BF2S Forums Seven arrested in FBI raids linked to Christian militia group

lowing wrote:

No what is a fact is that the messanger of Chrisitianity taught and practiced peace, and tolerance. and the messanger of Islam was a child molester who was a warrior, and killed many people, to furhter the cause of Islam. Regardless as to what individuals do in the names of each religion, the fact remains what each religion taught and who brought each relgions message.

The OT was mainly stories of what "has happened", the NT is the teachings of Christ.

Using "interpretation" is just another catch all phrase to remove responsibility of Islam for what it advocates because you can not really defend it.

There are NO FACTS about Christ or Mohammed, apart from that they existed, which isn't thought correct by everyone. You can twist the Koran and the Bible to fit just about any ideology you want. Homophobic? Sexist? Racist? The Bible's your book. Tolerant? Liberal? Caring? The Bible's your book.

Your 'facts' are, again, just mere interpretations. The OT and NT are said to contain 'what happened' and the teachings respectively, true. But the OT is full of imaginary events and non-factual bullshit, while the NT is full of hearsay and information written not by Christ but by dozes of people possibly decades or centuries after the fact.

As for people doing bad things in the name of Christ...are you friggin serious? Ever since Christianity began people have murdered women, men and children, not to mention destroyed countries and cities, invaded, etc etc all in the name of your 'peaceful' religion (although I thought you said somewhere yo weren't Christian?). I don't have to defend Islam because I'm not a follower, but I'm not of Christianity either and am able to realise that a religion is only dependent on what the individual feels about it, and nothing else. They may be swayed by preachers or friends, but it's only what the indiviudal thinks and how they act that makes any difference to anything, and that could be completely at odds with an 'accepted' teaching or understanding, but no less 'wrong', because it's all make-believe anyway.

Your assertion that there is no debate as to what Mohammed taught is also incorrect, clearly.

lowing wrote:

and yet Jesus never carried a sword, or killed anyone. hmmmmmmm so much for literal "interpretations"

How do you know this? YOU DON'T.

lowing wrote:

I do not advocate the punishment of an entire group of PEOPLE for the actions of others. I do however condemn the religion and the messenger they have chosen to worship.

Just because you call yourself a Muslim or a Christian does not make you a Muslim or a CHristian. Following the teachings of that religion is the only way to qualify you as a follower of it.

A Muslim who does not follow the teaching of Muhammad, regardless as to what they claim, is not following Islam. 
and a Christian who does not follow the teachings of Christ is not following Chriatianity.

So you don't condemn a group of people but instead a religion based on the actions of a few? Why weren't those few NOT following the religion 'properly'? You could argue that and not be wrong. Again, the teachings of Islam and Christianity are varied and multi-faceted depending on who you talk to. Following some kind of teachings might make you a follower but those people in the OP are as much Christians as the Pope since I'm sure they could find some religious justification for their actions against the govt. The teachings of Mohammed and Jesus have been interpreted and re-interpreted so many times that it's imposible to identify what they 'really' are. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of people who call themselves Christian are NOT following Christ in a way that I would understand as Christian. That's more an argument for the idiocy of humans than against the religion.

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

No what is a fact is that the messanger of Chrisitianity taught and practiced peace, and tolerance. and the messanger of Islam was a child molester who was a warrior, and killed many people, to furhter the cause of Islam. Regardless as to what individuals do in the names of each religion, the fact remains what each religion taught and who brought each relgions message.

The OT was mainly stories of what "has happened", the NT is the teachings of Christ.

Using "interpretation" is just another catch all phrase to remove responsibility of Islam for what it advocates because you can not really defend it.

There are NO FACTS about Christ or Mohammed, apart from that they existed, which isn't thought correct by everyone. You can twist the Koran and the Bible to fit just about any ideology you want. Homophobic? Sexist? Racist? The Bible's your book. Tolerant? Liberal? Caring? The Bible's your book.

Your 'facts' are, again, just mere interpretations. The OT and NT are said to contain 'what happened' and the teachings respectively, true. But the OT is full of imaginary events and non-factual bullshit, while the NT is full of hearsay and information written not by Christ but by dozes of people possibly decades or centuries after the fact.

As for people doing bad things in the name of Christ...are you friggin serious? Ever since Christianity began people have murdered women, men and children, not to mention destroyed countries and cities, invaded, etc etc all in the name of your 'peaceful' religion (although I thought you said somewhere yo weren't Christian?). I don't have to defend Islam because I'm not a follower, but I'm not of Christianity either and am able to realise that a religion is only dependent on what the individual feels about it, and nothing else. They may be swayed by preachers or friends, but it's only what the indiviudal thinks and how they act that makes any difference to anything, and that could be completely at odds with an 'accepted' teaching or understanding, but no less 'wrong', because it's all make-believe anyway.

Your assertion that there is no debate as to what Mohammed taught is also incorrect, clearly.

lowing wrote:

and yet Jesus never carried a sword, or killed anyone. hmmmmmmm so much for literal "interpretations"

How do you know this? YOU DON'T.

lowing wrote:

I do not advocate the punishment of an entire group of PEOPLE for the actions of others. I do however condemn the religion and the messenger they have chosen to worship.

Just because you call yourself a Muslim or a Christian does not make you a Muslim or a CHristian. Following the teachings of that religion is the only way to qualify you as a follower of it.

A Muslim who does not follow the teaching of Muhammad, regardless as to what they claim, is not following Islam. 
and a Christian who does not follow the teachings of Christ is not following Chriatianity.

So you don't condemn a group of people but instead a religion based on the actions of a few? Why weren't those few NOT following the religion 'properly'? You could argue that and not be wrong. Again, the teachings of Islam and Christianity are varied and multi-faceted depending on who you talk to. Following some kind of teachings might make you a follower but those people in the OP are as much Christians as the Pope since I'm sure they could find some religious justification for their actions against the govt. The teachings of Mohammed and Jesus have been interpreted and re-interpreted so many times that it's imposible to identify what they 'really' are. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of people who call themselves Christian are NOT following Christ in a way that I would understand as Christian. That's more an argument for the idiocy of humans than against the religion.

out of all of this bullshit, you can not find anywhere, an accepted account of Jesus, armed and killing. Likewise, you will also never find an account anywhere that says Muhammad DIDN'T.

These are accepted as fact. I was not at Valley Forge when Washington camped there, but I accpet the fact that he did. Saying no one knows for sure who these men were is a desporate argument. It is good enough knowing what people of each religion hold as fact.

I condemn the religion because it teaches the practices that its followers employ. I condemn those Muslims that act on it. Until an individual "Muslim" acts on what Islam teaches, I do not consider that person a threat, nor do I believe he is practicing his relgion as it is taught by Muhammad.

I do not condemn Christianity because regadless as to what people do in its name, it does not teach violence. I do condemn those individuals who commit violence in its name. I do believe it is a hust another bs religion however

Last edited by lowing (2010-04-01 02:00:46)

lowing wrote:

I condemn the religion because it teaches the practices that its followers employ.

Only certain interpretations, which are so far from the mainstream as to be almost another religion.

I'm always interested in how Christians (and their appeasers) see God as irrelevant, only the teachings of Christ matter apparently.
The OT has ample slaughter in the name of God carried out by his prophets in it, I would have thought its relevant to the argument.

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

out of all of this bullshit, you can not find anywhere, an accepted account of Jesus, armed and killing. Likewise, you will also never find an account anywhere that says Muhammad DIDN'T.

These are accepted as fact. I was not at Valley Forge when Washington camped there, but I accpet the fact that he did. Saying no one knows for sure who these men were is a desporate argument. It is good enough knowing what people of each religion hold as fact.

I condemn the religion because it teaches the practices that its followers employ. I condemn those Muslims that act on it. Until an individual "Muslim" acts on what Islam teaches, I do not consider that person a threat, nor do I believe he is practicing his relgion as it is taught by Muhammad.

I do not condemn Christianity because regadless as to what people do in its name, it does not teach violence. I do condemn those individuals who commit violence in its name. I do believe it is a hust another bs religion however

Bullshit? Thanks mate. Whether or not there is any account of Jesus or Mohammed killing anyone is beside the point, which you would know if you stopped to consider my posts. What Jesus or Mohammed did or didn't do is practically unknown, and to be frank irrelevant to many (most?) followers of their religions. People do and believe what they want to believe. You're saying then that your peaceful Muslim friends aren't proper Muslims yeah? I'm saying that there is no such thing as a 'proper' Christian or Muslim. there are warmongering, hate-filled twats in both religions. Indeed, the government of the United States has long been a contender for Number One Christian Warmongers. You're just picking and choosing which actions of certain religious people you choose to reflect the 'real' religion. But what about violent Christian groups like in the OP? You're saying they're not following 'real' Christianity, while violent 'Muslims' are following 'real' Islam? Sorry, but I think that's bollocks, since as I mentioned before everything is open to interpretation and you won't find hardly two people of any religion who agree on everything, plus I consider those Muslims I know to be 'real' Muslims. Why wouldn't I? Cos they're not suicide bombers? Your position is illogical and misguided. As Dilbert said, those who employ Islamic justification for crimes are following ONE INTERPRETATION of it, which is NOT the view that the majority of followers hold. Hardly a desperate argument.

Indeed, for you to be consistent you would also have to condemn Christianity under the same grounds as you condemn Islam - "I condemn the religion because it teaches the practices that its followers employ" - since there are plenty of fire-and-brimstone evangelicals, mainly in the USA as far as I can tell, who preach hatred and violence as much as the wackiest Islamic preachers. But you don't, so you're not consistent. You are, for want of a better word, cherry-picking.

We agree at least that both religions are made-up nonsense.

Weather you accept it or not, the teeachings of CHrist and his actions ( as it is accepted by everyone but you) was not a life of hate and war revenge and murder.

Muhammads teachiings and his actions ( as it is accepted by everyone but you) was full of exactly that.

I condemn Christian violence as inconsistenrt with the teachings and actions of Christ, therefore Christanity is not being practiced.

I condemn Islamic violence as consistent with the teachings and actions of Muhammad, therefore, Islam is being practiced.

You can desporately try and argue no one really knows these 2 lives all yo want. The fact is, as they are universally accepted they are known, and you will not find any historical evidence that says Jesus carried a sword, ( still waiting on Cam to answer that one by the way) and you will find no historical evidence that says Muhammad didn't carry a sword..Simple as that.

I mean even in the Koran that is worshipped as truth it is accepted that muhammad was a warrior spreading Islam through violence, and you are gunna deny it? Now that is as desporate an argument as one could get on the matter

You'll also find no evidence that Jesus existed. And the so called 'teachings' of Christ were written by people who lived 50-150 years after Jesus's death and of those writings, the church cherry picked the ones to suit it's agenda 150 or so years later banning the rest.

RAIMIUS wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

You'll also find no evidence that Jesus existed. And the so called 'teachings' of Christ were written by people who lived 50-150 years after Jesus's death and of those writings, the church cherry picked the ones to suit it's agenda 150 or so years later banning the rest.

Facepalm

So, you are claiming that hundreds and thousands of people simply made up a historical figure and happened to get their BS histories to coincide with each other?...and you claim this is more plausible than the person actually existing?

He's not saying that, just that nothing is certain, I assume, so extrapolating from uncertain and unverifiable 'facts' to jusitfy a certain view of 'right' and 'wrong' behaviour with regard to a made-up belief system is nonsense. At least that's how I understand it. Apologies if I misunderstood Drunkface

Jesus married a slut and Mohammed married a kid lolz.

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

You fail to accept what the argument is.

I do not give a fuck about interpretation. I am speaking on who Muhammad was, a murdering child molestor that furthered Islam through violence. THis is not open for interpretation. It is a historical fact.

Jesus was the opposite, a non-violent person who taught forgivness and tolerance. Regardless of the fire and brimstone of the OT. The earthy historical fact was, Jesus was NON-Violent and taught accordingly.


I have not ignored those actions of so called Christians that kill in the name of Jesus, I told you they are not following the teachings of the MAN Christ.

You should give a fuck about interpretation cos that's all you've got, frankly. Nothing about Jesus or Mohammed is historical 'fact', beyond the 'fact' they probably existed, which is the only 'fact' there is.

And again, what Jesus did or didn't do WE DON'T KNOW, and likewise for mohammed. So you saying 'they're not following Jesus/Mohammed' is BULLSHIT.

You know fuck all about who Jesus was, or if he actually existed, so you're considering this in completely the wrong way. Your facts aren't fuckin facts.

I see, so now the argument is, I have never met Jesus or Muhammad so I don't know.....Well, ya cetainly got me there. I never met Patton either, so I guess his life is nothing but "interpretation" with no basis in history as well, and why? Because we didn't know him


Well, if that is what you are going to hang your hat on.  As dumb fuck as it is, You win, because I am not going to continue down such an idiotic  dumb ass road.

lowing wrote:

I see, so now the argument is, I have never met Jesus or Muhammad so I don't know.....Well, ya cetainly got me there. I never met Patton either, so I guess his life is nothing but "interpretation" with no basis in history as well, and why? Because we didn't know him


Well, if that is what you are going to hang your hat on.  As dumb fuck as it is, You win, because I am not going to continue down such an idiotic  dumb ass road.

wtf no that's not the argument. Come on lowing, that's a lame retort and you know it. READ MY ARGUMENTS and don't just make up in your head what you think I'm arguing. Has nothing to do with whether you met hiom or not but what is historically proven or provable. Don't be dumb man.

lowing wrote:

"You know fuck all about who Jesus was, or if he actually existed, so you're considering this in completely the wrong way. Your facts aren't fuckin facts"


you said this^^^^^^^^^^ and you are correct. So if by your measure I have no argument because no one knows him personally and we are going to throw out all that is accepted as fact about him, so be it. While we are at we need to throw out all that is written about every historical figure based on your critera.

As long as you know that when I speak of Jesua and Muhammad, I speak of the physical person and not their mystical motivations.
and historically, Jesus is accepted as a peaceful man. Muhammad is not. But again, who really knows right? So all bets are off along your line of reasoning.

In all the rest of my posts I've pointed out time and again that NO-ONE (including you and me but that's by the by) can with ANY certainty say WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE J&M were (although I suspect we know more about Mohammed's actual life than Jesus' but am not sure). I know you speak of the physical person, me too. You don't know and I don't know and NO-ONE KNOWS what kind of people they were. So to base your opinions on Christianity and Islam based on the kind of people you imagine them to be is bollocks.

I never said that because know-one knows them personally (of course not...wtf are you mad? They died thousands of years ago...if they lived). The point is that you know nothing ABOUT Jesus, like everyone else, doesn't matter a flying toss if you or anyone knew him personally.

Again, to base your opinions on Christianity and Islam, and your opinions of whether anyone is 'following them' in the correct way or not, based on the kind of people you imagine J&M them to be is bollocks.

You haven't addressed any of my actual points, you just keep repeating that due to my line of reasoning if no-one knows anyone personally then we can't say anything about them, which is bullshit and not what I'm saying, as I suspect you well know, you just want to make it out like that cos perhaps you realise your position is nonsensical...

A final point, even if we DID know about what kind of people J&M were that would have nothing to do with your totally subjective interpretation of whether or not anyone is a 'proper' Christian/Muslim, or that only violent Muslims are really 'true' Muslims - truly, a position brought about by ignorance.

However I am glad that you accept my position as correct, and that the 'facts' you refer to in fact...aren't facts. Glad we got that sorted out.

Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-04-01 10:53:10)

lowing wrote:

The only point that matters in both cases, is what is percieved of them by all, and that perception is that Jesus was a peaceful man who taught love forgivness and acceptance amd Muhammad was the exact opposite. You trying to dismiss this as no one knowes for sure is what is bullshit and has nothing to do with the argument.

Aaahh...nice moving of the goalposts there.

but anyway. It's not bullshit because there are plenty of people who perceive Mohammed to also have taught compassion and forgiveness etc. What you are talking about is YOUR perception which believe it or not isn't the same as everyone thinking it.

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Much of Michigan sucks.

I don't get this - are you from the U.S.?

Michigan is sorta like NJ, people who have never been there think it's crap because they beleive everything they see on TV.

Yeah, I'm not defending Michigan or NJ, but some people should visit a place a couple of times before they cast judgment.