BF2S Forums Seven arrested in FBI raids linked to Christian militia group

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

It is too bad their own book does not reflect their desire to show muhammad as compassionate or non-violent, not a child molestor,and not a murderer.But hey I guess I am just nit picking.

Anything out there that shows Jesus as anything other than compassionate or non-violent toward their fellow man? I will wait here.

I have not "moved the goal posts" at all. It has been my argument all along. Iti s just too bad that I have to keep wording in such a way that you can no longer dissect it away from the context of the posts.

I don't get it. You already said I was correct so what are you arguing about. Again you ignore the fact that there is NO eveidence about Jesus or Mohammed which is final, and that YOUR pojt of iew is just YOUR point of view about how a good muslim or christian should behave. Your nice peaceful Muslim friends are, according to you, bad muslims. That's such a dumb attitude I can barely begin to understand it. Why do you keep going on about what kind of men J&M were allegedly when it's totally unkowable and unprovable, not to mention irrelevant to being a good person in the context i which we are discussing. Is this your total argument against Islam? That Mohammed was a warrior? Fucks sake man, it's just pathetic.

lol, Oh you are right, in the context of your idiotic argument that know one really knows Jesus or Muhammad so there is no way you can speak of them or their lives. I concede. however like I already said. We might as well not talk about anything historic because after all, we were not there, and have no way of REALLY knowing.


I judge Islam on its teachings and how those teachings are put into practice. It is an intolerable, oppressive religion.

I do not consider peaceful Muslims as bad Muslims, I consider them as people not following the teachings of their own faith.

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

lol, Oh you are right, in the context of your idiotic argument that know one really knows Jesus or Muhammad so there is no way you can speak of them or their lives. I concede. however like I already said. We might as well not talk about anything historic because after all, we were not there, and have no way of REALLY knowing.

Why do you keep saying this when I've explined several times that this is NOT what I am arguing. Youa re arguing that Islam is a warlike religion because Mohammed was a warrior, and Chirstianity is lovely and peaceful because Jesus was so nice. I'm arguing that is bullshit because YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE LIKE AND NOR DOES ANYONE ELSE, so to base your opinions on an entire religion and all their followers because of some unproveable ideas in your head is just stupid.

You on the other hand keep repeating some shit about not knowing anything about anyone because we don't know them personally. Again, I suspect you know your own standpoint is shit so you keep repeating stuff I've never even argued for. Of course we have ways of knowing what people were like in History and what really happened. But NOT when it comes to Jesus. How can't you grasp that very simple point?

lowing wrote:

I judge Islam on its teachings and how those teachings are put into practice. It is an intolerable, oppressive religion.

Only according to some people, like fundamentialist Islamic preachers, and yourself.

lowing wrote:

I do not consider peaceful Muslims as bad Muslims, I consider them as people not following the teachings of their own faith.

If they don't follow their faith's teachings, they are bad followers. So yes, you must consider them bad Muslims.

Sorry you are fucked up. You keep saying know one really knows, ok fine no really knows. but know one really knows what George Washington was like either so we are not allowed to speak of him. There is no difference as to how you word your argument and how I word it. THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT. If you hate don't make it.

No according to the fuckin book that the religion is based on.

Nope I do not, I do not consider them Muslims at all. When you have stryed away from what is taught, you no longer follow that religion, instead you have made up a new one. call it something else. Islam is taken.

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sorry you are fucked up. You keep saying know one really knows, ok fine no really knows. but know one really knows what George Washington was like either so we are not allowed to speak of him. There is no difference as to how you word your argument and how I word it. THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT. If you hate don't make it.

No according to the fuckin book that the religion is based on.

Nope I do not, I do not consider them Muslims at all. When you have stryed away from what is taught, you no longer follow that religion, instead you have made up a new one. call it something else. Islam is taken.

But no-one is arguing that following George Washington is a way to live your life are they? Other historical figures have nothing to do with it unless they're the figurehead for a religion. Of course there's a difference. I like my argument and it makes sense, you're just conflating it with some unrelated shit about historical figures that...er...we can prove existed and, like, did certain things. Unlike Jesus.

As for the book, I think what you meant to say was "No according to certain interpretations of the fuckin book that the religion is based on.". A minute ago you were basing your ideas on how the figurehead lived their life. Now you're back on the book. That's what's called moving the goalposts. Make up your mind.

So your Muslims friends who consider themsleves Muslims and think they're following the Koran and praying and stuff, for you they're full of shit, and their opinions have nothing to do with it? Only the mighty lowing's? Such conceit it's amazing!

Jesus existed, get over it, and for whatever reason, a religion has been built around his life, based on what has been written about him. and what has been written about him was that he was a peaceful and forgiving man.

Muhammad existed get over that to, and for whatever reason, a religion has been built around his life, based on what has been written about him. and what has been written about him has been violent, intolerant, merciless, murdering, and molesting.

What has been written is what matters, not what they were really like, or who really knows. Your argument is bullshit and rediculous. You are trying to make a huge difference between " we don't really know anything about them"( your words) and "we don't know them" ( my words for your argument). Fact is, no matter you say it, it is a bullshit argument.

Muhammads warring, violent murdering history is not up for interpretion by anyone. Except you. go figure. Niether is Jesus's peaceful tolerant history. Again except by you. But then again this is where you spout off about how me really don't know them, I mean how we really don't know anything about them

No, they are not full of shit, they are simply not practicing the word of Islam and the teachings of muhammad.

lowing wrote:

Weather you accept it or not, the teeachings of CHrist and his actions ( as it is accepted by everyone but you) was not a life of hate and war revenge and murder.

But the whole of the Old Testament, ie the entire history of the world right up to the 30 or so year of Christ, IS.
There are umpteen references to the OT and the importance of God in the NT IIRC.

Until the Christians discard and burn the OT, and rewrite the NT, your whole argument is moot.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Weather you accept it or not, the teeachings of CHrist and his actions ( as it is accepted by everyone but you) was not a life of hate and war revenge and murder.

But the whole of the Old Testament, ie the entire history of the world right up to the 30 or so year of Christ, IS.
There are umpteen references to the OT and the importance of God in the NT IIRC.

Until the Christians discard and burn the OT, and rewrite the NT, your whole argument is moot.

Nope, since you can not have CHristanity without Christ. Iti s not. The NT is about the new covenant god has made with man, a NEW covenant.

lowing wrote:

Selective and untrue? Not according to the book that chronicled his life.

what the bible? LOL.

lowing wrote:

Never said what they were really like was important, I said what their lives were percieved was important. Important enough to have religions guilt around them. S oget off of this bullshit about how know one really knows them. It is stupid.

Heres just one example where you are saying what they were 'really like' is important:

lowing wrote:

and yet Jesus never carried a sword, or killed anyone.

lowing wrote:

Nope you and I don't know what they were like ( we don't know them)

you can know what someone is like without knowing them personally, no? You can also have historical facts about people without knowing them prersonally, no?

lowing wrote:

But what we do know is what was written about them. and what was written and accepted is Jesus was peaceful. this is not up for interpretation. WHat was written about Muhammad is Muhammad was warring. this is not up for interpretation.

so explain to me why then the majority of muslims don't go around killing people and there are plenty of christians who do?could it be...because it's all...JUST FUCKIN INTERPRETATION. Christ on a bike it's so hard getting anything through to you. It is ALL INTERPRETATION. IT IS NOT FACT. whether or not it is 'generally accepted has fuck all to do with it. Used to be generally accepted the earth was flat but that was bullshit too.

lowing wrote:

Never said the bible was historical fact.

No you just heavily imply it, as above in this post. (

lowing wrote:

and yet Jesus never carried a sword, or killed anyone.

)
and here, ignoring the fact that the 'teachings' aren't from jesus but from whomever wrote the book

lowing wrote:

and a Christian who does not follow the teachings of Christ is not following Chriatianity.

lowing wrote:

What I did say is the men whose lives these books talk about say what they did ( true or not) and what they say describe a warring violent erson and a peaceful forgiving person. People accept this so much they have built the 2 largest religions around them, THis is what matters. Any guess as to who is who?

you've said often that christianity doesn't teach violence but islam does. this isn't true. you're now arguing that what people accept J&M were like makes someone a true follower, and so because M was a warrior then Islam is a violent religion. this is wrong. You can find justification for killing in the bible and the koran, and you can find instructions to be peaceful too. It's also untrue that Mohammed was always killing and slaying as you imply, as according to the koran much of his life was spent doing acts of kindness. Further we can not that the life of mohammed is more clearly documented thasn jesus's iirc. finally, saying he was 'warlike' ignores completely the context of the times and is essentially a meaningless statement as it has nothing to do with what one person or another might consider to be a 'good' muslim.

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

Selective and untrue? Not according to the book that chronicled his life.

what the bible? LOL.

lowing wrote:

Never said what they were really like was important, I said what their lives were percieved was important. Important enough to have religions guilt around them. S oget off of this bullshit about how know one really knows them. It is stupid.

Heres just one example where you are saying what they were 'really like' is important:

lowing wrote:

and yet Jesus never carried a sword, or killed anyone.

lowing wrote:

Nope you and I don't know what they were like ( we don't know them)

you can know what someone is like without knowing them personally, no? You can also have historical facts about people without knowing them prersonally, no?

lowing wrote:

But what we do know is what was written about them. and what was written and accepted is Jesus was peaceful. this is not up for interpretation. WHat was written about Muhammad is Muhammad was warring. this is not up for interpretation.

so explain to me why then the majority of muslims don't go around killing people and there are plenty of christians who do?could it be...because it's all...JUST FUCKIN INTERPRETATION. Christ on a bike it's so hard getting anything through to you. It is ALL INTERPRETATION. IT IS NOT FACT. whether or not it is 'generally accepted has fuck all to do with it. Used to be generally accepted the earth was flat but that was bullshit too.

lowing wrote:

Never said the bible was historical fact.

No you just heavily imply it, as above in this post. (

lowing wrote:

and yet Jesus never carried a sword, or killed anyone.

)
and here, ignoring the fact that the 'teachings' aren't from jesus but from whomever wrote the book

lowing wrote:

and a Christian who does not follow the teachings of Christ is not following Chriatianity.

lowing wrote:

What I did say is the men whose lives these books talk about say what they did ( true or not) and what they say describe a warring violent erson and a peaceful forgiving person. People accept this so much they have built the 2 largest religions around them, THis is what matters. Any guess as to who is who?

you've said often that christianity doesn't teach violence but islam does. this isn't true. you're now arguing that what people accept J&M were like makes someone a true follower, and so because M was a warrior then Islam is a violent religion. this is wrong. You can find justification for killing in the bible and the koran, and you can find instructions to be peaceful too. It's also untrue that Mohammed was always killing and slaying as you imply, as according to the koran much of his life was spent doing acts of kindness. Further we can not that the life of mohammed is more clearly documented thasn jesus's iirc. finally, saying he was 'warlike' ignores completely the context of the times and is essentially a meaningless statement as it has nothing to do with what one person or another might consider to be a 'good' muslim.

I am done with you and your fucked up dissected post trees. I am not going round in circles with you over this, and your line of reasoning regarding what was written and accepted about these 2 men. Already told you and your bullshit wins, No one knows Jesus or Muhammad only what has been written about them. Never mind it is good enough for 87 bazillion people out there that believe it and hold it as truth.  this is what you want to hang yout hat on fine. As dumb fuck as it is you can have it.

I am tired of addressing and arguing individual sentences.

I am done entertaining your 'Well no one really knows them" sack of bullshit.

Last edited by lowing (2010-04-02 07:01:58)

RAIMIUS wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

You'll also find no evidence that Jesus existed. And the so called 'teachings' of Christ were written by people who lived 50-150 years after Jesus's death and of those writings, the church cherry picked the ones to suit it's agenda 150 or so years later banning the rest.

Facepalm

So, you are claiming that hundreds and thousands of people simply made up a historical figure and happened to get their BS histories to coincide with each other?...and you claim this is more plausible than the person actually existing?

He may have existed, but the archaeological evidence points to a much different man then portrayed in the 4 gospels. Also, hundreds of thousands of people didn't write about Jesus. About 30 did, and of those 30 many were copies off what other had written, with each author changing them so Jesus would represent their ideal of what Jesus should be. Do you know why the church banned most of the Gospels in the 3rd century AD?

It's because their portrayal Jesus went against what the church wanted, One instance is the Gospel of Thomas,

The Gospel of Thomas:
Does not refer to Jesus as "Christ", "Lord", or "Son of Man" as the New Testament does, but simply as "Jesus.
lacks any mention of Jesus' birth, baptism, miracles, travels, death, and resurrection.
Does not list the canonical twelve apostles and it does not use either this expression or the terms "the twelve" or "the twelve disciples.

These inconsistencies are found throughout the banned gospels which lends itself to strong evidence that most if not all that is written about Jesus is just fiction. The four approved Gospels were the ones which gave the church the most influence, which led to money and power. The bible/Christianity is not about the teachings of Jesus, but about the teachings of the church who used 'Jesus' as a billboard and that same church is directly responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2010-04-02 08:23:04)

Do they scare you? Just good old boys.

ATG wrote:

Do they scare you? Just good old boys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apmn9xMxiZ4

Bit sad tbh. I used to run around with (toy) guns when I was ten years old. Luckily I grew out of it.

CameronPoe wrote:

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

Charity is not the same as communism aside from that I've never read any communist philosophy that had made women out to be the great destroyers of men nor have I ever read any communist philosophy that said anything about perfect or chosen people.

It's not just charity he's banging on about. He's talking about the fact that the be a true Christian that will be welcomed into God's arms in heaven you have to live the life of an ascetic and forego all material and monetary wealth. Perhaps not communist - just anti-capitalist. Anarchist maybe.

"You cannot serve both God and Money."

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

You don't have to do anything but believe to be saved.

Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

lowing wrote:

Sorry, told ya before these are not my beliefs, but that does not negate the fact that this is the belief of Christians.

Yeah fine, but there are as many Christians who believe the Old Testamant is literal truth as there are muslims who believe the Koran justifies jihad.

The majority of muslims pick the peaceful parts of the Koran same as the Christians pick the NT over the OT.

Again, your argument is null.