BF2S Forums religions of violence

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

Shahter wrote:

no, dude, it's you who doesn't get it at all. nobody knows what jesus or muhammad tought or practiced - in fact, it doesn't matter at all. what followers of those respective religions beleave and practice depends entirely on the situation they find themselves in - what's written in them holy books doesn't mean shit. it was beleaved right - even nessecary - to murder people on a massive scale in the name of christianity once, and it will happen again if certain situation arises, regardless of what's written in the bloody bible, and the same goes for koran. tell me, is an axe evil? what about a gun? or gasoline? religion is the same - it's a tool, it can be used for different purposes, good or evil, but in itself its neither.

OK so I don't get it at all, and your argument is, I don't know Jesus, or Muhammad, I have never met them so I don't know anything? Really? You want to stick with that or do you want to change it?

I will assume you want to stick to that since after asking you ( all of you) to prove to me I am wrong, by producing evidence that Islam and Sharia Law is peaceful and tolerant which none of you have done yet, after I have shown that it is not.


Anyway, I am at a loss now since I am not allowed to have any opinions on people I do not know. Basically using your argument none of us can comment on Obama, Bin Laden, Bush, Reagan, Kennedy, Clinton etc..... except for maybe CameronPoe, I am sure he has had dinner with them all, except Bush and Reagan.

So where do we go from here since you have excluded anyone from commenting or forming opinions on anyone we have never personally met?

opinion is fine, lowing. opinion is no problem. opinion - is looking around you and using what info you can gather together with your common sence to try and place stuff in order in your mind. what you are expressing here is not an opinion - it's a psychopathic fit. you continuously zing the whole bloody religion and culture every third human on this planet belongs to because of a writing on a wall you've seen on your way to the supermarket.

Can't say I have thrown any fits, and yes it is my opinion, and my opinion is, my opinion is valid. Again I can and have shown Islam to be what my opinion claims. you have yet to show me where Islam and its Sharia Law is peaceful and tolerant. That its founder WAS NOT a murdering warrior who showed no mercy to his enemies.

lowing wrote:

Well I agree with that, however, asking "why Islam is violent" is only a  question to be asked AFTER it is admitted that it is in fact violent. We are not there yet.

As pointed out already, Islam is no more violent than Christianity or Judaism.
You can choose to ignore the OT if you like, but its part of christianity just as much as the NT, same for judaism.

Otherwise no-one would swear anything 'by god', 'so help me god' etc, for example your president, we wouldn't have to listen to all the creationist nutballery and we could safely ignore the ten commandments.

Alternatively we can just follow your lead, cut out all the violent parts of the koran and conclude that islam is peaceful.

That its founder WAS NOT a murdering warrior who showed no mercy to his enemies.

As pointed out previously, Moses we effectively the 'founder' of both judaism and christianity, and yet he slaughtered, pillaged and raped his way across the ME with god handing him handy doo-dahs to ensure his enemies defeat.

Since Moses and Mohammed were both mortal prophets I'd say they are about equivalent.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-08-21 08:39:59)

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

Can't say I have thrown any fits, and yes it is my opinion, and my opinion is, my opinion is valid.

of course it's valid - you are allowed to have any opinion. it's absolutely ridiculous though, but hey, it's good for lulz at least.

lowing wrote:

Again I can and have shown Islam to be what my opinion claims.

no, you havent'. you've only shown that it can be used for certain purposes - on which nobody's disagreeing with you, btw.

lowing wrote:

you have yet to show me where Islam and its Sharia Law is peaceful and tolerant. That its founder WAS NOT a murdering warrior who showed no mercy to his enemies.

remind me: when did i claim anything like that? you continuosly fail to apply the most basic logic to your argument, dude - to prove your nonsencial claim wrong i now need to argue the opposite - which is just as nonsencial? wtf?
let me break this to the very basics for you: every statement may be "true", "untrue" and "other", lowing. "other" happens when the term you try to apply to whatever is it you researching is not applicable in that particular case. this it what others and myself have been trying to get across to you - terms "peaceful" or "violent" are not applicable in case of religion - it's only as good or as evil as the purpose it's being used for.

well than we at are at an impasse, because if every statement is "true" or "untrue" or "other" and since nothing is in absolutes, your ability to envoke your "OTHER" especially in the face of the obvious mean arguing with you is like trying to hold onto a fish with oily hands, and I am not going to do it.

I have an opinion that Islam is a violent and intoelrant relgion, that its founder was a violent and intolerant man, and you refuse to prove me wrong, and yet you want to argue your, "OTHER" argument. Address my position or don't but stop continuing to say "OTHER". It is the chaeap easy way out.

Also if you see yourself actually addressing my opinion try and debunk it without bringing up Christianity. I said nothing about it so a comparison to it is not really a valid argument. Islam is a violent intolerant religion I offer Sharia Law as a fine example of this. DO you agree yes or no?

If you want to address my opinion on Muhammad try and do so without bringing Jesus into it.  Muhammad was a murdering, violent intolerant man. Do you agree yes or no?

a fortune cookie.

lowing wrote:

Is there any chance, any of you will actually argue against what I post instead of redirecting to more comfortable footing for you?

The point is Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all fairly nasty, racist supremacist death cults if you take them one way - or peaceful hobbies if you take them another.

The problem is you always single out islam and defend christianity and judaism.

How about you spend as much time hunting through the bible and the torah for examples of gratuitous slaughter and child rape as apparently you spend digging through the koran?
I reckon you might be surprised.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-08-22 06:28:44)

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Is there any chance, any of you will actually argue against what I post instead of redirecting to more comfortable footing for you?

The point is Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all fairly nasty, racist supremacist death cults if you take them one way - or peaceful hobbies if you take them another.

The problem is you always single out islam and defend christianity and judaism.

How about you spend as much time hunting through the bible and the torah for examples of gratuitous slaughter and child rape as apparently you spend digging through the koran?
I reckon you might be surprised.

Nope what I spend my time on is the violent teachings and murderous actions of Muhammad compared to that of Jesus.

Both have a had religions based around their lives, and the violent actions committed in the name of Jesus, goes against Jesus' teachings, while the violence committed in the name of the teachings of Muhammad fall right in line.

It has been suggested that we take out all the violence in the bible and the koran. I already said this sounds like a great idea, that way all that will be left is the teachings and actions of Muhammad and the teachings and actions of Jesus. I think you will not be able to defend the results.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope what I spend my time on is the violent teachings and murderous actions of Muhammad compared to that of Jesus.

Then read the OT - Which is an integral half of the bible, and look at the murderous actions of umpteen christian/jewish prophets and the slaughter carried out in the name of god.

Its a puerile argument anyway, looking at history - certainly the last hundred years - the bulk of aggression has been from the christians and jews against the moslems - which book is 'more violent' is really irrelevant - except to perpetuate the racist drivel you're copy/pasting from somewhere.

Your reasoning for the dismissal of my entire post is quite apparent.

Also, I do not give a fuck about the books, I have always maintained comparing the teachings and lives of both messengers of God. Something none of you are able to do wihout losing the argument.

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-22 08:51:03)

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

Yes yes we all know that nothing violent, dirty, nasty or idiotic has been done in the name of other religions then Islam for centuries now....*cough*

I don´t care for the message of any prophet since their followers twist them and use them for their own agenda anyway.

I agree except the only "twisting" of Muhammads message is done by those that actually are peaceful and tolerant.

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

The way they twist doesn´t matter, they still are greedy fuckers ready to to anything to get religions to fit their cause and aganda, what kind of religion doesn´t matter at all. They all suck plain and simple.

I don´t see any differance between saying "may god be with us" before entering iraq or "jihad jihad" before strapping the bombbelt on....the consequences are the same, normal people gets to suffer, you can compare this to the "hate crime" thread, reasons doesn´t matter, only results, when viewing religions that way it´s clear none of them is useful or good.

But I guess you won´t see it that way huh?

nope, the ones that prayed before entering Iraq were praying to come home safely and be protected. the suicide bomber prays that he is able to kill as many as possible with his action.

lowing wrote:

the ones that prayed before entering Iraq were praying to come home safely and be protected.

But they went in with the intention of taking territory and killing people.
So really they were praying they would get away with it without getting hurt themselves.

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

OOOk righty righty...I wasn´t talking about your soliders but your leaders, that uses religion in the same ways as other radicals....twisted and demeted religions...pfff. Why even defend them?

Is it that hard to see that all of them are tools of evil and control? But you are a christian right? And therefore controlled and mislead yourself if soo...

Religions used for personal or national gain is wrong in ANY case.

Even if some "books" and priests or whatever tells you to do, this doesn´t force you into doing it, or not doing it, it´s all up to you.

and I was talking about Islamic leaders as well as "soldiers". I prove my point easily, how about proving yours.

  None of our leaders wished and prayed for death and destruction in the name of Jesus, I defy you to show where they did. (I mean since you claim it.)

I am not Christian, I am agnostic.

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

Soo in both cases it resulted in the same outcome, deaths.

Never denied that, it is after all war.....but that has nothing to do with your claim that we went to war on a Christian Crusade and hoped and prayed that we could kill and destroy as many people as possible, ( which you still did not prove).

and my claim that Al Qaeda etc, are committing and praying for their action in order to kill and destroy as many as possible in the name of Islam. A point that is proven.

So, like it or not, there is a difference.