Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8

 

2006-01-14 19:52:52
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6922

Hero764 wrote:

Muhammad had sex with a nine year old girl
Dear xanthpi, this is a groundless allegation that has been proved wrong time and time again. Look at the Prophet's character before and after his prophethood... How could the Prophet who was around fifty years old suddenly alter and succumb to lust? When he had so many opportunities as a young man to follow his lust? =\

Could you give me any un-biased quotes which aren't ripped of from faithfreedom.org that support your allegation xanthpi?
I'd be happy to prove it (I already did in another thread).

These are from the Hadiths which are the sayings and doings of Muhammad. Muslims use them to form part of the basis of Islamic law.

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Muhammad was 54 years of age when he had sex with Aisha(h).

If you disagree with what the Hadiths say then go to Mecca and take it up with the Grand Mufti. I'm sure he will be willing to go into greater detail as to why it is true that Aisha(h) was nine years old when she was taken to Muhammad's bedroom.
2006-01-15 06:33:41
Hero764
Member
+0|6886
Have any idea as to what this could mean?

According to Ibn Hisham's recension of Ibn Ishaq's (d. 768) biography of Prophet Muhammad, the Sirat Rashul Allah, the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, Aisha accepted Islam before Umar ibn al-Khattab. If true, then Aisha accepted Islam during the first few years of Islam. She could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH - the time she got married.

Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah - the pre Islamic period. If Aisha was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH. Tarikh al-umam wa al-mamloo'k, Al-Tabari, Vol. 4, p. 50.

So I don't think that would mean Aisha was consummated at the age of 9... But perhaps 14 or older.

Then again, I could always take it to the Grand Mufti.

Last edited by Hero764 (2006-01-15 09:22:43)

2006-01-15 10:47:15
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6922

Hero764 wrote:

Have any idea as to what this could mean?

According to Ibn Hisham's recension of Ibn Ishaq's (d. 768) biography of Prophet Muhammad, the Sirat Rashul Allah, the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, Aisha accepted Islam before Umar ibn al-Khattab. If true, then Aisha accepted Islam during the first few years of Islam. She could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH - the time she got married.

Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah - the pre Islamic period. If Aisha was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH. Tarikh al-umam wa al-mamloo'k, Al-Tabari, Vol. 4, p. 50.

So I don't think that would mean Aisha was consummated at the age of 9... But perhaps 14 or older.

Then again, I could always take it to the Grand Mufti.
Nice try, but you just quoted directly from the apologetics. The revisionism you quote from was developed for the purpose of Da'wah (the Islamic practice of enticing people to Islam). Many Muslims realised that some of the pesky infidels would question the prophethood of Muhammad when the topic of Aisha's age came up, so they simply decided to lie and claim that she was older than she was when Muhammad had sex with her. Some of the attempts at deception put her age as 14, others at 19. But the Hadiths are quite clear as to her real age.

Read the Hadiths again. It's quite clear that Aisha was nine years old when Muhammad had sex with her.

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
The matter is conclusively proven by multiple sources.

So, if you want to question the authenticity of Sahih (reliable) Hadiths:

1) If you're not Muslim, go to Saudi Arabia and take it up with the Grand Mufti. He will not grant you an audience in Mecca since non-Muslims are not alowed to enter this city, but may meet you elsewhere. You *may* escape with only a short spell in prison.

2) If you count yourself as Muslim, DO NOT go to Saudi to take this up. You will be executed as an apostate.
2006-01-15 14:44:25
Hero764
Member
+0|6886
Well xanapthi, I didnt' know that it was quoted out of the apologetics. But wasn't Ibn Ishaq a historian? Be it whrether he was biased or not? =\

Last edited by Hero764 (2006-01-15 14:45:01)

2006-01-15 15:01:29
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6922

Hero764 wrote:

Well xanapthi, I didnt' know that it was quoted out of the apologetics. But wasn't Ibn Ishaq a historian? Be it whrether he was biased or not? =\
So it's point proven; case closed.

Next!
2006-01-16 05:19:38
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7043|Cologne, Germany

xanthpi wrote:

Hero764 wrote:

Well xanapthi, I didnt' know that it was quoted out of the apologetics. But wasn't Ibn Ishaq a historian? Be it whrether he was biased or not? =\
So it's point proven; case closed.

Next!
lol. One thing I have learned from the discussions with xanthpi ( which I cherish, btw ) is that you should never argue with him about Qu'ran content, especially when you are not a muslim or have no knowledge of the Qu'ran.
He usually matches you step by step.

What you can argue about are things like the principles of freedom, democracy etc, and the conclusions he draws from his view of the Islam. Although it won't change anything, it sure as hell is very entertaining...

btw, xanthpi, I was going to get myself a copy of the Qu'ran, but my car broke down on saturday and I need to get it fixed first. let's hope it won't be too expensive and I have a couple of Euros to spare. ^^
2006-01-16 05:48:01
Hero764
Member
+0|6886

B.Schuss wrote:

What you can argue about are things like the principles of freedom, democracy etc, and the conclusions he draws from his view of the Islam. Although it won't change anything, it sure as hell is very entertaining...

btw, xanthpi, I was going to get myself a copy of the Qu'ran, but my car broke down on saturday and I need to get it fixed first. let's hope it won't be too expensive and I have a couple of Euros to spare. ^^
Thanks for the info Schuss. Even though I'm not able to change people's point of view, I do agree that it is always nice to debate with someone who has knowledge of the Qur'an but not muslim. (Take xanapthi for example or few others)

Last edited by Hero764 (2006-01-16 05:50:48)

2006-01-16 08:10:08
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6922

B.Schuss wrote:

xanthpi wrote:

Hero764 wrote:

Well xanapthi, I didnt' know that it was quoted out of the apologetics. But wasn't Ibn Ishaq a historian? Be it whrether he was biased or not? =\
So it's point proven; case closed.

Next!
lol. One thing I have learned from the discussions with xanthpi ( which I cherish, btw ) is that you should never argue with him about Qu'ran content, especially when you are not a muslim or have no knowledge of the Qu'ran.
He usually matches you step by step.

What you can argue about are things like the principles of freedom, democracy etc, and the conclusions he draws from his view of the Islam. Although it won't change anything, it sure as hell is very entertaining...

btw, xanthpi, I was going to get myself a copy of the Qu'ran, but my car broke down on saturday and I need to get it fixed first. let's hope it won't be too expensive and I have a couple of Euros to spare. ^^
Haha.

Hi B. Schuss.

I really, REALLY don't want to get bogged down in the kind of discussion which Hero764 was trying to entice me into. Those detailed (but utterly futile) types of discussion are best left for the guys of such sites as faithfreedom.org to waste their time on.

I get my kicks from providing an "entry level" type of information to people who have never had the inclination to do much digging themselves, and to utterly squashing the kind of "noob thinkers" who read on bbc.co.uk that "Islam is the Religion of Peace" and then accept it as fact.

If you'd like to read the Qu'ran, then simply take advantage of this great invention of the dirty, inferior non-Muslims - the internet (or 'teh' interwebs, if you're leet).

Try http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ for starters. You should find that site full of interesting tit-bits


On a different but related topic, have you noticed how the situation with Iran has got strong shades of 1938 about it?

I don't think that history repeats itself. It stutters.
2006-01-16 10:45:54
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|6966|d
dude the link is bullshit. just look at the site that hosting it. USC. lol
go here if u want to knw wot the bible really says:

www.ihatethebible.com/
2006-01-16 11:42:37
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7043|Cologne, Germany

xanthpi wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

xanthpi wrote:


So it's point proven; case closed.

Next!
lol. One thing I have learned from the discussions with xanthpi ( which I cherish, btw ) is that you should never argue with him about Qu'ran content, especially when you are not a muslim or have no knowledge of the Qu'ran.
He usually matches you step by step.

What you can argue about are things like the principles of freedom, democracy etc, and the conclusions he draws from his view of the Islam. Although it won't change anything, it sure as hell is very entertaining...

btw, xanthpi, I was going to get myself a copy of the Qu'ran, but my car broke down on saturday and I need to get it fixed first. let's hope it won't be too expensive and I have a couple of Euros to spare. ^^
Haha.

Hi B. Schuss.

I really, REALLY don't want to get bogged down in the kind of discussion which Hero764 was trying to entice me into. Those detailed (but utterly futile) types of discussion are best left for the guys of such sites as faithfreedom.org to waste their time on.

I get my kicks from providing an "entry level" type of information to people who have never had the inclination to do much digging themselves, and to utterly squashing the kind of "noob thinkers" who read on bbc.co.uk that "Islam is the Religion of Peace" and then accept it as fact.

If you'd like to read the Qu'ran, then simply take advantage of this great invention of the dirty, inferior non-Muslims - the internet (or 'teh' interwebs, if you're leet).

Try http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ for starters. You should find that site full of interesting tit-bits


On a different but related topic, have you noticed how the situation with Iran has got strong shades of 1938 about it?

I don't think that history repeats itself. It stutters.
yeah. the Iran affair right now is headed right towards the UN security council. I wonder what the diplomats are going to achieve at the negotiating table. If there is any, that is..
As I have argued in the Iran thread http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=10387 , I don't believe the US has the military capabilities to muster a full-fleged (sp?) invasion of Iran. They are just too stretched. Iran is no piece of cake. This will truly be a job for the whole world community, not just the US and the usual allies.

Difference to 1938 is of course that Iran has no intent to invade another country. Cause if they did, they would  ( rightfully ) have to face the consequences. Right now, they simply aspire a nuclear program of their own, which is their right as a souvereign nation. Even you will have to admit that. Wether we believe that they only have peaceful intentions or not is irrelevant as far as the principle is concerned.

If we put the principle aside for a moment, it is obvious most western governments don't trust the iranian promises. The question at hand will be what our governmwnts will be willing to do to protect their security interests, should all diplomatic efforts ultimately fail. Will the UN be willing to declare outright war on one of its own members ?

I think the war in iraq will look like disneyland compared to what might happen across the border...
2006-01-16 11:55:48
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6922

Hero764 wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

What you can argue about are things like the principles of freedom, democracy etc, and the conclusions he draws from his view of the Islam. Although it won't change anything, it sure as hell is very entertaining...

btw, xanthpi, I was going to get myself a copy of the Qu'ran, but my car broke down on saturday and I need to get it fixed first. let's hope it won't be too expensive and I have a couple of Euros to spare. ^^
Thanks for the info Schuss. Even though I'm not able to change people's point of view, I do agree that it is always nice to debate with someone who has knowledge of the Qur'an but not muslim. (Take xanapthi for example or few others)
Although, there wouldn't be much point, if one were a non-Muslim, to debate Islam with another dirty kafir as you'd both be agreeing all the time.
2006-01-16 12:01:56
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6922

mafia996630 wrote:

dude the link is bullshit. just look at the site that hosting it. USC. lol
go here if u want to knw wot the bible really says:

www.ihatethebible.com/
Mafia996630 replying to a post is like someone farting in a library. Everyone notices, but forgets again two seconds later.
2006-01-16 12:03:34
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7043|Cologne, Germany

xanthpi wrote:

Hero764 wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

What you can argue about are things like the principles of freedom, democracy etc, and the conclusions he draws from his view of the Islam. Although it won't change anything, it sure as hell is very entertaining...

btw, xanthpi, I was going to get myself a copy of the Qu'ran, but my car broke down on saturday and I need to get it fixed first. let's hope it won't be too expensive and I have a couple of Euros to spare. ^^
Thanks for the info Schuss. Even though I'm not able to change people's point of view, I do agree that it is always nice to debate with someone who has knowledge of the Qur'an but not muslim. (Take xanapthi for example or few others)
Although, there wouldn't be much point, if one were a non-Muslim, to debate Islam with another dirty kafir as you'd both be agreeing all the time.
not quite. for example, we are both non-muslims and still we don't necessarily agree on this issue, do we ?
2006-01-16 12:23:16
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6922

B.Schuss wrote:

yeah. the Iran affair right now is headed right towards the UN security council. I wonder what the diplomats are going to achieve at the negotiating table. If there is any, that is..
They will achieve nothing.

B.Schuss wrote:

As I have argued in the Iran thread http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=10387 , I don't believe the US has the military capabilities to muster a full-fleged (sp?) invasion of Iran. They are just too stretched. Iran is no piece of cake. This will truly be a job for the whole world community, not just the US and the usual allies.
A large slice of the Iranian people (I prefer to call them Persians) hate the Mullahs more than we do. There have been many uprisings in the last few years, few of which were reported by mainstream media, and all of which were put down. The reason they were not reported is because the people in charge of most media organisations - hard lefties - actually WANT the Mullahs to get their hands on nukes, because lefties think that if the West has nukes, everyone can have them. This is like saying that rapists should have the right to carry guns, because the police do.

B.Schuss wrote:

Difference to 1938 is of course that Iran has no intent to invade another country.
Lol. Why would someone be affraid of attacking another country when the reward is the coming of the 12th Imam (the Mahdi) and a one way ticket to a paradise of virgins and young boys? The difference between the Nazis and the Iranian leadership is that the Nazis weren't suicidal.

B.Schuss wrote:

Cause if they did, they would  ( rightfully ) have to face the consequences. Right now, they simply aspire a nuclear program of their own, which is their right as a souvereign nation.
It is not their right. Religious nutcases MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE NUKES, regardless of any particular international law. If international law stated it was ok to go around killing Pygmies, would it be ok to kill Pygmies or not?
*30 seconds until someone less than clever says "but Bush has got nukes and he's a religious loony".

B.Schuss wrote:

Even you will have to admit that. Wether we believe that they only have peaceful intentions or not is irrelevant as far as the principle is concerned.
No, no, no. There is an overiding and irrefutable logic which says that the Iranians must not get nukes.

B.Schuss wrote:

If we put the principle aside for a moment, it is obvious most western governments don't trust the iranian promises. The question at hand will be what our governmwnts will be willing to do to protect their security interests, should all diplomatic efforts ultimately fail. Will the UN be willing to declare outright war on one of its own members ?
Of course not. The UN cannot solve problems. The UN is morally and operationally bankrupt.

B.Schuss wrote:

I think the war in iraq will look like disneyland compared to what might happen across the border...
Wouldn't it be great if the Iranians could solve this one for themselves.
2006-01-16 12:30:27
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6922

B.Schuss wrote:

xanthpi wrote:

Hero764 wrote:

Thanks for the info Schuss. Even though I'm not able to change people's point of view, I do agree that it is always nice to debate with someone who has knowledge of the Qur'an but not muslim. (Take xanapthi for example or few others)
Although, there wouldn't be much point, if one were a non-Muslim, to debate Islam with another dirty kafir as you'd both be agreeing all the time.
not quite. for example, we are both non-muslims and still we don't necessarily agree on this issue, do we ?
I'm sure that we both (seeing as we have not converted to it), think that Islam is neither true nor decent.
All non-Muslims think that Islam is, for want of a better word, bullshit. Otherwise, if we thought it was so good then we would convert to it, wouldn't we.

This is how we know that such idiotic non-Muslim apologists for Islam such as Karen Armstrong actually think that Islam is bullshit, for if they really believed what they themselves said about it, then they would convert to it.

When a non-Muslim says that Islam is great, they either know not what they are saying or they are lying.
2006-01-16 12:36:25
|DL|Krokkieboy
Member
+16|6878
\uhm well first get some respect if you wanna offend my prophet Muhammad(pboh)

Secondly you really don't know what you seem to be talking abt , guess some morons here on the forums like to shout where almost no muslims are..well pitty you i guess , still some around and really they're not all Middle east lads.

Too bad some of you go so low to call people dumb if they are self to dumb to understand pure religion.

WELL KEEP PLAYING GAMES KIDDO'S

DEATH TO KAFIRS AND MURTADS ...well thekafirs deserve a chance first though

Last edited by |DL|Krokkieboy (2006-01-16 12:37:57)

2006-01-16 13:01:07
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|6966|d

xanthpi wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

dude the link is bullshit. just look at the site that hosting it. USC. lol
go here if u want to knw wot the bible really says:

www.ihatethebible.com/
Mafia996630 replying to a post is like someone farting in a library. Everyone notices, but forgets again two seconds later.
i guess u r right, but atleast i made point, that u cant answer.
2006-01-16 13:05:24
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6922

mafia996630 wrote:

xanthpi wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

dude the link is bullshit. just look at the site that hosting it. USC. lol
go here if u want to knw wot the bible really says:

www.ihatethebible.com/
Mafia996630 replying to a post is like someone farting in a library. Everyone notices, but forgets again two seconds later.
i guess u r right, but atleast i made point, that u cant answer.
You made a point? You farted in a library, dude. Nothing more.
2006-01-16 13:07:14
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6938|Salt Lake City

I have a solution.  Outlaw all religions of any kind.  Get cought practicing religion, its a capital offense with a mandatory death sentence.  To show that this is serious, lets start by executing America's largest terrorist, PAT ROBERTSON!
2006-01-16 13:17:04
Erkut.hv
Member
+124|6937|California

|DL|Krokkieboy wrote:

\uhm well first get some respect if you wanna offend my prophet Muhammad(pboh)

Secondly you really don't know what you seem to be talking abt , guess some morons here on the forums like to shout where almost no muslims are..well pitty you i guess , still some around and really they're not all Middle east lads.

Too bad some of you go so low to call people dumb if they are self to dumb to understand pure religion.

WELL KEEP PLAYING GAMES KIDDO'S

DEATH TO KAFIRS AND MURTADS ...well thekafirs deserve a chance first though
Questions:

What kind of smacktard says kiddo any more?

Wtf does (pboh) mean?

What's a murtad? If that's infidel, then I'm one, sweet.

Ever think we non-muslims really don't care what you think?

Ack, I said think alot. Headache setting in.

Xanth, get em tiger.
2006-01-16 13:19:21
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6922

|DL|Krokkieboy wrote:

\uhm well first get some respect if you wanna offend my prophet Muhammad(pboh)
Christ on a bike! I hope your opening sentence isn't an indicator of the quality of the logic to come.
Let me educate you.
1) Muhammad is dead. He cannot be offended.
2) It is not customary to 'get some respect' for something before 'offending' it.
3) Prophets do not exist, as leprechauns do not.

|DL|Krokkieboy wrote:

Secondly you really don't know what you seem to be talking abt
Then why not try to refute my points instead of babbling like a drunken frog.

|DL|Krokkieboy wrote:

, guess some morons here on the forums like to shout where almost no muslims are..well pitty you i guess , still some around and really they're not all Middle east lads.
That was just a noise, dude.

|DL|Krokkieboy wrote:

Too bad some of you go so low to call people dumb if they are self to dumb to understand pure religion.
That sentence reminded me of staring at a decaying pigeon carcass.

|DL|Krokkieboy wrote:

WELL KEEP PLAYING GAMES KIDDO'S
I'm sure we will enjoy our BF2 sessions. Thank you.

|DL|Krokkieboy wrote:

DEATH TO KAFIRS AND MURTADS
Death to "kafirs"(derogatory term for non-Muslims) and "murtads"(term for apostasts) is enshrined in Islamic law.

|DL|Krokkieboy wrote:

...well thekafirs deserve a chance first though
A kafir (non-Muslim) is seen to be not as insulting to Allah as an ex-Muslim (murtad), hence his statement.

|DL|Krokkieboy's post was a brief insight into the mind of someone with an Islamic identity. I bet you all wish you were him.
2006-01-16 13:19:44
Erkut.hv
Member
+124|6937|California

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

I have a solution.  Outlaw all religions of any kind.  Get cought practicing religion, its a capital offense with a mandatory death sentence.  To show that this is serious, lets start by executing America's largest terrorist, PAT ROBERTSON!
Atheists and Agnostics make up a small, very small percentage of the population. Why don't we start by killing those that have no faith?

Retard. It's people with faith that have, for better or worse, gotten the US to where it is today.

Edit: The problem is not Faith, it's fanatacism.

Last edited by Erkut.hv (2006-01-16 13:23:54)

2006-01-16 13:23:38
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6922

Erkut.hv wrote:

|DL|Krokkieboy wrote:

\uhm well first get some respect if you wanna offend my prophet Muhammad(pboh)

Secondly you really don't know what you seem to be talking abt , guess some morons here on the forums like to shout where almost no muslims are..well pitty you i guess , still some around and really they're not all Middle east lads.

Too bad some of you go so low to call people dumb if they are self to dumb to understand pure religion.

WELL KEEP PLAYING GAMES KIDDO'S

DEATH TO KAFIRS AND MURTADS ...well thekafirs deserve a chance first though
Questions:

What kind of smacktard says kiddo any more?

Wtf does (pboh) mean?

What's a murtad? If that's infidel, then I'm one, sweet.

Ever think we non-muslims really don't care what you think?

Ack, I said think alot. Headache setting in.

Xanth, get em tiger.
Lol, I was already well into the task at hand.

(pboh) means Peace be (Up)on Him. It should really be (pbuh).

A murtad is an apostate from Islam. You are not a murtad. You are a kafir.
2006-01-16 13:44:32
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6938|Salt Lake City

Erkut.hv wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

I have a solution.  Outlaw all religions of any kind.  Get cought practicing religion, its a capital offense with a mandatory death sentence.  To show that this is serious, lets start by executing America's largest terrorist, PAT ROBERTSON!
Atheists and Agnostics make up a small, very small percentage of the population. Why don't we start by killing those that have no faith?

Retard. It's people with faith that have, for better or worse, gotten the US to where it is today.

Edit: The problem is not Faith, it's fanatacism.
Wrong.  Religions, large and small, have over time been the cause of more war, death, destruction, and hatred than all other reasons combined.  For all the good (charity) work that religion has done, their dark side still has the upper hand overall.

See, the key word in your statement is "faith".  Faith is the belief in something that cannot be detected by the human senses, or otherwise subjected to imperical/scientific theory, but for which a strong belief for it exists.  How can any religion justify the swath of death and destruction throughout history based on the belief in something that cannot even be proven to be true?

The fact is, history has shown us that religion is every bit as susceptible to corruption as politics, and it has been used by those with power to maintain power over the masses.

I would suggest you think long and hard before replying.

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-01-16 14:22:55)

2006-01-16 14:59:33
Erkut.hv
Member
+124|6937|California

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Erkut.hv wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

I have a solution.  Outlaw all religions of any kind.  Get cought practicing religion, its a capital offense with a mandatory death sentence.  To show that this is serious, lets start by executing America's largest terrorist, PAT ROBERTSON!
Atheists and Agnostics make up a small, very small percentage of the population. Why don't we start by killing those that have no faith?

Retard. It's people with faith that have, for better or worse, gotten the US to where it is today.

Edit: The problem is not Faith, it's fanatacism.
Wrong.  Religions, large and small, have over time been the cause of more war, death, destruction, and hatred than all other reasons combined.  For all the good (charity) work that religion has done, their dark side still has the upper hand overall.

See, the key word in your statement is "faith".  Faith is the belief in something that cannot be detected by the human senses, or otherwise subjected to imperical/scientific theory, but for which a strong belief for it exists.  How can any religion justify the swath of death and destruction throughout history based on the belief in something that cannot even be proven to be true?

The fact is, history has shown us that religion is every bit as susceptible to corruption as politics, and it has been used by those with power to maintain power over the masses.

I would suggest you think long and hard before replying.
No need to. I think we are agreeing, but going about it by diferent routes. There is nothing wrong with faith, in and of itself. I practice a particular faith. I am not a fanatic. I do not want to convert people against their will. I do not want to kill people because they believe diferently than I do.

We both agree Religion is the leading cause of strife on the planet. I make the distinction between faith and religion for just that reason. I practice a Faith, but I am not Religious.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard