BF2S Forums religions of violence

lowing wrote:

Violence in the name of Christianity ( which Jesus did not teach or practice)

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-08-20 01:53:31)

lowing wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, I think 1.8 billion people belong to a religion that teaches convertion or death to non-believers. wether or not they practice that belief is a different issue. My opinion is, if they do not practice that teaching, then they are not practicing their religion.

Actually I don't ignore history either, but it only goes toward a pattern. Islamic violence and intolerance dates back to Muhammad, however, it is the here and now that is relevant to me since well, it is when I live. there is nothing in the history of Islam that can be looked back upon and be baffled as to why it is the way it is today.

In that case all Christians are obviously not practising their faith.

Also you say how it is today. Islam today is not the exact teachings of hundreds of years ago, just like practically all other religions. If by "Islam" you mean "Radical Fundamental Islamic Extremists" then your statement might actually make sense.

Yup if a so called Christian engages in violence against the innocent and helpless they are not practicing the treachings of Jesus Christ. I have said this before, glad to see we agree.


No the radicals are the ones who are actively engaged on CHANGING Islam from the barbaric teachings and practices it currently engages in. Nothing "radical" about practicing your religion the way it was written and taught. Then again if you are changing it, you might as well come up with a new name for your peaceful religion.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Violence in the name of Christianity ( which Jesus did not teach or practice)

But the old testament did, in fact god himself did most of the smiting.

'Numbers 31 says Moses instructed the Israelite soldiers to kill every Midianite woman, boy, and non-virgin girl, although virgin girls were shared amongst the soldiers.'

Awesome, Christianities number two prophet promotes killing of civilians, women, children, and rape of women and children providing they are virgins?

Wow lowing, to be a good Christian you'd better start the slaughter and raping right away.

lowing wrote:

DonFck wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope I completely understand, and since Jesus lived even before Muhammad, when man was 600 years YOUNGER, I think the differences between right and wrong and violence and non-violence were long established.

Muhammad was a warrior and murdered his surrendered enemies. Jesus never picked up a sword against anyone, even against those who killed him Not to sure what historical context you are looking for to justify Muhammad's actions in his life.

So would you then think that, in the WWJD-context, it would be better that the ME would never have been attacked, and that we/you should've just turned the other cheek?

sure, however, we did not go to war carrying the cross as a banner and are not fighting in the name of Christianity.

DonFck wrote:

lowing wrote:

DonFck wrote:

So would you then think that, in the WWJD-context, it would be better that the ME would never have been attacked, and that we/you should've just turned the other cheek?

sure, however, we did not go to war carrying the cross as a banner and are not fighting in the name of Christianity.

Of course you're not, lowing. Of course you're not.

lowing wrote:

It just so happens those teachings are intolerant and violent, so being a radical is going against that violence and intolerance.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

sure, however, we did not go to war carrying the cross as a banner and are not fighting in the name of Christianity.

Except Bush called it a crusade and we did have crusader symbols painted on our tanks.

Kinda why they call themselves CHRISTians and not MOSESians. and do you really not see the difference in "GOD" turning a woman into a piller of salt etc, and a mortal man lopping of 600 heads?

I don't see a difference between Moses slaughtering innocents in the name of god and Mohammed doing the same thing.

Anyway, why is the OT still part of the bible if its irrelevant?
Moses received the word of god directly, Jesus was the son of god but had different views to the big guy.
Who do you go with out of the two? I'd pick god personally.

DonFck wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

It just so happens those teachings are intolerant and violent, so being a radical is going against that violence and intolerance.

You're forgetting that 99.99% of muslims are peaceful and 0.01% are violent.
Somewhat destroys your argument.

Islam is basically a peaceful religion, whatever you and the nutjobs like to say.

Forgetting and denying the truth are two separate things.

lowing wrote:

DonFck wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

You're forgetting that 99.99% of muslims are peaceful and 0.01% are violent.
Somewhat destroys your argument.

Islam is basically a peaceful religion, whatever you and the nutjobs like to say.

Forgetting and denying the truth are two separate things.

and you all are masters of that denial.

DonFck wrote:

lowing wrote:

DonFck wrote:

Forgetting and denying the truth are two separate things.

and you all are masters of that denial.

Make this about Obama. I dare you.

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

You're the one claiming to know everything about a religion having never looked at the one authoratitve text on the matter.

Nope, I do not claim to know everything, however, I do read, I look at the obvious world around me, and the actions committed in the name of Islam and the laws that govern Islam, to draw my conclusions.

Kinda wondering how you can look at Sharia law and not come to the same conclusions. I mean Sharia is what governs Islam is it not?

The difference is I rely on historical texts to make my judgement... not the media or blogs.

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-20 02:34:44)

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, I do not claim to know everything, however, I do read, I look at the obvious world around me, and the actions committed in the name of Islam and the laws that govern Islam, to draw my conclusions.

Kinda wondering how you can look at Sharia law and not come to the same conclusions. I mean Sharia is what governs Islam is it not?

The difference is I rely on historical texts to make my judgement... not the media or blogs.

yeah and? Does your historical texts tell you how peaceful and tolerant Islam and Sharia Law is? If it does link please.

So if you do not rely on the media, how do you keep up on current events?

You really wanna get into a quoting contest now?