BF2S Forums religions of violence

Dilbert_X wrote:

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.)

Of course we can't, we don't know what they prayed for.
Still, your leaders are supposedly christian, launched a war based on lies in the knowledge it would certainly lead to death and destruction.
Pretty confident they would have prayed for success at some point, unless of course they wanted to lose.

I see, you can't show it.

Well I can show you where Islamic leaders have.


If this thread were about oil, you would be screaming that we went to Iraq for oil instead of Jesus like you are trying to do here. So make up your mind, which is your argument, you can only have one.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I didn't say they went FOR jesus, I said they probably prayed to him
Which is in any case irrelevant in determining which religion is supposedly more violent.

Since you're trying to compare apples with oranges, and ignoring the big fat apple which is the Old Testament your argument basically fails.

lol, I already said they probably prayed, but they did not probably pray to kill and destroy as many people and property as possible. I can show you where Islamic leaders do that very thing, I can prove my point, and you can't prove yours, yet you say I fail?

It has been suggested by someone on your side of the argument, that we should take out all violence in both books, leaving us with just the words, teachings and actions  of Jesus vs. the words teachings and actions of Muhammad, giving you your coveted apples to apples comparison. So how about it? What do you think it will reveal?

I don´t have much to ad to Dilberts posts....I don´t understand why anyone would find any religion more or less violent because of how they interpret the teechings of them , as you guys talked about in the "hate crime" thread, I don´t care about the reason only the results...but that only applies in certain ways it seems....

And all this "proove it" is kinda getting a bit booring, you are an intelligent man lowing, you know theese things aswell as I doo, I don´t have to proove anything since the current world status should be a hint good enough. I have not denied that Islam is a violent religion, I´m just saying....they all are. Surprise, religions sucks...

Oh ....wall of text incoming, take cover!

I don´t have much to ad to Dilberts posts....I don´t understand why anyone would find any religion more or less violent because of how they interpret the teechings of them , as you guys talked about in the "hate crime" thread, I don´t care about the reason only the results...but that only applies in certain ways it seems....

Precisely, you're allowed to kill as many people as you like so long as you do it under the banner of a 'peaceful' religion.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don´t have much to ad to Dilberts posts....I don´t understand why anyone would find any religion more or less violent because of how they interpret the teechings of them , as you guys talked about in the "hate crime" thread, I don´t care about the reason only the results...but that only applies in certain ways it seems....

Precisely, you're allowed to kill as many people as you like so long as you do it under the banner of a 'peaceful' religion.

The coalition is not fighting under the banner of any religion. So yet again your argument has no basis in truth. I will not allow you to redirect this argument into something you need to invent in order to try and make a point.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

The coalition is not fighting under the banner of any religion.

Bush, and his supporters, certainly thought they were.

Moses is not the main character in Christianity, Jesus is, and for you to try and dismiss that and keep him out of this debate regarding HIS teachings in CHRISTianity is quite desperate, stupid and absurd.

Doesn't matter really, if you choose to pick the violent parts of the koran, exclude all the violent parts of the bible and then conclude on that basis that islam is more violent than christianity then you just make yourself look a total ass.

The OT is a crucial part of the bible, and christianity for many christians, and forms a significant part of judaism.
If you can't grasp this thats too bad.

Yet again I ask for proof, and yet again you provide nothing.


I can grasp that, what I can't grasp is your ignoring the most compelling part of the bible and most noted figure in the bible for Christians who he was to them, what he taught, and how he lived his life, compared to Muhammad, who he was, what he taught and how he lived his life.

You ignoring Christ in Christianity because it is inconvenient is not my problem. I will list your argument with the other guys who insisted I can not talk about Christ or Muhammad because I didn't know them personally...............Or was that your other desperate argument?

Why is it CHRISTianity and not JESUSanity?

DrunkFace wrote:

Why is it CHRISTianity and not JESUSanity?

Why is it Islam and Muhammedism is an equally good question ...

Varegg wrote:

So you totally dismiss the OT lowing? ... or is it a pick and choose part of the bible because last I heard huge parts of the OT is what Christianity is based on ...

It's very narrow minded to link Jesus to the NT alone just because the religion itself is called Christianity and not Mosianity, it's überfail on your part and shows little knowledge about religion in general when you use that argument because it is convenient for you to do so ...

Never said I "totally dismiss the OT", I said it is not the focal point of Christianity CHRIST is. Just like Muhammed is the focal point of Islam.

YOu simply would not have Christianity without Christ and you would not have Islam without Muhammed.

But since you refuse to let it go, I will also maintain that for the vast majority of the OT it tells stories of things that happened. It does not do much in the way of instruction on how to act toward your fellow man, except the Ten Commandments, and as I recall the 10 Commandments do not instruct you to murder.

There is nothing inconvenient for me regarding Christianity and the teachings of Christ. It falls right in line with my argument. The problem you have is you need to bring in the least important parts of the OT which dates back 1600 years before Christianity was even founded. It sounds like you are the one who is inconvenienced.

Also ,why shouldn't I link CHRISTianity to CHRIST, he is the founder of that religion after all. I know it sucks.

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

YOu simply would not have Christianity without Christ and you would not have Islam without Muhammed.

That's debatable. All it would have taken is for Saul to tell the story of another man and the Christ figure is completely changed.

Also... Yes the prophet Muhamed (may peace be upon him) is the messenger of Islam, but we are not muslims if we don't believe in the previous books and all the previous Prophets (may peace be upon them all). Its like having V1.0- Final Version (for us muslims), you cant have the Final version without the first ones.

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

YOu simply would not have Christianity without Christ and you would not have Islam without Muhammed.

That's debatable. All it would have taken is for Saul to tell the story of another man and the Christ figure is completely changed.

Cherry picking again I see.

Beduin wrote:

lowing wrote:

so we agree that the NT is the "final version" for the Christian faith, finally!!!

where did you get that from?

lowing wrote:

and you say Muhammed.. is the "final version" for Islam, fantasic. Then let us compare these "final versions" and their "final" messages and "final" teachings shall we?

You don't have to insult to show your hate lowing.
Go ahead.

So what now, are we gunna compare these "final versions" or not?

I don't really care if you think my condemnation of Muhammed and his murdering actions and teachings are an insult. The fact that you do not, is what I find disgusting.