Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 25

Topic closed

2009-08-20 01:50:20
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

Violence in the name of Christianity ( which Jesus did not teach or practice)
But the old testament did, in fact god himself did most of the smiting.

'Numbers 31 says Moses instructed the Israelite soldiers to kill every Midianite woman, boy, and non-virgin girl, although virgin girls were shared amongst the soldiers.'

Awesome, Christianities number two prophet promotes killing of civilians, women, children, and rape of women and children providing they are virgins?

Wow lowing, to be a good Christian you'd better start the slaughter and raping right away.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-08-20 01:53:31)

Fuck Israel
2009-08-20 01:51:01
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6871|Finland

Dilbert, read my post and combine it with yours. O.o
I need around tree fiddy.
2009-08-20 01:51:41
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6389|'straya

lowing wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

lowing wrote:


Nope, I think 1.8 billion people belong to a religion that teaches convertion or death to non-believers. wether or not they practice that belief is a different issue. My opinion is, if they do not practice that teaching, then they are not practicing their religion.

Actually I don't ignore history either, but it only goes toward a pattern. Islamic violence and intolerance dates back to Muhammad, however, it is the here and now that is relevant to me since well, it is when I live. there is nothing in the history of Islam that can be looked back upon and be baffled as to why it is the way it is today.
In that case all Christians are obviously not practising their faith.

Also you say how it is today. Islam today is not the exact teachings of hundreds of years ago, just like practically all other religions. If by "Islam" you mean "Radical Fundamental Islamic Extremists" then your statement might actually make sense.
Yup if a so called Christian engages in violence against the innocent and helpless they are not practicing the treachings of Jesus Christ. I have said this before, glad to see we agree.


No the radicals are the ones who are actively engaged on CHANGING Islam from the barbaric teachings and practices it currently engages in. Nothing "radical" about practicing your religion the way it was written and taught. Then again if you are changing it, you might as well come up with a new name for your peaceful religion.
If its not radical then why aren't all muslims killing people and launching terrorist attack against the poor innocent Americans. Oh wait in lowing world they all are.
2009-08-20 01:52:31
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7014|Noizyland

lowing wrote:

One question, who more emulates the teachings and life of Muhammad ( the founder of Islam), Al Quaeda or a peace loving tolerant man? Lets try and be honest here.
I don't see how that's relevant. As I've explained there is no correct or incorrect interpretation, there are only different interpretations. As such there is no-one who is "more right".
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2009-08-20 01:56:22
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Violence in the name of Christianity ( which Jesus did not teach or practice)
But the old testament did, in fact god himself did most of the smiting.

'Numbers 31 says Moses instructed the Israelite soldiers to kill every Midianite woman, boy, and non-virgin girl, although virgin girls were shared amongst the soldiers.'

Awesome, Christianities number two prophet promotes killing of civilians, women, children, and rape of women and children providing they are virgins?

Wow lowing, to be a good Christian you'd better start the slaughter and raping right away.
Kinda why they call themselves CHRISTians and not MOSESians. and do you really not see the difference in "GOD" turning a woman into a piller of salt etc, and a mortal man lopping of 600 heads?
2009-08-20 01:58:39
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

DonFck wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

In the context of history is a phrase you don't fully understand lowing ...
Nope I completely understand, and since Jesus lived even before Muhammad, when man was 600 years YOUNGER, I think the differences between right and wrong and violence and non-violence were long established.

Muhammad was a warrior and murdered his surrendered enemies. Jesus never picked up a sword against anyone, even against those who killed him Not to sure what historical context you are looking for to justify Muhammad's actions in his life.
So would you then think that, in the WWJD-context, it would be better that the ME would never have been attacked, and that we/you should've just turned the other cheek?
sure, however, we did not go to war carrying the cross as a banner and are not fighting in the name of Christianity.
2009-08-20 01:59:48
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6871|Finland

lowing wrote:

DonFck wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope I completely understand, and since Jesus lived even before Muhammad, when man was 600 years YOUNGER, I think the differences between right and wrong and violence and non-violence were long established.

Muhammad was a warrior and murdered his surrendered enemies. Jesus never picked up a sword against anyone, even against those who killed him Not to sure what historical context you are looking for to justify Muhammad's actions in his life.
So would you then think that, in the WWJD-context, it would be better that the ME would never have been attacked, and that we/you should've just turned the other cheek?
sure, however, we did not go to war carrying the cross as a banner and are not fighting in the name of Christianity.
Of course you're not, lowing. Of course you're not.
I need around tree fiddy.
2009-08-20 02:04:50
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

lowing wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

In that case all Christians are obviously not practising their faith.

Also you say how it is today. Islam today is not the exact teachings of hundreds of years ago, just like practically all other religions. If by "Islam" you mean "Radical Fundamental Islamic Extremists" then your statement might actually make sense.
Yup if a so called Christian engages in violence against the innocent and helpless they are not practicing the treachings of Jesus Christ. I have said this before, glad to see we agree.


No the radicals are the ones who are actively engaged on CHANGING Islam from the barbaric teachings and practices it currently engages in. Nothing "radical" about practicing your religion the way it was written and taught. Then again if you are changing it, you might as well come up with a new name for your peaceful religion.
If its not radical then why aren't all muslims killing people and launching terrorist attack against the poor innocent Americans. Oh wait in lowing world they all are.
radical does not automatically mean violent. It means different or change from the norm, and a Muslim who acts differently than they are taught is a radical. In this context, a person who goes against the teachings is a radical. It just so happens those teachings are intolerant and violent, so being a radical is going against that violence and intolerance.

Or is there a reason why there is an attempt to reform Islam for a modern world. to do so, you kinda sorta gotta admit it needs reformation. So if there is change coming to Islam, and you can not change the teachings or writtings of it, then you are only kidding yourself by calling yourself a follower of Islam if you are not actually following Islam.

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-20 02:06:28)

2009-08-20 02:05:52
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

DonFck wrote:

lowing wrote:

DonFck wrote:

So would you then think that, in the WWJD-context, it would be better that the ME would never have been attacked, and that we/you should've just turned the other cheek?
sure, however, we did not go to war carrying the cross as a banner and are not fighting in the name of Christianity.
Of course you're not, lowing. Of course you're not.
Ummmm all on here claim we did it for oil, where have you been?
2009-08-20 02:07:52
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

sure, however, we did not go to war carrying the cross as a banner and are not fighting in the name of Christianity.
Except Bush called it a crusade and we did have crusader symbols painted on our tanks.
Kinda why they call themselves CHRISTians and not MOSESians. and do you really not see the difference in "GOD" turning a woman into a piller of salt etc, and a mortal man lopping of 600 heads?
I don't see a difference between Moses slaughtering innocents in the name of god and Mohammed doing the same thing.

Anyway, why is the OT still part of the bible if its irrelevant?
Moses received the word of god directly, Jesus was the son of god but had different views to the big guy.
Who do you go with out of the two? I'd pick god personally.
Fuck Israel
2009-08-20 02:10:24
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

It just so happens those teachings are intolerant and violent, so being a radical is going against that violence and intolerance.
You're forgetting that 99.99% of muslims are peaceful and 0.01% are violent.
Somewhat destroys your argument.

Islam is basically a peaceful religion, whatever you and the nutjobs like to say.
Fuck Israel
2009-08-20 02:11:44
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6871|Finland

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

It just so happens those teachings are intolerant and violent, so being a radical is going against that violence and intolerance.
You're forgetting that 99.99% of muslims are peaceful and 0.01% are violent.
Somewhat destroys your argument.

Islam is basically a peaceful religion, whatever you and the nutjobs like to say.
Forgetting and denying the truth are two separate things.
I need around tree fiddy.
2009-08-20 02:13:32
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

sure, however, we did not go to war carrying the cross as a banner and are not fighting in the name of Christianity.
Except Bush called it a crusade and we did have crusader symbols painted on our tanks.
Kinda why they call themselves CHRISTians and not MOSESians. and do you really not see the difference in "GOD" turning a woman into a piller of salt etc, and a mortal man lopping of 600 heads?
I don't see a difference between Moses slaughtering innocents in the name of god and Mohammed doing the same thing.

Anyway, why is the OT still part of the bible if its irrelevant?
Moses received the word of god directly, Jesus was the son of god but had different views to the big guy.
Who do you go with out of the two? I'd pick god personally.
The NT and CHRIST's message is more relevant than the OT regarding CHRISTianity
2009-08-20 02:15:27
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

It just so happens those teachings are intolerant and violent, so being a radical is going against that violence and intolerance.
You're forgetting that 99.99% of muslims are peaceful and 0.01% are violent.
Somewhat destroys your argument.

Islam is basically a peaceful religion, whatever you and the nutjobs like to say.
No, the Muslims that say they follow it might be, but the religion itself is not. it is a religion that not only told stories of violence, but it teaches violence and violence was practiced by its founder.
2009-08-20 02:16:32
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

DonFck wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

It just so happens those teachings are intolerant and violent, so being a radical is going against that violence and intolerance.
You're forgetting that 99.99% of muslims are peaceful and 0.01% are violent.
Somewhat destroys your argument.

Islam is basically a peaceful religion, whatever you and the nutjobs like to say.
Forgetting and denying the truth are two separate things.
and you all are masters of that denial.
2009-08-20 02:19:29
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6871|Finland

lowing wrote:

DonFck wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


You're forgetting that 99.99% of muslims are peaceful and 0.01% are violent.
Somewhat destroys your argument.

Islam is basically a peaceful religion, whatever you and the nutjobs like to say.
Forgetting and denying the truth are two separate things.
and you all are masters of that denial.
Make this about Obama. I dare you.
I need around tree fiddy.
2009-08-20 02:20:07
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6915|Canberra, AUS

lowing wrote:

DonFck wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


You're forgetting that 99.99% of muslims are peaceful and 0.01% are violent.
Somewhat destroys your argument.

Islam is basically a peaceful religion, whatever you and the nutjobs like to say.
Forgetting and denying the truth are two separate things.
and you all are masters of that denial.
You're the one claiming to know everything about a religion having never looked at the one authoratitve text on the matter.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2009-08-20 02:27:47
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

DonFck wrote:

Forgetting and denying the truth are two separate things.
and you all are masters of that denial.
You're the one claiming to know everything about a religion having never looked at the one authoratitve text on the matter.
Nope, I do not claim to know everything, however, I do read, I look at the obvious world around me, and the actions committed in the name of Islam and the laws that govern Islam, to draw my conclusions.

Kinda wondering how you can look at Sharia law and not come to the same conclusions. I mean Sharia is what governs Islam is it not?

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-20 02:29:06)

2009-08-20 02:28:47
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

DonFck wrote:

lowing wrote:

DonFck wrote:

Forgetting and denying the truth are two separate things.
and you all are masters of that denial.
Make this about Obama. I dare you.
sorry ya lost me on that one.
2009-08-20 02:31:15
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6915|Canberra, AUS

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:


and you all are masters of that denial.
You're the one claiming to know everything about a religion having never looked at the one authoratitve text on the matter.
Nope, I do not claim to know everything, however, I do read, I look at the obvious world around me, and the actions committed in the name of Islam and the laws that govern Islam, to draw my conclusions.

Kinda wondering how you can look at Sharia law and not come to the same conclusions. I mean Sharia is what governs Islam is it not?
The difference is I rely on historical texts to make my judgement... not the media or blogs.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2009-08-20 02:33:29
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

You're the one claiming to know everything about a religion having never looked at the one authoratitve text on the matter.
Nope, I do not claim to know everything, however, I do read, I look at the obvious world around me, and the actions committed in the name of Islam and the laws that govern Islam, to draw my conclusions.

Kinda wondering how you can look at Sharia law and not come to the same conclusions. I mean Sharia is what governs Islam is it not?
The difference is I rely on historical texts to make my judgement... not the media or blogs.
yeah and? Does your historical texts tell you how peaceful and tolerant Islam and Sharia Law is? If it does link please.

So if you do not rely on the media, how do you keep up on current events?

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-20 02:34:44)

2009-08-20 02:36:29
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6915|Canberra, AUS

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:


Nope, I do not claim to know everything, however, I do read, I look at the obvious world around me, and the actions committed in the name of Islam and the laws that govern Islam, to draw my conclusions.

Kinda wondering how you can look at Sharia law and not come to the same conclusions. I mean Sharia is what governs Islam is it not?
The difference is I rely on historical texts to make my judgement... not the media or blogs.
yeah and? Does your historical texts tell you how peaceful and tolerant Islam and Sharia Law is? If it does link please.

So if you do not rely on the media, how do you keep up on current events?
I wouldn't know because I haven't had a chance to look at the Koran in depth yet.

I rely on the media to keep up on current events... not to make sweeping judgements on a faith followed by a quarter of the world's population.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2009-08-20 02:37:13
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6871|Finland

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, I do not claim to know everything, however, I do read, I look at the obvious world around me, and the actions committed in the name of Islam and the laws that govern Islam, to draw my conclusions.

Kinda wondering how you can look at Sharia law and not come to the same conclusions. I mean Sharia is what governs Islam is it not?
The difference is I rely on historical texts to make my judgement... not the media or blogs.
yeah and? Does your historical texts tell you how peaceful and tolerant Islam and Sharia Law is? If it does link please.

So if you do not rely on the media, how do you keep up on current events?
This is not the point. We are discussing religions of violence, not small contemporary splinter groups who interpret them any way they want to and justify violence in their name. So historical texts are relevant and not media about current events. Current events are only interpretations of the message and not the message itself.
I need around tree fiddy.
2009-08-20 02:53:57
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

DonFck wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:


The difference is I rely on historical texts to make my judgement... not the media or blogs.
yeah and? Does your historical texts tell you how peaceful and tolerant Islam and Sharia Law is? If it does link please.

So if you do not rely on the media, how do you keep up on current events?
This is not the point. We are discussing religions of violence, not small contemporary splinter groups who interpret them any way they want to and justify violence in their name. So historical texts are relevant and not media about current events. Current events are only interpretations of the message and not the message itself.
Ok great, well then like I said, give me some historical texts that show Islam and its Sharia Law as peaceful and tolerant.
2009-08-20 03:22:59
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7014|Noizyland

CameronPoe already did that on page eight. I believe you said:
You really wanna get into a quoting contest now?
You then offered a quote from one Ali Sina - a psudonym for the unknown person who runs "Faith Freedom International", a self-confessed anti-Islamic website. This is a person who offers such gems as "Obama is Hitler" and expresses his wish to have the President tried and electrocuted to death.

I'd advise you to check your sources.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 25

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard