Jesus led an army? Missed that part in history . . .usmarine2005 wrote:
Same as Jesus IMO.Cougar wrote:
It really sounds to me like this guy was a really, really good snake oil salesman.
Never said he did. But he did walk on water.Stingray24 wrote:
Jesus led an army? Missed that part in history . . .usmarine2005 wrote:
Same as Jesus IMO.Cougar wrote:
It really sounds to me like this guy was a really, really good snake oil salesman.
Where did usmarine2005 quote Cougar saying that Jesus led an army? Missed that part in the quote . . .Stingray24 wrote:
Jesus led an army? Missed that part in history . . .usmarine2005 wrote:
Same as Jesus IMO.Cougar wrote:
It really sounds to me like this guy was a really, really good snake oil salesman.
He was just saying that he thought Jesus was selling everyone down the river as well as Muhammad - that's why he only quoted that... sheesh!
Jesus didn't start no army and conquer all lands. He got his associates to do that. Muhammad did the dirty work himself. People run their Mobs differently, some like a hands on approach with the motto "if you're gonna do it, do it yourself", whilst some have trust in others. Both have been known to work in History, from Religion, to the Russian Mafia.
The Pope led his army for him.Stingray24 wrote:
Jesus led an army? Missed that part in history . . .usmarine2005 wrote:
Same as Jesus IMO.Cougar wrote:
It really sounds to me like this guy was a really, really good snake oil salesman.
According to the US SSA, Timothy would have to work its way past William, Anthony, Andrew, Christopher, Daniel, Matthew, Ethan, Joshua, Michael, Jacob and who knows how many other names are more popular than it.Kmarion wrote:
He ordered the slaughter of hundreds of innocents. I expect that the name Timothy will be popular in the US soon.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-12-19 16:34:05)
So my logic of murdering terrorists as popular names fails.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
According to the US SSA, Timothy would have to work its way past William, Anthony, Andrew, Christopher, Daniel, Matthew, Ethan, Joshua, Michael, Jacob and who knows how many other names are more popular than it.Kmarion wrote:
He ordered the slaughter of hundreds of innocents. I expect that the name Timothy will be popular in the US soon.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Don´t take my words for granted but i´m quite sure that´s BS with Mohammed face beeing holy and all there´s what i know nothing in the Choran that tell you to never picture it. However there´s and have been allot of images reffering to Mohammed in the muslim world, they just blew things out of proportion when the devils from west started to make fun images. That´s how i see it.Cougar wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317447,00.html
Also, why is his face not allowed to be shown...ever? It seems that you would want people to be able to recognize and or relate to Mohammed whenever seen (like Jesus for Christians, Buddha for Buddhists and so on) not make him hide is face and never be shown...
They will regret it eventually.
oh so true.Mek-Izzle wrote:
They also talk about not worshipping Idols and shit. Yet they're the ones that worship a giant box/city 5 times a day.
Then again all religions are hypocritical.
Perhaps. I believe the whole 'Mohammad popular name' issue deals more with concerns about a cultural overthrow than it does with terrorist potential.Kmarion wrote:
So my logic of murdering terrorists as popular names fails.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
According to the US SSA, Timothy would have to work its way past William, Anthony, Andrew, Christopher, Daniel, Matthew, Ethan, Joshua, Michael, Jacob and who knows how many other names are more popular than it.Kmarion wrote:
He ordered the slaughter of hundreds of innocents. I expect that the name Timothy will be popular in the US soon.
Well, not quite.tthf wrote:
oh so true.Mek-Izzle wrote:
They also talk about not worshipping Idols and shit. Yet they're the ones that worship a giant box/city 5 times a day.
Then again all religions are hypocritical.
The Ka'bah - or 'giant box', as you so eloquently put it - is actually "Allah's house" and was originally built by Abraham all the way back whenever he lived. Quite, they claim one stone has his footprints there. It's not idolising a bloody building, but merely showing devotion to the holiest place on earth as it is God's house. Indeed, it is much in the same way that Jews prayed (not sure if they still do) towards Jerusalem - also, take note that the first Muslims, including Muhammad, prayed towards Jerusalem before Muhammad cleansed the Ka'bah from its many idols and ~350 idol-based religions there.
Thus, you seem rather ignorant of the Muslim religion and their beliefs - please take this into account in future and actually bother to learn about a different culture/religion instead of looking upon it with your own values and damning it on face value through them.
I'm aware of that.TheDarkRaven wrote:
Well, not quite.tthf wrote:
oh so true.Mek-Izzle wrote:
They also talk about not worshipping Idols and shit. Yet they're the ones that worship a giant box/city 5 times a day.
Then again all religions are hypocritical.
The Ka'bah - or 'giant box', as you so eloquently put it - is actually "Allah's house" and was originally built by Abraham all the way back whenever he lived. Quite, they claim one stone has his footprints there. It's not idolising a bloody building, but merely showing devotion to the holiest place on earth as it is God's house. Indeed, it is much in the same way that Jews prayed (not sure if they still do) towards Jerusalem - also, take note that the first Muslims, including Muhammad, prayed towards Jerusalem before Muhammad cleansed the Ka'bah from its many idols and ~350 idol-based religions there.
Thus, you seem rather ignorant of the Muslim religion and their beliefs - please take this into account in future and actually bother to learn about a different culture/religion instead of looking upon it with your own values and damning it on face value through them.
You've worded it well, but at the end of the day it is infact simply idolising the building and whatever its contents are. I'm aware of the religion of Islam, but my perspective is from a historical standpoint whilst you've gained all your information from religious sources. At the end of the day, we should question whether this Muhammad bloke really did get a message from a god or whether it was just a dream, or a hallucination from whatever drug was available at the time. Or whether he just made the whole bloody thing up because he wanted power and had good persuasion skills. It's probably the last one, seeing as he had such good leading skills and won so many battles. He just made up Islam as an excuse to rule as much land and people as possible. Simple really.
It's gone on throughout history. Ever wonder why Pharoh's of Egypt had such power and everyone listened to them, it's because they claimed to be in touch with their gods. Ever wondered why the preists are the top of the Hindu Caste system. Ever wondered why the Pope claims to be in touch with their god or w/e, not because they actually did, but because they knew that's how they got the power.
Jesus/Muhammad/Moses/High Preists/Pharoh's were just clever blokes who knew how to manipulate the system to get what they want. I guess you should respect them like that. And look down on the idiots who followed them so blindly.
Muslim population is growing at a very very alarming rate...
you're on quite the necro run, Cybargs.
I am gonna name my baby Muhammed. Or Kareem Abdul Jabar the 2nd.
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
So is every other denomination.Cybargs wrote:
Muslim population is growing at a very very alarming rate...
Does your necro-posting have a point?
we like to fuck!
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Cougar was a fag
Please refrain from bumping topics.