Hate to break it to you. But Christianity did not become a proper religion until 300-400 years after Jesus death. All the important dates were taken directly from other pagan religions and scripture. There was also more then 20 'gospels' from which the head religious leaders picked 4 simplified ones which gave them the most control and outlawed the rest claiming them to be heretical then murdered anyone who apposed their decision. Maybe the potentially made up figure of Jesus taught peace and love. But the beginning of the church was as violent as any, which continued right up till the 16, 17 and 18th century with murder, torture and wars fought in its name to spread the control of the church.lowing wrote:
Also ,why shouldn't I link CHRISTianity to CHRIST, he is the founder of that religion after all. I know it sucks.
You infact always complain about others and how they always insult you and call you racist, but you my dear do the same to moi. I have been insulted many times in my life, that I came to a point now where I never bitch about it. But you do, Sir.lowing wrote:
I don't really care if you think my condemnation of Muhammed and his murdering actions and teachings are an insult. The fact that you do not, is what I find disgusting.
You funny lowing, but not funny enough.
If you read what I wrote, and tried to understand, you will see that for a muslim there is nothing to compare, why you ask? Well, simply because we do believe in the previous books and all the previous Prophets (may peace be upon them all).lowing wrote:
So what now, are we gunna compare these "final versions" or not?
Now just out of curiosity lowing, my funny m8, how would you compare as you are saying? Will you actually read the books? or will you go on some funny site, not as funny as you, and copy paste? Or wait...You will look around you and observe? Will you do the work lowing?
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
Jesus is not the founder of Christianity, the authors of the Bible (and yes there were quite a few) had several "prophets" to choose from when writing the NT ... not only Jesus, the NT as it is now was a pick and choose between atleast 12 known testaments and only 4 was included and even those 4 was edited before they were included.lowing wrote:
Never said I "totally dismiss the OT", I said it is not the focal point of Christianity CHRIST is. Just like Muhammed is the focal point of Islam.Varegg wrote:
So you totally dismiss the OT lowing? ... or is it a pick and choose part of the bible because last I heard huge parts of the OT is what Christianity is based on ...
It's very narrow minded to link Jesus to the NT alone just because the religion itself is called Christianity and not Mosianity, it's überfail on your part and shows little knowledge about religion in general when you use that argument because it is convenient for you to do so ...
YOu simply would not have Christianity without Christ and you would not have Islam without Muhammed.
But since you refuse to let it go, I will also maintain that for the vast majority of the OT it tells stories of things that happened. It does not do much in the way of instruction on how to act toward your fellow man, except the Ten Commandments, and as I recall the 10 Commandments do not instruct you to murder.
There is nothing inconvenient for me regarding Christianity and the teachings of Christ. It falls right in line with my argument. The problem you have is you need to bring in the least important parts of the OT which dates back 1600 years before Christianity was even founded. It sounds like you are the one who is inconvenienced.
Also ,why shouldn't I link CHRISTianity to CHRIST, he is the founder of that religion after all. I know it sucks.
About the OT it is very very doubtful those stories actually happend, they are more like fabels to describe and solve ethtical problems in the daily lives of people at that period of time.
You may of course believe your version of all this but remember to also allow others to believe their version of their religion without you insulting them ... I was very tempted to ban you for a few days for your reply towards Beduin a couple of posts further up.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
you know what I meant, if not for the figure Christ, there would be no Christianity.DrunkFace wrote:
Hate to break it to you. But Christianity did not become a proper religion until 300-400 years after Jesus death. All the important dates were taken directly from other pagan religions and scripture. There was also more then 20 'gospels' from which the head religious leaders picked 4 simplified ones which gave them the most control and outlawed the rest claiming them to be heretical then murdered anyone who apposed their decision. Maybe the potentially made up figure of Jesus taught peace and love. But the beginning of the church was as violent as any, which continued right up till the 16, 17 and 18th century with murder, torture and wars fought in its name to spread the control of the church.lowing wrote:
Also ,why shouldn't I link CHRISTianity to CHRIST, he is the founder of that religion after all. I know it sucks.
I also understand the violence that has bee ncommitted in the name of Christ, the difference being, Christ did not condone it or teach it. Muhammed, the murderer did.
Pointing out the fact that I am always personally attacked is different than compalining about it. I have reported a post only once in my time in this forum and that was t oprove a point, not to "complain".Beduin wrote:
You infact always complain about others and how they always insult you and call you racist, but you my dear do the same to moi. I have been insulted many times in my life, that I came to a point now where I never bitch about it. But you do, Sir.lowing wrote:
I don't really care if you think my condemnation of Muhammed and his murdering actions and teachings are an insult. The fact that you do not, is what I find disgusting.
You funny lowing, but not funny enough.
If you read what I wrote, and tried to understand, you will see that for a muslim there is nothing to compare, why you ask? Well, simply because we do believe in the previous books and all the previous Prophets (may peace be upon them all).lowing wrote:
So what now, are we gunna compare these "final versions" or not?
Now just out of curiosity lowing, my funny m8, how would you compare as you are saying? Will you actually read the books? or will you go on some funny site, not as funny as you, and copy paste? Or wait...You will look around you and observe? Will you do the work lowing?
I am kinda curious how me talking about Muhammed ( pieces be upon him) is a personal attack or insult on you.
Why would I do the work, it has already been done, I see no need to repeat it. Fucked up Islamlic Law, fucked up Islamic practices, fucked up Islamic current events, compared to the rest of todays world, pretty much speaks for itself. Really all one needs t oprove the point is Sharia law.
Stop insulting others then?lowing wrote:
Pointing out the fact that I am always personally attacked is different than compalining about it. I have reported a post only once in my time in this forum and that was t oprove a point, not to "complain".
That fact that you don't know, makes me smilelowing wrote:
I am kinda curious how me talking about Muhammed ( pieces be upon him) is a personal attack or insult on you.
lol... round and round, round and round.lowing wrote:
Why would I do the work, it has already been done, I see no need to repeat it. Fucked up Islamlic Law, fucked up Islamic practices, fucked up Islamic current events, compared to the rest of todays world, pretty much speaks for itself. Really all one needs t oprove the point is Sharia law.
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
Stop dissecting, you know what I meant about Jesus. If not for the figure Christ there would be no religion called Christianity and a faith built around him.Varegg wrote:
Jesus is not the founder of Christianity, the authors of the Bible (and yes there were quite a few) had several "prophets" to choose from when writing the NT ... not only Jesus, the NT as it is now was a pick and choose between atleast 12 known testaments and only 4 was included and even those 4 was edited before they were included.lowing wrote:
Never said I "totally dismiss the OT", I said it is not the focal point of Christianity CHRIST is. Just like Muhammed is the focal point of Islam.Varegg wrote:
So you totally dismiss the OT lowing? ... or is it a pick and choose part of the bible because last I heard huge parts of the OT is what Christianity is based on ...
It's very narrow minded to link Jesus to the NT alone just because the religion itself is called Christianity and not Mosianity, it's überfail on your part and shows little knowledge about religion in general when you use that argument because it is convenient for you to do so ...
YOu simply would not have Christianity without Christ and you would not have Islam without Muhammed.
But since you refuse to let it go, I will also maintain that for the vast majority of the OT it tells stories of things that happened. It does not do much in the way of instruction on how to act toward your fellow man, except the Ten Commandments, and as I recall the 10 Commandments do not instruct you to murder.
There is nothing inconvenient for me regarding Christianity and the teachings of Christ. It falls right in line with my argument. The problem you have is you need to bring in the least important parts of the OT which dates back 1600 years before Christianity was even founded. It sounds like you are the one who is inconvenienced.
Also ,why shouldn't I link CHRISTianity to CHRIST, he is the founder of that religion after all. I know it sucks.
About the OT it is very very doubtful those stories actually happend, they are more like fabels to describe and solve ethtical problems in the daily lives of people at that period of time.
You may of course believe your version of all this but remember to also allow others to believe their version of their religion without you insulting them ... I was very tempted to ban you for a few days for your reply towards Beduin a couple of posts further up.
YOu say these stories didn't happen, I tend to agree. What Muhammed did, apparently DID happen however. you want to argue violence in the Bible then claim most of it probably never really happened in the first place, not sure where to take that argument. Kinda sounds like a point for my argument.
I did not insult Beduin, I said nothing about him. If he is insulted by what i say about a topic that is not my problem. The second I personally attack him or anyone else please feel free to ban me. Just do us all a favor and do not start legislating the right to ban because someone does not like your position on a topic.
If people are insulted by my opinion too bad. Personally attacking is another issue. I rarely do it. Learn the dfferenceBeduin wrote:
Stop insulting others then?lowing wrote:
Pointing out the fact that I am always personally attacked is different than compalining about it. I have reported a post only once in my time in this forum and that was t oprove a point, not to "complain".That fact that you don't know, makes me smilelowing wrote:
I am kinda curious how me talking about Muhammed ( pieces be upon him) is a personal attack or insult on you.lol... round and round, round and round.lowing wrote:
Why would I do the work, it has already been done, I see no need to repeat it. Fucked up Islamlic Law, fucked up Islamic practices, fucked up Islamic current events, compared to the rest of todays world, pretty much speaks for itself. Really all one needs t oprove the point is Sharia law.
Actually it was a retorical question. The point being, it is ironic you are insulted by me calling a murderer a murderer. It is the same kinda irony that lends you the logic that you think people should be killed for calling your region violent. ( IE cartoons)
Well then prove me wrong, the evidence that supports my opinion is pretty much over whelming. Start showing me where Islam and its Sharia Law is in fact tolerant and peaceful.
Last edited by lowing (2009-08-26 03:56:49)
Learn?lowing wrote:
If people are insulted by my opinion too bad. Personally attacking is another issue. I rarely do it. Learn the dfference
ok, lowing, relgious people get offended when you start name calling on their holly books and key persons of their faith.
You can't see it, you don't understand it, you don't accept it....whateva lowing, thats the way it is.
If you want to say something, say it nicely. You will win alot with saying things nicely, but that you can not do, right lowing?
ahh... my bad, I thought you were about to read books.lowing wrote:
Actually it was a retorical question
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
Sorry, I am not into political correctness to save your feelings. Your prophet was violent and a murderer roughly 600 times over, if you choose to worship him and his life, that is on you not me. If I choose to have a negative opinion on that, you might just have to get used to not liking it and having your feelings hurt.Beduin wrote:
Learn?lowing wrote:
If people are insulted by my opinion too bad. Personally attacking is another issue. I rarely do it. Learn the dfference
ok, lowing, relgious people get offended when you start name calling on their holly books and key persons of their faith.
You can't see it, you don't understand it, you don't accept it....whateva lowing, thats the way it is.
If you want to say something, say it nicely. You will win alot with saying things nicely, but that you can not do, right lowing?ahh... my bad, I thought you were about to read books.lowing wrote:
Actually it was a retorical question
I don't need the Koran, I have current events and Sharia Law in practice today to back up my opinion.
Now, if I am wrong about Islam and Sharia Law, for the 10th time prove me wrong. Show me where Sharia Law and Islam is NOT violent and intolerant. Or move along. Just don't tell me I insulted you, I don't care.
As were many christian and jewish prophets, far worse in fact, get over it.lowing wrote:
Your prophet was violent and a murderer roughly 600 times over
The US has the death penalty, and attacked more countries than any other country on earth, so the US is a backward, intolerant violent country which harbours mormons, Republicans and other one-eyed loonies.I don't need the Koran, I have current events and Sharia Law in practice today to back up my opinion.
Fuck Israel
If you use your time to read , you will know that we muslims do not worship Prophets (peace be upon them all).lowing wrote:
if you choose to worship him and his life
You certanily talk alot Islam and Sharia and Muslims, and you say you don't need the Quran?lowing wrote:
I don't need the Koran
You know nothing about Islam my friend.
No lowing,We ended here:lowing wrote:
Now, if I am wrong about Islam and Sharia Law, for the 10th time prove me wrong. Show me where Sharia Law and Islam is NOT violent and intolerant. Or move along.
Beduin wrote:
ahh... my bad, I thought you were about to read books.lowing wrote:
Actually it was a retorical question
I know you don't care honey...and am not hurtlowing wrote:
Just don't tell me I insulted you, I don't care.
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
really, name some Christian prophets and how many religions are built around them?Dilbert_X wrote:
As were many christian and jewish prophets, far worse in fact, get over it.lowing wrote:
Your prophet was violent and a murderer roughly 600 times overThe US has the death penalty, and attacked more countries than any other country on earth, so the US is a backward, intolerant violent country which harbours mormons, Republicans and other one-eyed loonies.I don't need the Koran, I have current events and Sharia Law in practice today to back up my opinion.
The US has the death penalty for murder. Islam has the death penalty for showing a fuckin' kneecap, note the difference. The US has DEFENDED more countries than any other country on earth
disect it all you want, if you worship his teachings, you areworshipping him.Beduin wrote:
If you use your time to read , you will know that we muslims do not worship Prophets (peace be upon them all).lowing wrote:
if you choose to worship him and his lifeYou certanily talk alot Islam and Sharia and Muslims, and you say you don't need the Quran?lowing wrote:
I don't need the Koran
You know nothing about Islam my friend.No lowing,We ended here:lowing wrote:
Now, if I am wrong about Islam and Sharia Law, for the 10th time prove me wrong. Show me where Sharia Law and Islam is NOT violent and intolerant. Or move along.Beduin wrote:
ahh... my bad, I thought you were about to read books.lowing wrote:
Actually it was a retorical questionI know you don't care honey...and am not hurtlowing wrote:
Just don't tell me I insulted you, I don't care.
as for the rest I don't blame you for not showing me how peaceful and tolerant Islamic Sharia Law is. kinda hard to do without lying.
If the latter was the case you would simply not be a member of this forum lowing ... there are more to the rules besides personal attacks and you would have known that if you had read them ... but then again lots of people have read the rules so why should you?lowing wrote:
I did not insult Beduin, I said nothing about him. If he is insulted by what i say about a topic that is not my problem. The second I personally attack him or anyone else please feel free to ban me. Just do us all a favor and do not start legislating the right to ban because someone does not like your position on a topic.
Back on topic ...
If you read the thread title it says "religions of violence" and not "books of violence" so spare me for the cute storytelling about how the NT is without violence because in this discussion that doesn't matter, the books are only a part of the various religions.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Yup religions of violence, and in our time Islam is in first place with its violence and intolerance.Varegg wrote:
If the latter was the case you would simply not be a member of this forum lowing ... there are more to the rules besides personal attacks and you would have known that if you had read them ... but then again lots of people have read the rules so why should you?lowing wrote:
I did not insult Beduin, I said nothing about him. If he is insulted by what i say about a topic that is not my problem. The second I personally attack him or anyone else please feel free to ban me. Just do us all a favor and do not start legislating the right to ban because someone does not like your position on a topic.
Back on topic ...
If you read the thread title it says "religions of violence" and not "books of violence" so spare me for the cute storytelling about how the NT is without violence because in this discussion that doesn't matter, the books are only a part of the various religions.
The religions are based on the teachings of the people they are based around. It is quite undeniable that the teachings of Islam in its violence and intolerance by far outways that of Christianity.
Note I said teachings, I did not say stories, or acts committed in the names of these religions Islam teaches violence and intolerance. Christianity does not.
You can't twist the thread title so it fits your argument lowing, the rest of the debatees is talking about religion in general .... wake up!lowing wrote:
Yup religions of violence, and in our time Islam is in first place with its violence and intolerance.Varegg wrote:
If the latter was the case you would simply not be a member of this forum lowing ... there are more to the rules besides personal attacks and you would have known that if you had read them ... but then again lots of people have read the rules so why should you?lowing wrote:
I did not insult Beduin, I said nothing about him. If he is insulted by what i say about a topic that is not my problem. The second I personally attack him or anyone else please feel free to ban me. Just do us all a favor and do not start legislating the right to ban because someone does not like your position on a topic.
Back on topic ...
If you read the thread title it says "religions of violence" and not "books of violence" so spare me for the cute storytelling about how the NT is without violence because in this discussion that doesn't matter, the books are only a part of the various religions.
The religions are based on the teachings of the people they are based around. It is quite undeniable that the teachings of Islam in its violence and intolerance by far outways that of Christianity.
Note I said teachings, I did not say stories, or acts committed in the names of these religions Islam teaches violence and intolerance. Christianity does not.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
The title is violent religions, there is no "twisting" I think it has been pretty well established that Islam takes the prize in intolerance and violence. You can't get any more on topic, than discussing Islam and its origins coupled with current events.Varegg wrote:
You can't twist the thread title so it fits your argument lowing, the rest of the debatees is talking about religion in general .... wake up!lowing wrote:
Yup religions of violence, and in our time Islam is in first place with its violence and intolerance.Varegg wrote:
If the latter was the case you would simply not be a member of this forum lowing ... there are more to the rules besides personal attacks and you would have known that if you had read them ... but then again lots of people have read the rules so why should you?
Back on topic ...
If you read the thread title it says "religions of violence" and not "books of violence" so spare me for the cute storytelling about how the NT is without violence because in this discussion that doesn't matter, the books are only a part of the various religions.
The religions are based on the teachings of the people they are based around. It is quite undeniable that the teachings of Islam in its violence and intolerance by far outways that of Christianity.
Note I said teachings, I did not say stories, or acts committed in the names of these religions Islam teaches violence and intolerance. Christianity does not.
In fact, if there is any "twisting" it is from those of you who want to try and argue that Islam ISN'T violent and intolerant. That it is the same as all the rest. Problem is, when I ask to compare:
Jesus' actions with Muhammeds' actions, you mention Moses
Jesus' teachings with Muhammeds' teachings you mention the OT ( the part of the bible that is 1600 years older)
current events, you mention the crusades.
You also want to argue that the stories of violence within the bible are the same as the TEACHINGS of violence within the Koran.
If there is any "twisting" going on, it is on your side of the argument.
Bullshit lowing
I have never claimed that Islam doesn't have it violent sides but you make it seem that Christianity never have been and that is so far from the truth as you can get ...
Every religion with a very few exceptions have or have had a history of violence in the name of their God.
And comparing Christianity against Islam I would dare to state Islam comes in second when it comes to being a violent religion throughout history.
The flaws in your arguments and why people takes your posts less seriously is because you make a statement without proper backing and leaves the burden of evidence to prove you are wrong on those that doesn't agree with you, that shows you have no deep knowledge of what you speak of ...
I have never claimed that Islam doesn't have it violent sides but you make it seem that Christianity never have been and that is so far from the truth as you can get ...
Every religion with a very few exceptions have or have had a history of violence in the name of their God.
And comparing Christianity against Islam I would dare to state Islam comes in second when it comes to being a violent religion throughout history.
The flaws in your arguments and why people takes your posts less seriously is because you make a statement without proper backing and leaves the burden of evidence to prove you are wrong on those that doesn't agree with you, that shows you have no deep knowledge of what you speak of ...
No I didn't ... you singled out Jesus and Mohammed as they were the only two characters in each of their "books"lowing wrote:
Problem is, when I ask to compare:
Jesus' actions with Muhammeds' actions, you mention Moses
No I didn't ... but where do you draw the line of what is too old to enter the debate, you pick what supports your theories and leave out the parts that doesn't. We are debating religion not a few chapters in two books.lowing wrote:
Problem is, when I ask to compare:
Jesus' teachings with Muhammeds' teachings you mention the OT ( the part of the bible that is 1600 years older) current events, you mention the crusades.
No I didn't ... I said I reckoned the stories you claimed to be the truth properly only was analogies for personal guidance, and you seem to think the Quran is a blood dripping book of glorified violence when you infact haven't read the book at all thus only relies on questionable sources that claims what you like to believe ... and before you ramble further about just that, yes I have read it.lowing wrote:
You also want to argue that the stories of violence within the bible are the same as the TEACHINGS of violence within the Koran.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I never said violence was not committed in the name of Christianity. I said CHRIST did not TEACH violence. Muhammed did. There for if you go against both teachings, you go against the relgions.Varegg wrote:
Bullshit lowing
I have never claimed that Islam doesn't have it violent sides but you make it seem that Christianity never have been and that is so far from the truth as you can get ...
Every religion with a very few exceptions have or have had a history of violence in the name of their God.
And comparing Christianity against Islam I would dare to state Islam comes in second when it comes to being a violent religion throughout history.
The flaws in your arguments and why people takes your posts less seriously is because you make a statement without proper backing and leaves the burden of evidence to prove you are wrong on those that doesn't agree with you, that shows you have no deep knowledge of what you speak of ...No I didn't ... you singled out Jesus and Mohammed as they were the only two characters in each of their "books"lowing wrote:
Problem is, when I ask to compare:
Jesus' actions with Muhammeds' actions, you mention MosesNo I didn't ... but where do you draw the line of what is too old to enter the debate, you pick what supports your theories and leave out the parts that doesn't. We are debating religion not a few chapters in two books.lowing wrote:
Problem is, when I ask to compare:
Jesus' teachings with Muhammeds' teachings you mention the OT ( the part of the bible that is 1600 years older) current events, you mention the crusades.No I didn't ... I said I reckoned the stories you claimed to be the truth properly only was analogies for personal guidance, and you seem to think the Quran is a blood dripping book of glorified violence when you infact haven't read the book at all thus only relies on questionable sources that claims what you like to believe ... and before you ramble further about just that, yes I have read it.lowing wrote:
You also want to argue that the stories of violence within the bible are the same as the TEACHINGS of violence within the Koran.
Fair question, how about this, when we are talking about violence in the name of God in todays world, 1100 year old battles automatically become illrelevent. I pick what supports the facts of the day. Islam is intolerant and violent I offer Sharia Law as proof. This is not cherry picking. In return if I am wrong, I ask to be shown that Sharia Law IS NOT violent or intolerant. NO ONE has stepped up to the plate and done so. I just keeps getting side stepped. So again I ask, if Sharia Law is NOT intolerant and violent prove it to me. If Muhammed was not a murderer, prove it to me, because I can show all day long he seems to have been.
and I agreed, those stories are just that stories. There is no denying Muhammads behavior. Note the difference
Last edited by lowing (2009-08-27 04:43:58)
Do it.lowing wrote:
because I can show all day long he seems to have been.
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
Yer kiddin' right? How about this. How about you just type in Muhammed violence and do all the reading you want.Beduin wrote:
Do it.lowing wrote:
because I can show all day long he seems to have been.
I will postthis however regarding your beloved Islam
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/08/ … index.html
"But based on the principles of Shariah law, her husband was compensated, not prosecuted. Nujood was ordered to pay him more than $200 -- a huge amount in a country where the United Nations Development Programme says 15.7 percent of the population lives on less than $1 a day."
Beduin wrote:
Do it.lowing wrote:
because I can show all day long he seems to have been.
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
Do you really see the need to post the painfully obvious? Or do you really think there are no links tying Muhammed to murder, violence and intolerance?Beduin wrote:
Beduin wrote:
Do it.lowing wrote:
because I can show all day long he seems to have been.
Beduin wrote:
Do it.lowing wrote:
because I can show all day long he seems to have been.
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic