religions of violence

2009-08-10 11:19:35

#51

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6582|MN

I will use the same argument I did many moons ago:

If you were a Muslim, would you feel comfortable living in a predominately Christian country?

If you were a Christian, would you feel comfortable living in a predominately Muslim country?

I am simply stating there is a difference now that cannot be ignored.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2009-08-10 11:23:46

#52

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6834|949

LividBovine wrote:
I will use the same argument I did many moons ago:

If you were a Muslim, would you feel comfortable living in a predominately Christian country?

If you were a Christian, would you feel comfortable living in a predominately Muslim country?

I am simply stating there is a difference now that cannot be ignored.

I don't know, ask the Jews in Iran or the Christians in Lebanon/Syria. Hell, there's been a decent Catholic presence in Iraq for some time too. Last time I checked they were all doing alright.

2009-08-10 11:27:30

#53

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6582|MN

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
LividBovine wrote:
I will use the same argument I did many moons ago:

If you were a Muslim, would you feel comfortable living in a predominately Christian country?

If you were a Christian, would you feel comfortable living in a predominately Muslim country?

I am simply stating there is a difference now that cannot be ignored.
I don't know, ask the Jews in Iran or the Christians in Lebanon/Syria. Hell, there's been a decent Catholic presence in Iraq for some time too. Last time I checked they were all doing alright.

Answer the question, which one would you choose?

Last edited by LividBovine (2009-08-10 11:27:45)

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2009-08-10 11:30:12

#54

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6834|949

None, because I am not religious and don't believe in God. Can I ask you a loaded question now too? Is that how this whole debate thing works?

Would you rather grow up as a Jew during the Spanish Inquisition or a shifty peasant during the Salem Witch Trials?

Regardless, it's not the religion that is the problem...it's the people. People can become zealous over video games and love and hate and all kinds of things. We don't hold love to task when there is a murder of passion. We don't hold video games responsible....err some do, but most people realize how stupid that is.

2009-08-10 11:32:12

#55

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6582|MN

How is it a loaded question, I really don't understand that. Yes it is a broad generalization, but can you disagree with it. Just asking.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2009-08-10 11:33:09

#56

Bell: Frosties > Cornflakes; +362|6751|UK

From what I understand, the Conquest of Canaan, had a very specific purpose. So far as the story goes, the tribes Joshua was instructed to destroy where not humans, they where a race of giants who where poisoning the blood of man. Gods plan, of reconciling man to himself rested upon the sacrifice of Christ, which would not of been successful, if the blood of man had been poisoned by these creatures.

Now, I dont exactly believe in giants and shit like that, however, in the context of the story, God didn't want these tribes destroyed for the fun of it, they had to go, for the sake of man's redemption.

Martyn

2009-08-10 11:40:06

#57

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6834|949

LividBovine wrote:
How is it a loaded question, I really don't understand that. Yes it is a broad generalization, but can you disagree with it. Just asking.

It's a loaded question because you are presupposing that it would be scary or a death wish to live in a predominantly Muslim country as a Christian. Millions of people around the world get by fine every day - that's my answer. Instead of asking me, why don't you look around at the various Muslim countries that host large non-Muslim populations.

2009-08-10 11:41:58

#58

Bell: Frosties > Cornflakes; +362|6751|UK

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
LividBovine wrote:
How is it a loaded question, I really don't understand that. Yes it is a broad generalization, but can you disagree with it. Just asking.
It's a loaded question because you are presupposing that it would be scary or a death wish to live in a predominantly Muslim country as a Christian. Millions of people around the world get by fine every day - that's my answer. Instead of asking me, why don't you look around at the various Muslim countries that host large non-Muslim populations.

Its a simple question of preference, in what situation would you rather be in?

2009-08-10 11:47:44

#59

Krappyappy: 'twice cooked beef!'; +111|7022

LividBovine wrote:
I will use the same argument I did many moons ago:

If you were a Muslim, would you feel comfortable living in a predominately Christian country?

If you were a Christian, would you feel comfortable living in a predominately Muslim country?

I am simply stating there is a difference now that cannot be ignored.

i've been to turkey. it's a great country to live in for anyone.

i'm not a christian, but there were other christians there.

i think some people tend to forget that between 6-8 of the world's top ten muslim countries aren't in the middle east, depending on how you classify the middle east. any risk to yourself is a lot less dependent on being christian and a lot more dependent on being a westerner.

2009-08-10 11:48:56

#60

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6834|949

Bell wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
LividBovine wrote:
How is it a loaded question, I really don't understand that. Yes it is a broad generalization, but can you disagree with it. Just asking.
It's a loaded question because you are presupposing that it would be scary or a death wish to live in a predominantly Muslim country as a Christian. Millions of people around the world get by fine every day - that's my answer. Instead of asking me, why don't you look around at the various Muslim countries that host large non-Muslim populations.
Its a simple question of preference, in what situation would you rather be in?

I'd rather be in a Muslim country because I haven't been immersed in much of their culture. Tell me why I'm wrong please

2009-08-10 11:58:05

#61

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6740|Long Island, New York

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Bell wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

It's a loaded question because you are presupposing that it would be scary or a death wish to live in a predominantly Muslim country as a Christian. Millions of people around the world get by fine every day - that's my answer. Instead of asking me, why don't you look around at the various Muslim countries that host large non-Muslim populations.
Its a simple question of preference, in what situation would you rather be in?
I'd rather be in a Muslim country because I haven't been immersed in much of their culture. Tell me why I'm wrong please

Because WND and IslamWatch says that Muslims will behead you for being an infidel.

2009-08-10 12:09:30

#62

mafia996630: © 2009 Jeff Minard; +319|6965|d

Poseidon wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Bell wrote:

Its a simple question of preference, in what situation would you rather be in?
I'd rather be in a Muslim country because I haven't been immersed in much of their culture. Tell me why I'm wrong please
Because WND and IslamWatch says that Muslims will behead you for being an infidel.

I was surprised to learn there's is also a Christian and Jew watch!

2009-08-10 14:49:37

#63

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6853|USA

Krappyappy wrote:
lowing wrote:
but His teachings were not of violence and intolerance
ignorant lowing is ignorant.
and reading-handicapped.

Krappyappy wrote:
the bible wrote:
when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. (2 Thess 1:7-8)

[Christ will destroy] every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:25)

I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence" (Luke 19:26-27).

"Do not think that I have come to send peace on Earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34-35)
plenty more where those came from. don't pretend that christianity is all lovey dovey turn the other cheek. there is no 'twisting' necessary, only a literal interpretation.

Luke 19:26-27 is a parable, a story that is being told BY Jesus about a king, and was speaking as the king, not as himself. Sorry

Matthew 10:34-35 was speaking of the the internal struggle of a family when a member of that family chooses to follow Christ. He did not condone violence, only recognized that it would happen.

As for the other 2 they are part of the rapture, Armageddon, the end of days as it is prophesied

If you have "plenty more" from the word of Christ, lets take a look at them.

2009-08-10 15:03:01

#64

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6699

the name of the topic is "religions of violence".

why have more people been killed in the name of God than any other reason?

2009-08-10 15:03:55

#65

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6834|949

lowing wrote:
Krappyappy wrote:
lowing wrote:
but His teachings were not of violence and intolerance
ignorant lowing is ignorant.
and reading-handicapped.

Krappyappy wrote:
plenty more where those came from. don't pretend that christianity is all lovey dovey turn the other cheek. there is no 'twisting' necessary, only a literal interpretation.
Luke 19:26-27 is a parable, a story that is being told BY Jesus about a king, and was speaking as the king, not as himself. Sorry

Matthew 10:34-35 was speaking of the the internal struggle of a family when a member of that family chooses to follow Christ. He did not condone violence, only recognized that it would happen.

As for the other 2 they are part of the rapture, Armageddon, the end of days as it is prophesied

If you have "plenty more" from the word of Christ, lets take a look at them.

I'm interested in knowing if you know the context of any "violent" Muslim scripture? Do you know any specific violent quotes from the Quran off the top of your head? I'm not sure if you've quoted any, just curious.

2009-08-10 15:06:49

#66

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|6887|United States of America

burnzz wrote:
the name of the topic is "religions of violence".

why have more people been killed in the name of God than any other reason?

Because it's more acceptable than saying that they're killing for greed or power, you know...the real reasons.

2009-08-10 17:56:54

#67

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6744|Texas - Bigger than France

I would think neither would truly be the religion of violence, 'cept for the fanatics, of course.

2009-08-10 17:59:35

#68

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6853|USA

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
lowing wrote:
Krappyappy wrote:

ignorant lowing is ignorant.
and reading-handicapped.

plenty more where those came from. don't pretend that Christianity is all lovey dovey turn the other cheek. there is no 'twisting' necessary, only a literal interpretation.
Luke 19:26-27 is a parable, a story that is being told BY Jesus about a king, and was speaking as the king, not as himself. Sorry

Matthew 10:34-35 was speaking of the the internal struggle of a family when a member of that family chooses to follow Christ. He did not condone violence, only recognized that it would happen.

As for the other 2 they are part of the rapture, Armageddon, the end of days as it is prophesied

If you have "plenty more" from the word of Christ, lets take a look at them.
I'm interested in knowing if you know the context of any "violent" Muslim scripture? Do you know any specific violent quotes from the Quran off the top of your head? I'm not sure if you've quoted any, just curious.

Violent quotes from the Quran are just a click away, what is your point?

I have asked repeatedly in various threads if you want to compare messengers of God for both Islam and Christianity. Ya know, teachings, actions etc.....It is avoided like the plague and for very good reason. ( because in regards to violence and intolerance, there is no comparison)

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-10 18:12:43)

2009-08-10 18:35:36

#69

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6740|Long Island, New York

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
lowing wrote:
Krappyappy wrote:
lowing wrote:
but His teachings were not of violence and intolerance
ignorant lowing is ignorant.
and reading-handicapped.

plenty more where those came from. don't pretend that christianity is all lovey dovey turn the other cheek. there is no 'twisting' necessary, only a literal interpretation.
Luke 19:26-27 is a parable, a story that is being told BY Jesus about a king, and was speaking as the king, not as himself. Sorry

Matthew 10:34-35 was speaking of the the internal struggle of a family when a member of that family chooses to follow Christ. He did not condone violence, only recognized that it would happen.

As for the other 2 they are part of the rapture, Armageddon, the end of days as it is prophesied

If you have "plenty more" from the word of Christ, lets take a look at them.
I'm interested in knowing if you know the context of any "violent" Muslim scripture? Do you know any specific violent quotes from the Quran off the top of your head? I'm not sure if you've quoted any, just curious.

Lowing has admitted that he's never himself read from the Qu'ran. And when he quotes it, he uses sites like WND and IslamWatch.

2009-08-10 19:12:25

#70

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6853|USA

Poseidon wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
lowing wrote:

Luke 19:26-27 is a parable, a story that is being told BY Jesus about a king, and was speaking as the king, not as himself. Sorry

Matthew 10:34-35 was speaking of the the internal struggle of a family when a member of that family chooses to follow Christ. He did not condone violence, only recognized that it would happen.

As for the other 2 they are part of the rapture, Armageddon, the end of days as it is prophesied

If you have "plenty more" from the word of Christ, lets take a look at them.
I'm interested in knowing if you know the context of any "violent" Muslim scripture? Do you know any specific violent quotes from the Quran off the top of your head? I'm not sure if you've quoted any, just curious.
Lowing has admitted that he's never himself read from the Qu'ran. And when he quotes it, he uses sites like WND and IslamWatch.

and? Does that make the quote invalid or inaccurate?

Why do I need to re-research what has extensively already been shown. I think it is obvious the burdon is on Islam and purhaps you to prove Islam is NOT what it is taught by its murdering child molesting founder. and good luck with that.

2009-08-10 19:17:28

#71

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6877|Canberra, AUS

lowing wrote:
Poseidon wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I'm interested in knowing if you know the context of any "violent" Muslim scripture? Do you know any specific violent quotes from the Quran off the top of your head? I'm not sure if you've quoted any, just curious.
Lowing has admitted that he's never himself read from the Qu'ran. And when he quotes it, he uses sites like WND and IslamWatch.
and? Does that make the quote invalid or inaccurate?

Why do I need to re-research what has extensively already been shown. I think it is obvious the burdon is on Islam and purhaps you to prove Islam is NOT what it is taught by its murdering child molesting founder. and good luck with that.

For the exact same reasons you pointed out with the Luke quote, that's why.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-08-10 19:19:33

#72

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6699

lowing wrote:
Why do I need to re-research what has extensively already been shown. I think it is obvious the burdon is on Islam and purhaps you to prove Islam

fuck, i'll take you seriously when you get a serious spell-checker. it's "burden" and "perhaps".
you think it's a nit-pick but between the horrible spelling and the bible thumping, it comes off like a chain e-mail argument.

ontopic; the Q'uran does have violent passages. Same as the Bible and the Torah. bfd, i think all we've proved so far is religions = violence.
GG

2009-08-10 19:25:13

#73

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6853|USA

Spark wrote:
lowing wrote:
Poseidon wrote:

Lowing has admitted that he's never himself read from the Qu'ran. And when he quotes it, he uses sites like WND and IslamWatch.
and? Does that make the quote invalid or inaccurate?

Why do I need to re-research what has extensively already been shown. I think it is obvious the burdon is on Islam and purhaps you to prove Islam is NOT what it is taught by its murdering child molesting founder. and good luck with that.
For the exact same reasons you pointed out with the Luke quote, that's why.

Luke WAS taken out of context, it is clear to anyone that reads the WHOLE verse.

Muhammad's actions and his teachings MATCH exactly!!

2009-08-10 19:28:44

#74

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6613|'Murka

burnzz wrote:
i think all we've proved so far is humans use religions = among other things, to justify violence.
GG

fixed.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-08-10 19:31:00

#75

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6853|USA

burnzz wrote:
lowing wrote:
Why do I need to re-research what has extensively already been shown. I think it is obvious the burdon is on Islam and purhaps you to prove Islam
fuck, i'll take you seriously when you get a serious spell-checker. it's "burden" and "perhaps".
you think it's a nit-pick but between the horrible spelling and the bible thumping, it comes off like a chain e-mail argument.

ontopic; the Q'uran does have violent passages. Same as the Bible and the Torah. bfd, i think all we've proved so far is religions = violence.
GG

I type what I am thinking and do not take time for spelling correctness then I forget to run it through spell checker. Glad to see you make good use of it.

Yup you showed the Bible has violence in it, NOT the teachings of Christ IE Christianity's message. You fail to compare the teachings of the 2 major religions as both being violent. The teachings and actions of Christ and the teachings and actions of Muhammad.

Stop squirming and accept Islam for what it teaches and practices in Islamic run nations

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-10 19:38:52)

BF2S Forums religions of violence

LividBovine wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Bell wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Bell wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Bell wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

lowing wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

the bible wrote:

lowing wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

lowing wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

burnzz wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

lowing wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

lowing wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

burnzz wrote:

burnzz wrote:

lowing wrote:

Board footer