BF2S Forums religions of violence

lowing wrote:

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

lowing wrote:

violence in the name of Islam, (which Muhammad DID teach and practice).

lowing wrote:

Finally I am glad we got that cleared up. I was wondering if you were ever going to get it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

All the main religions, christianity, judaism, islam, have plenty of violence in them.
The current islamic extremism is simply a direct response to christian and jewish aggression against the moslem world.
If its a problem for you then look to yourself and think about the best path forward.

FEOS wrote:

Where the Old Testament and the New Testament conflict, the New Testament wins out.

Never really bought that argument.
Between the word of God and the opinions of his son and his mates I think I'd go with the big guy.

Ty wrote:

CameronPoe already did that on page eight. I believe you said:

You really wanna get into a quoting contest now?

You then offered a quote from one Ali Sina - a psudonym for the unknown person who runs "Faith Freedom International", a self-confessed anti-Islamic website. This is a person who offers such gems as "Obama is Hitler" and expresses his wish to have the President tried and electrocuted to death.

I'd advise you to check your sources.

m3thod wrote:

xxCaptainBlackxx wrote:

There's only one way to end this shit with muslims...

http://www.vi-r-us.com/wp-content/uploa … 4/nuke.jpg

hopefully Iran tosses some back at you. 

http://www.jakesjokes.com/gallery/album … Finger.jpg

Ty wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ty wrote:

CameronPoe already did that on page eight. I believe you said:

You then offered a quote from one Ali Sina - a psudonym for the unknown person who runs "Faith Freedom International", a self-confessed anti-Islamic website. This is a person who offers such gems as "Obama is Hitler" and expresses his wish to have the President tried and electrocuted to death.

I'd advise you to check your sources.

and I believe I already addressed it.

You did? For my sake can you explain it again? I want to know how you justify basing your argument on the writings of a pseudonym who believes that your president should be electrocuted to death - among other completely pants-on-head retarded musings.

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-20 16:35:27)

Ty wrote:

Ty wrote:

I want to know how you justify basing your argument on the writings of a pseudonym who believes that your president should be electrocuted to death - among other completely pants-on-head retarded musings.

Are you going to answer this or just go off on a tangent?

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-20 16:52:20)

Ty wrote:

lowing wrote:

sure, just because you do not like the source or agree with it or the author does not mean it is invalid.

Now let me get this straight... when you find a source it doesn't matter to you who wrote it? This Ali Sina has no legitimacy whatsoever, he's not even a real person. I'm not saying the source is biased I'm saying it's completely and utterly worthless. This person, whoever he is, (and he claims to be an ex-Muslim Iranian living in Canada but as no-one has ever seen him I have my doubts,) is a crazy person and simply put you do not use crazy people as credible sources no matter what they're saying. You say "address the content not the author" - what bullshit is that? You're saying if David Irving wrote a book on the Wiemar Republic you wouldn't consider the fact that he's a Holocaust denier?

Ty wrote:

Man... I find that hard to answer with anything more than an open-mouthed stare. You are unbelievable.

Here I was thinking that a debate could reviel truths. You're now telling me that a debate is used to legitimise the views of madmen.

Ty wrote:

Well no, of course they're not. But that once again comes down to interpretation. There are, as you say, "sources out there that show Islam for what it is and what it teaches" - obviously not all of these reach the same conclusion.

There are scholars who are actually legitimate who come to similar conclusions as our friend Ali Sina. However while Ali Sina is like yourself in coming to immovable concrete conclusions the legitimate scholars acknowledge that their conclusions have been influenced by their own interpretations of the evidence not just by blind faith in their own opinions - as such they are acknowledging that some will interpret the same evidence differently. I think you'll find that even among those scholars who might be sympathetic to Ali Sina there are none who reach such drastic conclusions as "Islam is built on a foundation of violence".

I'm certainly glad to know that you don't need that guy though, if I were you I'd stay as far away from that guy as possible. He's a bloody psycho.

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-20 19:14:40)

Ty wrote:

lowing wrote:

Here is the thing, I am a meat and potatoes kind of person. I do not fall into PC. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck I have no problem calling it a fuckin' duck. I couldn't care less if that opinion can be construed as being offensive or racial, or bigoted JUST for suggesting it in lieu of an actual legitimate argument that the duck is not a duck.

And that is 100% fine. However when you go as far to say that a religion is based on violence just by it's face value it obviously raises some issues.
I would never "defend" Islam because I felt that if I didn't I'd be a bigot, I'm like you, I call a duck a duck. However wheras you're content with that alone I ask things like "Why is that a duck, how did that come to be a duck, what kind of duck is it and what does that say about it?"

Aa-and now we're talking about ducks.

I'm just confusing myself with that analogy to be honest. What I mean is that I never come to a concrete conclusion on anything, it's partialy because for the last four years at University the one conclusion I've come to is that no-one knows anything for certain, (even mathematicians although they have it comparitivly easy.) Nothing is as simple as it's face value.

Islam shows itself to be violent and people do violent things in its name. That's face value. However when you ask things like "why is Islam violent?" and "how did it come to be violent?" the answer is not just "because it is".

Ty wrote:

Ah, good point. I think why your position is so strong is that it is illogical to start at the position "Islam is not violent" because that ignores the face value. Obvously that doesn't make much sense.

So okay, I'll agree that the place to start with Islam is to conceed that it is violent.

HOWEVER:

I think you can see that after looking at the many complicated factors of Islam and why it's face value is one of violence you can in turn conceed that it is certain people's interpretations of it which - whether correct or incorrect and I still say that there's no such thing - make it percieved as such rather than the deep and complicated core of the religion itself.

Ty wrote:

Okay, I think we've actually reached an amiable conclusion here. I feel like I should close this now in case someone wrecks it.

If it weren't for the difficulties regarding respective location I'd offer to buy you a beer, after three days, (for me at least,) I think we've earned it.

Unless you drink Budweiser of course, that's just going to start a whole 'nother shitfight.

The Muslim Game:

Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence.  Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber?  Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems?

The Truth:

Because they don’t.

Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man (in fact, he was an atheist).  At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for God.

The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement.  They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do, and this is what makes it a very different matter.

Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.

Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem.  There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S.  Eight people died.  This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001.  If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.

In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined.  No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year.  Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it.  Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and a radical clergy that supports the terror.

Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.

lowing wrote:

Ty wrote:

Okay, I think we've actually reached an amiable conclusion here. I feel like I should close this now in case someone wrecks it.

If it weren't for the difficulties regarding respective location I'd offer to buy you a beer, after three days, (for me at least,) I think we've earned it.

Unless you drink Budweiser of course, that's just going to start a whole 'nother shitfight.

Appreciate that, and no worries about Budweiser, too bitter for me. I will take a Corona with a lime, if you are out of Margaritas.

Last edited by Im_Dooomed (2009-08-21 02:52:25)