is bad!", but try not to be. You're really no different than the idiotic Muslims who claim everyone must submit to Shaira law and other obvious nonsense. Two sides of the same retarded coin.

Triggered.

Wow, yeah, Rob is pissed lol.

Bromance complete

You'll find someone one day, big guy.


Probably not, though

Rob, you mad bro?

Always, brosef stalin

Christians and Muslims can team up and rid the world of Jewish filth. Then the 75 IQ, inbred dress wearing, desert living, barbarians can convert to Christianity

lmao @ the youtube link argument

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
lmao @ the youtube link argument

Not even sure why his pride makes it so he can't admit what he did. But oh well. The root of all sin.

Anyways, anyone see that Charlie Hebdo did another Islam cartoon? Shows people getting run over and says "religion of eternal peace". Lmao.