# More from the "Religion of Peace"



## Twin Fist (Jan 15, 2009)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479878,00.html

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia  A pan-Arab newspaper quotes Saudi Arabia's most senior Muslim cleric as saying it is OK for 10-year-old girls to marry. 


it's hard sometimes to not wish for the removal of this......"religion" from our world.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 15, 2009)

from our allies in saudi arabia...all this crap about going to iraq to destroy militant islam, but we turn a blind eye everytime something like this comes from our "friends" in SA.  one of the worst countries in the world in terms of human rights.

jf


----------



## DavidCC (Jan 15, 2009)

I think it would be pretty peaceful to be able to send you wife to her room without supper if she gets too naggy.  I've tried that with my current wife and it just doesn't work.


----------



## spectrex (Jan 15, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479878,00.html
> 
> RIYADH, Saudi Arabia  A pan-Arab newspaper quotes Saudi Arabia's most senior Muslim cleric as saying it is OK for 10-year-old girls to marry.
> 
> ...



This from a texan, snicker....


----------



## crushing (Jan 15, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479878,00.html
> 
> RIYADH, Saudi Arabia  A pan-Arab newspaper quotes Saudi Arabia's most senior Muslim cleric as saying it is OK for 10-year-old girls to marry.
> 
> ...


 

Is a crusade in order?

Peace be upon you,
crushing


----------



## Nolerama (Jan 15, 2009)

There are a lot of things that we, as Westerners, might not tolerate, but other countries do. I think it's sad that a leading cleric believes that 10y/o girls can marry in Saudi Arabia, but who are we to judge?

Prostitution/pedophilia prostitution runs rampant in a number of countries, all over the world. Should we shun the Thais and wish an end to their existence? Should we pray to the Lord Jesus that Africa should be wiped off the map for female circumcision?

Does the rest of the world have the right to bring terrorist acts to the US because Americans are slowly, but successfully indoctrinating the rest of the world into a consumer/instant gratification culture, completely disregarding pre-existing culture, having a direct hand in the mutation of the human race into fat, ignorant slobs?

No. We can be wrong to every one else, but justifiable to our own faces in the mirror. We can offer a chance to the citizens in that other country (that we don't agree with their marrying age) to come over, and live a better life. But to wish death upon them is ignorant, lazy, and ultimately detrimental to the human race.

That's the same kind of ignorance that plunges nations into needless wars. Yet, it's the SAME kind of ignorance that kept Jerry Springer in business as a talk show host.

TF, your last comment is racist, elitist, and xenophobic.


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 15, 2009)

Dude, chill.  The OP might have been over the top, but nowhere did he call for death to anyone.  Nor was his final sentence "racist".  It might have been elitist and xenophobic, but no more than the post that you gave Thanks for... you know, the one that teased Texans for - hyuck! hyuck! - marrying ten-year-olds.


----------



## KELLYG (Jan 15, 2009)

Contrary to Nolerama's opinion I don't think that all Americans are fat dumb and stupid.   I personally have not done anything to subject my opinions on the world to the detriment of another's culture or there right to it.  I do how ever feel that a child yes a child of 10 years old has no business being married.   Promised to be married : at a suitable age: OK 
Usually a girl of 10 years of age is not physically able to reproduce and are not physically or mentally able to preform Marital coupling.  A child of 10 married in my opinion is promoting pedophilia:: this my dear should be punishable by death::; end of story:::


----------



## Nolerama (Jan 15, 2009)

Yeah. I guess I overreacted. My bad.

I guess the wording and (what I perceived to be) sarcasm in the OP just got me riled up.


----------



## Nolerama (Jan 15, 2009)

Should we go to war over it? A war that might be perceived as an front to exterminate a specific portion of the human race?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 15, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> it's hard sometimes to not wish for the removal of this......"religion" from our world.



One could say that Christianity endorsed the same because splinters of the Mormon church endorse the same, and the more of the little girls the better.  Indeed several states in the United States have no minimum marriage age, and any age is theoretically acceptable with the consent of the proper judge.  There are several more states with ages of marriage of 13 or 14.

Of course, you know all this.  This is just another opportunity to slam Islam for behavior you overlook in others.


----------



## tellner (Jan 15, 2009)

Saudi Arabia is a backwards, benighted, barely prehensile sort of place. Not unlike Afghanistan or parts of the rural South. If you want a really good advertisement for the separation of secular and religious authority go no further. Imagine Fred Phelps or the FLDS on a nationwide scale with troops to back up their ravings.


----------



## theletch1 (Jan 15, 2009)

tellner said:


> Saudi Arabia is a backwards, benighted, barely prehensile sort of place. Not unlike Afghanistan or parts of the rural South. If you want a really good advertisement for the separation of secular and religious authority go no further. Imagine Fred Phelps or the FLDS on a nationwide scale with troops to back up their ravings.


Excellent point, Tellner.  Having the power of the government and the military to back up a religious fundemental mindset is dangerous in the extreme... regardless of the religion being used.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 15, 2009)

tellner said:


> Saudi Arabia is a backwards, benighted, barely prehensile sort of place. Not unlike Afghanistan or parts of the rural South. If you want a really good advertisement for the separation of secular and religious authority go no further. Imagine Fred Phelps or the FLDS on a nationwide scale with troops to back up their ravings.


 
More to the point, many, many of the people who actually run things over there, especially in the House of Saud, simply do not practice what they enforce upon everyone else as Islam......


----------



## seasoned (Jan 15, 2009)

DavidCC said:


> I think it would be pretty peaceful to be able to send you wife to her room without supper if she gets too naggy. I've tried that with my current wife and it just doesn't work.


Not when she is cooking the meal.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 15, 2009)

KELLYG said:


> Contrary to Nolerama's opinion I don't think that all Americans are fat dumb and stupid.   I personally have not done anything to subject my opinions on the world to the detriment of another's culture or there right to it.



On a individual level I don't think anyone will disagree, however it is the capitalist mentality on a much larger scale that takes the criticism.  Things like Coke or Pepsi being the default drinks at almost any restaurant.  The emphasis on fat food, the idea that everyone should have a car, bigger the better (although that is disappearing) and only poor people walk, bike or take the the bus.  De beers convincing everyone that you should spend two months salary on a rock that doesn't really have much intrinsic value and has a artificially inflated price. Much of the US has also taken a bit of a anti-science stance.




> I do how ever feel that a child yes a child of 10 years old has no business being married.



I agree fully there, but this is not a custom that is unique to Islam, it is more a symptom of a culture that is not "healthy" for any number of reasons, and has occurred in western countries as well.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 15, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> it's hard sometimes to not wish for the removal of this......"religion" from our world.



Why stop at Islam?  As far as religions go, it really doesn't stand out.  

Top Christian leaders have said things that I disagree with just as strongly, should it go too?


----------



## teekin (Jan 15, 2009)

DavidCC said:


> I think it would be pretty peaceful to be able to send you wife to her room without supper if she gets too naggy.  I've tried that with my current wife and it just doesn't work.



And you wonder why everything seems to taste like almonds? :EG:
lori


----------



## tellner (Jan 15, 2009)

Very true, elder. Some of the mullahs with the biggest beards and loudest calls to stone the queers are famed for what they do to "beautiful beardless youths. The hypocrisy that comes from power without responsibility is one of the oldest stories of the human race. 

The *spit* Wahabis have systematically set out to destroy every current in Islam other than their own. First they decided that the Shia aren't Muslims anymore which allowed them to pillage Iraq and smash their own Shia minority flat. Then they took the whole rich tradition of Muslim legal scholarship and making these decisions through consensus and boiled it down into a simple rule. The only real Muslims are Wahabis. Then they started coming up with increasingly restrictive rulings so that the Sunni who weren't under their thumb could be ignored and oppressed. Disagreement is heresy. We won't even talk about what they do to Sufis. There's a reason why Sufism is punishable by death in every country ruled by Sharia.

It's gotten to the point where the Royal Family has destroyed all the shrines and bulldozed the Prophet Mohammed's homes to put up museums dedicated to the House of Saud. It's to prevent anyone from exercising a form of Islam that isn't under their control. 

Once you start down that road you have to keep getting more extreme to feed the Beast's hunger for heretics and enemies. We see the same thing in Cambodia under Pol Pot. First they killed the old government. Then they killed the "rich peasants". Then they killed the merchants. Then they killed the intellectuals. Then they killed the professionals. Then they killed anyone with an education. Then they killed people with glasses because they looked like intellectuals. Then they just got down to serious killing. I suppose that in time they would have turned into the Gingham Dog and the Calico Cat who ate each other up.

Just to get back vaguely on track, think of marriage under Islam. Independent, non-Muslim, secular Western historians say that Muslim jurisprudence was a significant advance for women on the Arabian Peninsula. They had rights. They had control of their dowries and the income that came from them. There are several Sunnah and Hadith where it's explicitly stated that they have the right to arrange their own marriages. And yes, Muslim men are allowed four wives. But that's down from the original limit of "As many as you want". And it's stated that it's only for the support of widows and orphans if you're too cheap a bastard to do so out of charity and the goodness of your heart.

The rules become an excuse for more rules. The reason for all of them is to increase the authority of the ones who make the rules. And the rules never apply to the rulers.

Child brides aren't that far back in our own history. Just a few lifetimes ago girls could be married off at twelve or thirteen. There are plenty of famous stories about young girls being forcibly married off to older men. The laws that finally gave women the right to own property, enter into contracts, refuse marriages arranged by their fathers or even have rights over their own children are quite new. "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" wasn't a joke that long ago. What we're seeing here is a country at the stage we were at a couple centuries back. 

Mohammed said around the time of the last pilgrimage to Mecca, "Soon all that will be left of the Quran is calligraphy." In that he was certainly prophetic.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 15, 2009)

moral reletivism is a STUPID, assinine, backwards-***, retarded way of thinking. People that engage in it...............


well. whatever.

Who are we to judge? 

simple

we are not primitive barbarians brainwashed by a cult that teaches it is ok to stone rape victims, force school girls to burn to death cuz we wont let them outside without thier hijab, or to "seek out the infidel and kill them wherever you find them, or force them to pay the jiziza"

This isnt just SOME cleric, this is the GRand Mufti of SA, thats like the Pope comming out and saying it is ok to rape little boys. So EH's comparison to LDS practicing Plural marraige FAILS.

Why is it that some zipper=headed morans, LIBERALS ALL, will exucse ANYTHING done in the name of Islam, yet condemn ANY exercise of Christianity? even something as harmless as a nativity scene?

Wishing for the removal of Islam, a religion, is racist HOW exactly Nole? oh thats right, it isnt,it cant be, but, you just like to throw out whatever insult you have handy.

Islam is a religion founded by a pedophile, a religion who's top clerics met to decide exactly HOW it was ok to molest little boys and girls, (as long as you dont penetrate them, they declared it was ok for a grown man to "take his pleasure" with children, what you should do with an animal you copulate with (sell it, but not in YOUR village, in the next village over), and to declare death to all jews.

How people can defend ANYTHING they do, or even try to draw comparisons to ANYTHING Christianity has done boggles my mind.

Sure, bad things happened in the history of Chrisitanity, HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO, all this **** with Islam is happening NOW


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 15, 2009)

exactly WHAT do you disagree with just as much as child molestation?




Andrew Green said:


> Why stop at Islam?  As far as religions go, it really doesn't stand out.
> 
> Top Christian leaders have said things that I disagree with just as strongly, should it go too?


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 15, 2009)

Interesting article:  The (Really) Moderate Muslims of Kosovo


----------



## theletch1 (Jan 15, 2009)

Wow, we're only on page two and already I'm here nudging folks back toward the general rule of the board... friendly discussion.  Direct insults at one another, blanket statements, sniping... whatever, it doesn't belong.  Attack the message not the messenger.  If I have to call ya'll down again it'll be straight to bed without supper.   Really, though, the heat is already rising in here.  Stop, take a deep breath and think about what you're gonna post before hand.  Let's try to keep this thread open for a few pages, shall we?


----------



## DavidCC (Jan 15, 2009)

seasoned said:


> Not when she is cooking the meal.


 
I've yet to meet the woman talented enough to cook and nag at the same time.


----------



## tellner (Jan 15, 2009)

TF, I'm assuming you're some sort of Christian. If you'd really like the same degree of bigotry and bile applied to the history and primitive superstitions of _your_ tribe that you are so eager to heap on _theirs_ I would be willing to oblige. But you will not like it. It comes with lots and lots of footnotes and plenty of evidence. And if you can rise above the spinal reflex of rage and denial you will hate what will get stuck in front of you. You will quite literally hate it. 

Now please sit down and act like a grownup.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 15, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> moral reletivism is a STUPID, assinine, backwards-***, retarded way of thinking. People that engage in it...............
> 
> 
> well. whatever.
> ...


 
Ya know, your right. Moral _relativism_ is STUPID, _asinine,_ bass-ackwards, and retarded way of thinking. Let's apply some moral absolutism:

The Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelps engage in a variety of stupid activities, therefore ALL "Christians" are equally guilty and suspect of those activities.

The FLDS has encouraged multiple marriages to underage girls, therefore all Mormons and, by association, all Chrisitians, are guilty of at the very least condoning statutory rape, if not rape,incest and child molesting.

The Christian Identity movement in the U.S. encourages violence against Jews, blacks, other minorities and the U.S. government, therefore ALL Christians are guilty of hate crimes, bigotry and insurrection.

I could, quite literally, go on, and on, and on.

The idea of dismissing or doing away with a religion that is practiced in a wide variety of ways and in a wide variety of places is _not_ attractive. In fact, to suggest as much seems almost mentally unbalanced to me. Given the fact, though, that our country does have enemies who claim to be Islamic, and use Islam to justify and further their ends, it is, while not understandable (to me), at least a familiar way of thinking. In the end, it comes down to that face of Islam being the only one that you know-you know nothing of Islamic people in Southeast Asia, you know nothing of Islamic people in Europe and Eastern Europe, you know nothing of Sufism, or any of the many faces of what might be called "moderate" Islam .I know and pray with some Sufis- while they're hardly what I'd call "moderate" in their _faith_-where they differ is their politics, and the application of their _religion_; they would never impose the rules of their faith on others, just as they would never strap on explosives to blow themselves up in the act of murdering innocents.




Twin Fist said:


> This isnt just SOME cleric, this is the GRand Mufti of SA, thats like the Pope comming out and saying it is ok to rape little boys. So EH's comparison to LDS practicing Plural marraige FAILS.


 
And yet, for years, and years, and years, and years-up until very recently, *NO POPE* had publicly spoken out against raping little boys, and so, for members of the Catholic clergy, it was "OK" to rape little boys, right here in the U.S. Of course, my father and my family have, through his work, been friends with quite a few members of the Catholic clergy. It's hard to imagine any of them raping or condoning or even ignoring the rape of little boys. Of course, I can't really know after all these years, but it doesn't matter: applying "moral ABSOLUISM" they're just as guilty of those rapes that unquestionably took place as if they had committed them themselves. As are all the Popes of the 20th century. As are all the nuns. As are all the rest of the clergy. As are all Catholics.





Twin Fist said:


> Why is it that some zipper=headed morans, LIBERALS ALL, will exucse ANYTHING done in the name of Islam, yet condemn ANY exercise of Christianity? even something as harmless as a nativity scene?


 
Not excusing ANYTHING done in the name of Islam. Pretty sure that I'm not exactly a LIBERAL. :lol: Certain that I'm not a _moron_, "zipper=headed" or otherwise. 

I know that I'm probably the last to condemn ANY exercise of Christianity, especially something as harmless as a nativity scene. 

On the other hand, I refuse to condemn all of "Islam," because of what a few do in its name.



Twin Fist said:


> Wishing for the removal of Islam, a religion, is racist HOW exactly Nole? oh thats right, it isnt,it cant be, but, you just like to throw out whatever insult you have handy.


 
You're right, it's not racist. It is *ugly* and bigoted. It is a display of the kind of prejudice and ignorance that doesn't lead to any kind of solution, and only leads to more problems. In the end, you would do well to learn more of the many different faces of Islam, and about the people who practice that faith, before making such statements. 

After all, I could as easily say, _Priests raping little boys. That kind of thing makes me wish for the removal of Catholicism from the planet._ or _ Marrying old men to their underage nieces. I really wish we could just outlaw Mormonism_.



Twin Fist said:


> Islam is a religion founded by a pedophile,


 
This is a viewpoint that disregards the facts of that marriage as Islam presents them, as well as the fact that we're viewing those "facts" through a cultural lens and temporal gulf of more than 700 years. By this  distorted viewpoint, Davy Crockett was a pedophile, as was Thomas Jefferson. I could go on, and on, and on, and on, but you get the idea......


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 15, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> exactly WHAT do you disagree with just as much as child molestation?



TF,

If you really want to go there, then we can make a very a good argument for erasing the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the Mormons.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 15, 2009)

tellner said:


> Now please sit down and act like a grownup.



comming from YOU thats a joke. When I want your opinion Tellner, i will just go read the VillageVoice. No real difference.

Not to mention the FACT that while you accuse ME of rage , i was the one insulted personally, called racist, and bigoted.

yeah, when people call me racist i tend to get upset.

When people pooh pooh the ATROCITIES of Islam, MODERN DAY ISLAM and compare it to things that happened in Christianity CENTURIES AGO, I tend to get annoyed with thier idiocy.

actually, come to think of it, i'll never want your opinion.

Now now elder

are you really gonna make me spank your silly self for using logic with holes in it big enough to drive a truck through?

*"The Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelps engage in a variety of stupid activities, therefore ALL "Christians" are equally guilty and suspect of those activities."*

BZZZZZZ wrong answer dude, you win NOTHING Phelps is an asshat of biblical proportions, I agree, but he has a congregation of about 20, and no one else listens to him. AGAIN for teh dense, this was the GRAND MUFTI, the equivilent of the POPE. Arguably the most powerfull single cleric in ALL ISLAM

FLDS is a TINY subsect of the LDS church, itself a SMALL subsect of cristianity. Comparing the illegal actions of SOME clerics in the FLDS (not even the Prophet, just some clerics did that) is ignorant and reeks of fail 

I could go on and on and on, but your comparisons never really get any better. There is simply no comparison between the GRAND MUFTI saying something stupid and any other christian leader saying something stupid. Christianity grew up. Islam refuses to do so. 

As the article points out, the Mufti HAS to say it is ok to molest children, after all, the Prophet did it, it HAS to be ok.

Your comparisons to tiny groups in the christianity: EPIC FAIL

oh, and btw Elder, as for this:

*"*_*Priests raping little boys. That kind of thing makes me wish for the removal of Catholicism"*
_
i would tend to agree. But the differeence between me and you is that i know that catholic isnt inclusiveof all christianity. If you wanted to lobby for the destruction of the catholic church, i could understand why. I am still pissed at them over the Aztec thing.Maybe you would be more chartable if i had said "whahabi islam needs to go"
and also:

*"By this distorted viewpoint, Davy Crockett was a pedophile, as was Thomas Jefferson. I could go on, and on, and on, and on, but you get the idea......"*

maybe they were, but I dont consider them prophets.........


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 15, 2009)

the catholic church perhaps, not the Mormans.

BUT not really the Catholic church either because the pope never said it was ok to molest boys. he just didnt speak out against it in public till he was forced to.

This Muft is the equivilent of the pope saying it is OK to molest boys, something the pope has never done, publicly at least.

By and large the Mormans are prob the most moral people on the planet. The compound living little house on the prarie dress wearing types are outcasts among Mormans just like the are among all decent people. So that comparison fails big guy.



Gordon Nore said:


> TF,
> 
> If you really want to go there, then we can make a very a good argument for erasing the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the Mormons.


----------



## Carol (Jan 15, 2009)

I really don't want to twist this discussion in to a discussion of arranged marriages.  Which...is something that I know a bit about considering I was almost in one by my own chosing.  

Marrying children at that age, while I find the idea abhorrent, is less to do with sex and more to do with power and tribal politics.  Making sure the right children from the right families marry each other when they are of age, if you will.  No, I don't agree with this practice.  No I don't think its right, or healthy.  

But...at the same time I don't think its all about child molestation either, and I really do think that care needs to be taken to not whitewash all Muslims as violent child molesters.

Islam is not "just" a religion.  It is a religion, but it's also a culture and a system of government.  However one of the strongest weapons against Shari'a fundamentalist encroachment is _other Muslims_ - ones that do not share the same sociopolitical viewpoint as the Wahabis.   These folks do not deserve to be painted with crimes they did not commit.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 15, 2009)

Carol,
love ya babe

but to a point, i disagree. I think a lot of the marrying kids thing in islam is:
1) the prophet did it, they wanna be like the prophet

2) perverts and deviants there are not shunned, so they are more common. The religion tells them screwing a camel is ok, just kill it and sell the meat. Molesting little boys is ok, just dont penetrate them. 

So they dont control thier freaky deaky selves like people in most religions do.And as far as deviency goes, getting it on with kids is pretty common.

ALL muslims? of course not. But theones that DONT think that way do so not becausefo the religion, they do it IN SPITE of the religion, cuz the religion tells them it is ok.


----------



## tellner (Jan 15, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> TF,
> 
> If you really want to go there, then we can make a very a good argument for erasing the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the Mormons.



Or we can go with the Epileptic Murderer of Tarsus, Saul the Salesman. How closely do we really want to follow a guy who believes that every man should cut his balls of for the sake of his religion? Or that it would be best if everyone were celibate just like him? 

That's just the beginning. Looked at long enough every religion appears, how did someone put it, "like the ravings of a febrile toddler".


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 15, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> the catholic church perhaps, not the Mormans.
> 
> BUT not really the Catholic church either because the pope never said it was ok to molest boys. he just didnt speak out against it in public till he was forced to.



...which is moral cowardice. The Pope was complicit in his silence. Same dog, different fleas. The Papacy's lack of leadership is akin to condoning immoral behaviour.  _Qui tacet consentire videtur_. 



> This Muft is the equivilent of the pope saying it is OK to molest boys, something the pope has never done, publicly at least.



This from someone who lectures the entire forum about moral relativism. You are arguing that it is less immoral to silently condone evil than to actively promote it. I'm fuzzy on my religious education, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that religious scholars from Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, would find the two closer together rather further apart. And that's not moral relativism either -- it's ethics.



> By and large the Mormans are prob the most moral people on the planet. The compound living little house on the prarie dress wearing types are outcasts among Mormans just like the are among all decent people.



By your logic, what Morm*o*ns say about these guys is irrelevant. They identify as Mormons themselves. Just as the dimwit in your Fox News story professes to speak for Islam. I encounter scores of Muslim children everyday whose parents would lay down their lives rather than see their daughters enslaved as child brides.



> So that comparison fails big guy.



Actually ...it does... your quite right. It fails for the same reason that your rationale for removing Islam fails. 

And don't call me, "Big guy."


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 15, 2009)

a febrile toddler?

thats a potent image.

oh and just as an aside, the movie Jumper sucked epic quantities of suck

just needed to throw that in there


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 15, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> ...which is moral cowardice. The Pope was complicit in his silence. Same dog, different fleas. The Papacy's lack of leadership is akin to condoning immoral behaviour.  _Qui tacet consentire videtur_.



i dont see it as moral cowardice so much as prob just not knowing how wide spread the problem was. 

And there is a LOT of difference between saying something is ok, and not saying something is ok. The POPE never said it was ok.




Gordon Nore said:


> This from someone who lectures the entire forum about moral relativism. You are arguing that it is less immoral to silently condone evil than to actively promote it.



just saying it is different, so the effort to compare the two is silly. Not saying one is ok and the other is bad, both suck, but they are not comparible on any real level.



Gordon Nore said:


> By your logic, what Morm*o*ns say about these guys is irrelevant. They identify as Mormons themselves. Just as the dimwit in your Fox News story professes to speak for Islam.



he doesnt PROFESS to speak for Islam, he DOES. He is the senior cleric, elected by the other clerics in the motherland of the religion. He isnt professing it, he IS it.

you know it too, just admitt it. This guy is their POPE



Gordon Nore said:


> Actually ...it does... your quite right. It fails for the same reason that your rationale for removing Islam fails.
> 
> And don't call me, "Big guy."



Sure thing Sparky


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 15, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Sure thing Sparky



Drats!!! I've been outsmarted again by silver-tongued logic. My day will come.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 15, 2009)

LOL, I love you man!


----------



## elder999 (Jan 15, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> .Maybe you would be more chartable if i had said "whahabi islam needs to go".........


 

My response to this statement would have been completely different-I'd even have been in agreement, to a degree. I say "to a degree" because, interestingly, the majority of Islam as practiced in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzistan and Tajikstan are wahhabists, and, for a variety of reasons, they have been , as far as international politics and terrorism go,relatively harmless, and they don't seem to have embraced the same radical interpretation of sharia that their more western brethren do-_yet_.

In any case, yeah-I could get behind a more nuanced and educated viewpoint like that. All of that other stuff that I said about Fred Phelps, the Catholics and minority LDS sects was really kind of the point that you made for me: by condemning all of Islam for what is demonstrably a minority viewpoint within Islam, you do yourself and whatever it is you're trying to say a disservice.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 15, 2009)

theletch1 said:


> Wow, we're only on page two and already I'm here nudging folks back toward the general rule of the board... friendly discussion.



Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the tone and conclusions of the thread almost preclude friendly discussion.  Imagine one of our Muslim members reacting to this thread, and the suggestion that his or her faith (and presumably the members thereof) should be exterminated.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 15, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> ....this was the GRAND MUFTI, the equivilent of the POPE. Arguably the most powerfull single cleric in ALL ISLAM



By this statement alone you reveal how very little you know about Islam.  I would try to educate you, but as usual, it would be ignored in favor of what you already "know."


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 15, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> So they dont control thier freaky deaky selves like people in most religions do.



Ugh.  Maybe this earns me the ban hammer you deserve, but you are a sick ****ing bigot.  Someday I hope you learn better.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 15, 2009)

prove me wrong, dont just tell me I am

PROVE IT


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 15, 2009)

very classy



Empty Hands said:


> Ugh.  Maybe this earns me the ban hammer you deserve, but you are a sick ****ing bigot.  Someday I hope you learn better.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 15, 2009)

elder999 said:


> by condemning all of Islam for what is demonstrably a minority viewpoint within Islam, you do yourself and whatever it is you're trying to say a disservice.



The GRAND MUFTI is not a minority viewpoint, so your point fails

I get what you are saying dude, but scratching around for some excuse for these people simply doesnt work, they are proud of what they believe and there is no justification for it in the modern world


----------



## Ray (Jan 15, 2009)

Nolerama said:


> Does the rest of the world have the right to bring terrorist acts to the US because Americans are slowly, but successfully indoctrinating the rest of the world into a consumer/instant gratification culture, completely disregarding pre-existing culture, having a direct hand in the mutation of the human race into fat, ignorant slobs?


I see you're in the mid-west too.  I'm a transplant here and, although it seems like everyone is a fat ignorant slob, there are plenty of Americans who are neither.  And there are even native mid-westerners who aren't.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 15, 2009)

elder999 said:


> My response to this statement would have been completely different-I'd even have been in agreement, to a degree.



well, thats a pretty fair statement.

the Wahabi's are the one stirring up most of the crap,a nd they are the most neanderthall

fair enough


----------



## elder999 (Jan 15, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> ihe doesnt PROFESS to speak for Islam, he DOES. He is the senior cleric, elected by the other clerics in the motherland of the religion. He isnt professing it, he IS it.
> 
> you know it too, just admitt it. This guy is their POPE


 



			
				Twin Fist said:
			
		

> The GRAND MUFTI is not a minority viewpoint, so your point fails


 


The GRAND MUFTI of Saudi Arabia issued a _fatwa_ against suicided bombing and terrorism in May of 2001-months ahead of 9/11. He's declared fatwa against those who aid terrorism-so much for his authority, or the acceptance of all of his viewpoints. :lol:

He's also condemned celebrating birthdays, but hey....

In any case, one has to consider not only how little his authority seems to extend, since 9/11 took place in spite of his fatwa against such actsianyway, but recognize that he's not the _*only*_ Grand Mufti: there are the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem,the Grand Mufti of Egypt,the Grand Mufti of Istanbul, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia and Herzegovinia, the Grand Mufti of Syria,the Grand Mufti of Oman, the Grand Mufti of Yemen, the Grand Mufti of Lebanon,Grand Mufti of ALbania, Grand Mufti of Bulgaria,and,believe it or not, the Grand Mufti of _*Australia*_.

The title "Grand Mufti" conveys, by definition, to the highest elected religious authrority in a Sunni muslim country, or community (since a few of those places don't exactly meet the definition of "Sunni muslim country"). In Indonesia, however, they have a committee that serves as "the Grand Mufti, and, in places like Australia, that aren't "Sunni Muslim countries" this position has no authority recognized by the _government_ (as opposed to Saudi Arabia) and can be elected to that position by one segment of the Sunni community and may not even be recognized by another segment of that comminity......

So, what he says is essentially, _what he says,_ insofar as people seem to have some latitude in which Mufti they obey, and whether or not they obey any of them-this is especially true to the extent that the same man condemned terrorism and its tools as early as May 2001. Never mind the child-bride thing


----------



## Kreth (Jan 15, 2009)

_ATTENTION ALL USERS:_

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Jeff Velten/Kreth
-MT Super Moderator-


----------



## elder999 (Jan 16, 2009)

elder999 said:


> . Given the fact, though, that our country does have enemies who claim to be Islamic, and use Islam to justify and further their ends, it is, while not understandable (to me), at least a familiar way of thinking. In the end, it comes down to that face of Islam being the only one that you know-you know nothing of Islamic people in Southeast Asia, you know nothing of Islamic people in Europe and Eastern Europe, you know nothing of Sufism, or any of the many faces of what might be called "moderate" Islam . *<snip!>*
> 
> You're right, it's not racist. It is *ugly* and bigoted. It is a display of the kind of prejudice and ignorance that doesn't lead to any kind of solution, and only leads to more problems. In the end, you would do well to learn more of the many different faces of Islam, and about the people who practice that faith, before making such statements.


 

So, now I can't get to sleep, because I need to say something.

I mean no insult by saying any of these things to you, John. When I say that to say those things is "ugly and bigoted," well, it's an opinion, and one that what you have said lends itself to. More importantly, when I say that it's a "display of prejudice and ignorance," I really mean no insult by that. It's a display of prejudice in that that's _exactly_ what you're doing: _prejudging *1.6 billion*_ people, on the basis of what one man has said, and his followers may or may not adhere to. It's a display of ignorance in that you've ascribed a level of authority to that one man that doesn't exist: he's nothing like the Pope, he has no authority over Shia, other than to attest as his predecessors have that they are not Muslims, he has no authority over people outside of Saudi Arabia. It's a display of ignorance in that it fails to address the cultural differences that lead to things like Arab mistreatment of women and arranged marriages to children that have nothing to do with "Islam" and eveything to do with where they occur, and makes no note of the fact that they don't occur elsewhere, at least, not in the same way. It's a display of ignorance in that it fails to acknowledge those different "flavors" of Islam that take place around the world, and that the _majority of those 1.6 billion belong to_.

And mostly, saying it's a display of "prejudice and ignorance" isn't an insult. Without resorting to the English Language Technical Manual (that's engineerspeak for a dictionary) I can say that, well, _prejudging_ is something that we've all been guilty of, right or wrong, from time to time, and that _*ignorance*_, when I use it, is merely to denote what it is: _a lack of knowledge_-one that I believe you've displayed in this thread. Were we discussing (and that's what's supposed to take place here) any number of things that I *don't know about*, I'd surely say that _"I didn't know that."_ Were we discussing any number of things that I know quite a bit about, but others might know more, I might wind up saying the same thing. Where I clearly have knowledge that someone else doesn't, then family tradition, the format of these forums, and...well,for better or worse, my _ego_, compel me to say, _"You're *wrong,* and here's why."_ I'd do the same about electronics, or sailing, or cooking, or history, or any number of the other things that I know a little bit about......once in a while, I even wind up doing the same about martial arts. Go figure....:lfao:

You've come to believe what you do, and espouse the viewpoints that you do, because that is, as I said, the only face of Islam that is presented to you regularly in the media-or at least, I'm guessing, the media you partake in-and you've had no reason to study or investigate further. I have friends and associates who are close to where you are on this spectrum-some of them, I won't even try discussing it with. I occasionally post on another forum where the owner has pretty much said that he won't tolerate any discussion of Islam as a positive thing, a "religion of peace," or any other "nonsense" like that. He's a "Christian Warrior," and "we're at war with Islam." End of discussion. I've gone to seminars and trained regularly with people who also have the same sort of viewpoint-though some of them have at least _heard the arguments_ and come around to a more moderate point of view. It's difficult, though, to accept that people you otherwise admire and can learn much from, are so entrenched in their own self-imposed blindness. 

Such things *are ugly and bigoted* things for them to do to themselves, and the things that they say often make them seem just this way.

In the end, I'm trying to tell you that you're _better_ than this, John, or that you could be. Maybe that isn't my place, but I meant no insult.:asian:


----------



## tellner (Jan 16, 2009)

Nicely done, Elder. Sorry I can't rep you at the moment.


----------



## Carol (Jan 16, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Carol,
> love ya babe
> 
> but to a point, i disagree. I think a lot of the marrying kids thing in islam is:
> ...



Its OK to disagree babe.  A little tension means love has extra spice.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 16, 2009)

tellner said:


> Saudi Arabia is a backwards, benighted, barely prehensile sort of place.


Actually no they're not. We're talking about a place that has underwater restaurants, underwater hotels, office buildings that look like spinnakers on yachts, indoor ski-resorts, gold plated rolls royces, office buildings that actually rotate each floor!! 
No, they're just so damned rich that they can do whatever the hell they want! They think probably: "Gonna complain about it? Well... hmm... guess we'll just up the price of oil infidel!"


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 16, 2009)

Elder, you may be many thing, but damn you can write. Sorta long winded and preachy, but eloquent.

I can respect that. I am not eloquent. When I write, i tend to short, simple verse. probably because I have so much running through my head, that I CANT type it all out. Plus it is a pain to go through all my posts and un-transpose all the letters I get backwards. I type like what a dyslexic sees, and I cant get it to stop. No idea why this happens, but I end up having to re-do alot of my content.

So my posts tend to be short, and to the point.

Plus it is my nature to be blunt.

Bluntly, I consider islam a cult of death. I consider pretty much all religion silly, but Islam is dangerous. No other religion that i know of commands it's followers to go out and KILL

Islam does. And they do. 

No other religion I know of does that, and there is no excuse for it. 

More people are killed in the name of Islam DAILY than any other religion can claim in a YEAR. And at least Christianity grew up, even if some of it's followers didnt.....

But thats the  catch, with the idiot Christians who do stupid things in the name of religion, it is the people doing it, they are not commanded to do so by the book

in Islam that is not the case.

If my opinion offends Muslims, i dont care, they need to take a long hard look at the book and thier prophet. All i do is repete the truth. And it isnt my fault that the TRUTH about Islam isnt pretty.

to me it doesnt matter that "not all mulims are like that" because like I told Carol, the ones that are not doing stupid crap are that way IN SPITE of thier religion, not because of it.

Islam commands stupid **** from it's followers. I cannot respect it. And way too many of it's clerics support the scriptures stupidities and encourage the believers to do even MORE stupid crap.

Plus I aint real cool with conversion by force. I hated that when I found out the catholics did it, and I hate it now.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 16, 2009)

*swoon*

I have to admitt I do love it when a lady calls me on my ********




Carol Kaur said:


> Its OK to disagree babe.  A little tension means love has extra spice.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 16, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Elder, you may be many thing, but damn you can write. Sorta long winded and preachy, but eloquent.
> 
> I can respect that. I am not eloquent. When I write, i tend to short, simple verse. probably because I have so much running through my head, that I CANT type it all out. Plus it is a pain to go through all my posts and un-transpose all the letters I get backwards. I type like what a dyslexic sees, and I cant get it to stop. No idea why this happens, but I end up having to re-do alot of my content.
> 
> ...



TF, It does matter that "not all Muslims are like that" It matters very much. I've far too many friends who are Muslims to agree with that statement. They despise and are deeply embarrassed by their radical brethren. They know that these twists and reworkings of their Koran are wrong. They choose _not_ to follow those so-called leaders who preach these atrocious mis-interpretations of that book. 
It is the individual that needs to be taken care of, the individual who needs to be despised and hated and punished... not the faith. True there are a lot of individuals who are following this crap and living it. They are not doing it because Allah tells them so, they're doing it because _another _individual is telling them that Allah is telling them so. 
Blame the men not the God, blame the reader who misinterprets, or intentionally twists around what they get from the book... not the book. 
The Bible is full of the same stuff in the Old Testament, and there are isolated pockets of people who still live by it. Isolated individuals not the whole. 
I think it's terrible yes that 10 yr. old girls are being forced to marry, I think it's horrible that women are being circumcised to prevent them from enjoying sexual unions and from being tempted to stray from their husbands. I think it's horrifying that people strap explosives to their bodies and walk into a crowd and hope to kill as many as possible including themselves. 
They were all dictated by men, individual men who sought out like minded individuals and banded together and through coercion, rhetortic and whatever else convince many more individuals to follow them. 
Curse the individuals not the true faith of Islam. 
Get to know the true Islamic faith before condemning it. 

I've learned much about it from my friends/associates and know it's not as radical as those bastards who give it a bad name make it to be.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 16, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> They despise and are deeply embarrassed by their radical brethren. They know that these twists and reworkings of their Koran are wrong. They choose _not_ to follow those so-called leaders who preach these atrocious mis-interpretations of that book.



Exactly, and who is to say that Christianity would not be used in the same way if the circumstances where right.

Right now there are people using it to influence others, guys like Jerry Falwell definitely come to mind, or going back a little farther to Joe McCarthy using it as a way to unite against "godless commies."

President Bush even used Christianity as a way to sell the Iraq war on a few occasions.

Religion is rarely the reason for conflict, but very often used as the justification, and the means to get the general population to support it.  It also is a way to maintain sanity in war.  "No atheist in a foxhole" sort of logic, but it isn't just the fear of death that moves people to religion, it is a way of justifying immoral actions, like killing people, and turning them into moral actions, like killing enemies of God for which you will be rewarded in the afterlife.

At the core we are all the same, we have a sense of morality (most of us anyways) and killing people who we have no personal reason to hate goes against that.  Religion gives a reason, and it dehumanizes the enemy.  

Personally I think which religion will get turned into a weapon has little to do with the actual religion and more to do with what the population that is involved believes.  If the areas that where in conflict where Christian, then they would be strapping bombs to their chest according to what the bible said, rather then the Koran, but the result would be the same.

I also think you are an example of this process, you are showing hatred to an entire group of people based on them having different beliefs, regardless of whether they actually believe in the radical aspects that you assign to all of them.  You use words like "evil" when describing them, which dehumanizes them and makes immoral action against them justifiable.

Now, as for attacking Christians and ignoring the crimes of Islam, that is just not happening, but you are seeing it because it is what you want to see.  The crimes committed in the name of Islam and the hate expressed by some of its leaders is horrible, no one will deny that.  The only thing we say is that it is not Islam that causes this, but something else.  Islam might be the way it is explained, but when the same thing happens in populations with other religions those religions are used.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 16, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Elder, you may be many thing, but damn you can write. Sorta long winded and preachy, but eloquent.


 
Thanks, but what about the content, TF?

I mean, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia *is not* "like the pope."

The vast majority of the adherents of Islam *are not* Wahhabists, do not live under _sharia_, do not oppress women (any more than other men do in their country ), do not espouse terrorism or even embrace the way that _some_ have twisted the idea of _jihad_.



Twin Fist said:


> Bluntly, I consider islam a cult of death. I consider pretty much all religion silly, but Islam is dangerous. No other religion that i know of commands it's followers to go out and KILL
> 
> Islam does. And they do.


 
I'd argue that "Islam" doesn't; *men* do, and use a twisted interpretation of "Islam" to accomplish their violent _political_ ends.

One could also argue that the Old Testament commands Israel to go out and KILL, and they do, but their doing so is politically justified, and seen by many as righteous self-defense.



Twin Fist said:


> More people are killed in the name of Islam DAILY than any other religion can claim in a YEAR. And at least Christianity grew up, even if some of it's followers didnt.....


 
What chance does Islam have to "grow up," as you said, if there is no chance for dialogue with its majority-the moderate, mainstream adherents? *They* are our best bet for eliminating the very real problem of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism-not the "war on terror" and certainly not trying to wipe Islam off the planet. Such actions justify the terrorist's behavior in their minds. We will face another attack on our soil some day, in spite of all our best efforts to prevent it, and do away with those who would perpetrate it, _because one of the fruits of our efforts is to grow more terrorists in response._



Twin Fist said:


> If my opinion offends Muslims, i dont care, they need to take a long hard look at the book and thier prophet. All i do is repete the truth. And it isnt my fault that the TRUTH about Islam isnt pretty.


 
And I say that *you* need to take a long hard look at the book and their prophet, as well as how the majority of them live today-not just in other countries, but right here in the U.S.





Twin Fist said:


> Islam commands stupid **** from it's followers. I cannot respect it. And way too many of it's clerics support the scriptures stupidities and encourage the believers to do even MORE stupid crap.
> 
> Plus I aint real cool with conversion by force. I hated that when I found out the catholics did it, and I hate it now.


 

Most religions can be seen as commanding stupid **** of its followers from some point of view. Many of them have scriptures that command violence of one sort, or actions that we view as "uncivilized," that are open to abuse and misinterpretation. The fact remains that the majority of Islam's adherents _don't_ follow such interpretations, and don't live their lives advocating violence, a twisted interpretation of _jihad_, or bearing any more enmity towards "the west" as the rest of the world. 

The enemy *isn't* "Islam."


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 16, 2009)

I think you got it backwards elder

the enemy isnt muslims, at least not all, because as you say, they dont all act like fools

the enemy IS islam

the book says flat out to seek out the infidel and kill them, to convert them by force, to have sex with 9 year olds.

Thats the difference between Islam and christianity.

Caver,
 it isnt  a twist or re-working of the koran, the koran says it FLAT OUT

thier religion commands violence, it is right there in the book
thier prophet was a child molester
thier scripture commands them to be like the prophet

THAT is islam, I have read the Koran, have you? I aint making this **** up.

if they dont like it, they ought to find another church.

because that is what the religion itself IS

this isnt about them acting bad, they dont act bad because some isolated imam tells them to, the PROPHET tells them to.

Christianity is different because all jesus ever said was to love thy nieghbor.

thats it.

So when so called christians act like asshats, they are going against christs words

when mulims kill infidels they are following the prophets commands

Your friends caver, are, from a theological standpoint, not very good muslims. because they dont follow the words of the prophet.

People in the modern word are just so afraid to tell it like it is, but in this case there is no reasn to be, the entire religion is FLAWED from the start. And saying so is perfectly fine because it is true.

truth is the ultimate defense.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 16, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Thats the difference between Islam and christianity.



Have you read the bible?  It's got some not so nice things in it as well, guess there aren't many "good Christians" around?

Anyways, this seems relevant:

[yt]kAIpRRZvnJg[/yt]


----------



## elder999 (Jan 16, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Actually no they're not. We're talking about a place that has underwater restaurants, underwater hotels, office buildings that look like spinnakers on yachts, indoor ski-resorts, gold plated rolls royces, office buildings that actually rotate each floor!!


 

Most of those things are in Dubai, though there's an excellent underwater restaurant in Israel, and the Emirates has a ski slope in one of their malls. 

Most of Saudi's attractions deal with ridiculous consumerism....really nice jewelry stores......



MA-Caver said:


> No, they're just so damned rich that they can do whatever the hell they want! They think probably: "Gonna complain about it? Well... hmm... guess we'll just up the price of oil infidel!"


 
That oil is going to prove to have been a curse to Saudi Arabia. Not so much Dubai and the UAR, because they've done a good job of creating business, shipping and tourism infrastructure. Saudi has nothing else to offer but oil, and oil won't last.....it's _dying_ as we speak.

And then they'll be back to camels, goats and sand....:lfao:


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 16, 2009)

if you had read the bible Andrew, you would know that Christ's covenant erases the Old testament.

It is scripture, but it's laws and rules are not binding.

so the silly **** in the old testament? doesnt really count.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 16, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> if you had read the bible Andrew, you would know that Christ's covenant erases the Old testament.
> 
> It is scripture, but it's laws and rules are not binding.
> 
> so the silly **** in the old testament? doesnt really count.


 

You think? Some would argue that  Christ came to embody the law, not to erase it. THat "silly ****," as you put it, is used  by what some would consider mainstream Christian leadership to bully gays, and anyone who isn't a Christian or a Jew.  THe fact that they're cherry picking from it, saying this part is binding, and this one isn't (for the reason you've said) only serves to show how absolutely loony some of them are....

I'd also point out that the Ten Commandments are part of that "silly ****," and Jesus _did_ reaffirm the commandments.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jan 16, 2009)

I've read it.  Nice work of fiction.
Which one?  All of them.

I'll believe the supposed "word of Christ" when someone can prove he was more than some myth. So far, all evidence points to a non-existent entity, created out of older myths, by frightened old men, seeking yet another means to control the small minded and ignorant.  Rather than rehash that, just search here, read the extensive debate from a few years back.

Mohammad did at least exist, as there is a bloodline, and a parking lot which used to be his home.

The words in all those books are pretty, but, quite out of date I think.  The Jews at least update theirs regularly, where as the Christians are using a copy of the Jews that is two thousand years out of touch.

I'll avoid the detailed pointing out that even today, women are raped, children are abused, and men killed, in Christ's name.  How many little "sects" are there again? You can say they are mis reading, mis interpreting, or mis understanding the words in their bible. You can say blue is red and light is dark too. Won't change reality.

Christianity, Islam, and all the rest are but one possible manual.  There are others. They all are equally valid.  Of course, some of us have thrown away those manuals, written by other people, and choose to write our own. You tend to hunt us down and burn us as witches. Sometimes, we even are witches. Your fear, your cowardice, your need to be "right" and "in control".

A million people might believe Jesus existed. A million people might have marched to war. Just because a million believe it, doesn't make it so.

I've read the Koran. You're right, it's not the most peaceful book out there. Neither is the Christian Bible, filled with incest, murder, and hatred.  Wait. That's not what you read in it? Might want to read the whole thing with something most lack. An open mind.  Might want to look up the missing sections that were omitted because they didn't "fit" with what the organisers intended.

Religion, in all it's guises, is a crutch to lean on, and a handcuff to restrict you.
People feel, without those, they will be helpless.
If there be Gods, they do not help, and victory belongs to the strong.
But all things done before the naked stars is remembered, if only, by them.

I now return you to your regulary scheduled debate of ignorance and bigotry.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 16, 2009)

not quite Elder.

Nothing in the 10 commandments says to go kill the infidels, or have sex with 10 year olds.

And christ's own words (as recorded in text, who knows if it's true or not) said that he was thrnew law and the old law wasnt binding.

thats the way I was taught. And thats the way it reads. Some MAY debate it, but they are on shakey ground. At Best

but at least you are not arguing the content of the Koran.






elder999 said:


> You think? Some would argue that Christ came to embody the law, not to erase it. THat "silly ****," as you put it, is used by what some would consider mainstream Christian leadership to bully gays, and anyone who isn't a Christian or a Jew. THe fact that they're cherry picking from it, saying this part is binding, and this one isn't (for the reason you've said) only serves to show how absolutely loony some of them are....
> 
> I'd also point out that the Ten Commandments are part of that "silly ****," and Jesus _did_ reaffirm the commandments.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 16, 2009)

The Last Legionary said:


> I'll believe the supposed "word of Christ" when someone can prove he was more than some myth. So far, all evidence points to a non-existent entity, created out of older myths, by frightened old men, seeking yet another means to control the small minded and ignorant. Rather than rehash that, just search here, read the extensive debate from a few years back.


 
I'll believe the word of Christ when I actually see practised somewhere here on Earth.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 16, 2009)

Entire Koran translated: 
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html



> http://i-cias.com/e.o/koran.htm#understanding
> Essential to the reading of the Koran are the *interpretations* of the content. Even in modern times, there are scholars working on interpreting the text, but most of the material available now was performed within the earliest centuries of Islam.
> 
> 
> ...



With that said... it's easy to give the uneducated/undereducated a great *interpretation* to suit individual needs. 


> *Koran sura 16: The Bee*
> 103 And whenever we change one verse for another,- God knows best what He sends down. They say, Thou art but a forger!- Nay, most of them do not know.
> There are no traces of any ideas in early Islam that the second of these elements had existed prior to Muhammad. But as soon as the Koran was compiled into a book, its importance grew and its force as the foundation of the Islamic faith became something a Muslim couldn't question. After time the misunderstanding of the Koran as a perfect creation of God had established itself, and any Muslim claiming that not every single word of the Koran was sacred, risked his position in society, his health or even life.


Basically as I read it... this happened a long while ago and thus the words were twisted and corrupted to suit an individual's need for revenge for some wrong. 

Like the Bible... a helluva lot got lost in the translation.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 16, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> but at least you are not arguing the content of the Koran.


 
I've read the Quran-in _Arabic_, no less. I'm not going to argue its content-merely point out (As 'Caver has done) that it can be misinterpreted to suit all sorts of ends, and has been,_just as the Bible has._




Twin Fist said:


> not quite Elder.
> 
> Nothing in the 10 commandments says to go kill the infidels, or have sex with 10 year olds.
> 
> ...


 
_Theologically,_ we might be in agreement on this, but the likes of the *Pope*, as in the real one at the Vatican, and ALL of his predecessors,not some "regional Islamic counterpart" - :lfao:- as well as the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Billy Graham, Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson, Don Adams, T.D. Jakes, and just about anyone I can think of in a leadership position in mainstream or fringe Christianity,(I with the exception of some Episcopalians, Unitarians, United Churchers and Methodists), to condemn homosexuals, witches, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and anyone else not within the "law" as written in Leviticus and Deuteronomy 

*Though they say it's okay to eat ribs and shrimp. :lfao:*

As for Jesus, he did say that:



> *Matthew 5:17,* _"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; *I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. *_"


 
Some interpret this verse as meaning that the "silly **** in the Old Testament" is still valid. :lfao:


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 16, 2009)

KORAN commands to kill infidels:

Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161

*Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191*

*Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme.* (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

*Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it*. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.

You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah 3:169-71

Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74

Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76

*But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89*

Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that they have done. - 5:14

*O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54*

*Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39*

O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65

*It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67*

Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3

*When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5*

Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. - 9:41

O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. - 9:73

Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, kill and be killed. - 9:111

Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:
Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers....

When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4 
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.

Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. - 48:25

Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers. - 48:29

Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. - 66:9

Fight them so that Allah may punish them at your hands, and put them to shame. (verse cited in Newsweek 2/11/02)





get the picture? and there is no new testament in the Koran to void this stuff.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 16, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Some interpret this verse as meaning that the "silly **** in the Old Testament" is still valid. :lfao:


 
I am not sure. i was taught that quote referred only to the 10 commandments, i will study further. One of my students is a bible freak, so I will ask him after class.

oh and BTW- I have never seen any of these fellows:
Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Billy Graham, Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson, Don Adams, T.D. Jakes

telling christians to go out and kill anyone, much less gays.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 16, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> oh and BTW- I have never seen any of these fellows:
> Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Billy Graham, Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson, Don Adams, T.D. Jakes
> 
> telling christians to go out and kill anyone, much less gays.


 
Jimmy Swaggert said he'd kill a gay guy and "tell God 'he died'" for looking at him....:lfao:

While the Christian faith has unquestionably moved beyond its medieval and pre-medieval  roots in some ways, in others it has not. The evidence of it is in scripture for anyone to see, just as it is in the Quran. While many of the Islamic faith have moved beyond those medieval roots, others have not, and use them to justify a variety of crimes. Would we condemn the entirety of the faithful, just because of the misery inflicted by a few, or would we give them a chance to move out of the dark ages?


----------



## Carol (Jan 16, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> I think you got it backwards elder
> 
> the enemy isnt muslims, at least not all, because as you say, they dont all act like fools
> 
> the enemy IS islam



The enemy is *not* Islam.

The enemy is *IGNORANCE*.

No education, no way of earning one.  No job skills and no ways of getting them.  Where social strata is not based on willingness to ability to be a productive member of society but rather based on who one's father is.  It is *centuries of active discouragement* of formal education that maintains the Shari'a totalitarian stronghold in the middle east.  

Islam in that part of the world is so much more than how one practices the Sabbath or what holy book one opens for guidance.   It is reflected in the language, how you greet one another, what words you are supposed to use, what your family relationships are like.  It is woven in to every facet of society and has been for centuries.  The Shari'a totalitarian regimes in place now are largely disgusting and fascist.  However, when legions of have people have little more than one another...and an outside force (the West) threatens to take even that bond away...there will be resistance!  The totalitarian Shari'a fundamentalists are dependent on an uneducated society.

This has been part of the reason why rebuilding Iraq has been so hard.   Building schools is easy...hell, we can build a military base in a couple of days.  But getting people to go to school, and to learn, and to understand why an education is so critically important is something that will take decades, if not centuries, to do.


Babe...you know I love you back, right?


----------



## teekin (Jan 16, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> TF, It does matter that "not all Muslims are like that" It matters very much. I've far too many friends who are Muslims to agree with that statement. They despise and are deeply embarrassed by their radical brethren. They know that these twists and reworkings of their Koran are wrong. They choose _not_ to follow those so-called leaders who preach these atrocious mis-interpretations of that book.
> It is the individual that needs to be taken care of, the i*ndividual who needs to be despised and hated and punished*... not the faith. True there are a lot of individuals who are following this crap and living it. They are not doing it because Allah tells them so, they're doing it because _another _individual is telling them that Allah is telling them so.
> *Blame the men *not the God, *blame the reader who misinterprets, or intentionally twists around what they get from the book*... not the book.
> The Bible is full of the same stuff in the Old Testament, and there are isolated pockets of people who still live by it. Isolated individuals not the whole.
> ...



From the "No, You Read it Wrong File". 
 One of the 10 commandments loosely says " thou shall not worship craven idols".  This little gem was used by politically motivated players of the Protestant Reformation as an excuse to attack the Catholics as they left church and bash their heads in. Men, women, children.  They had a statue of the Virgin Mary that they would light candles and pray to. Thusly they were worshiping a craven image and were therefor heathens and God would want them to be punished..... right It's in the bible!  Of course to the founder of the movement, if you look at why he spit from the Catholic church in the first place, this was abhorent. But hell, who looks at the ideology any more.
 The interpretation was done by Men, each with their own agenda, and taught by men, each with their own agenda. I'm sure they can twist the words, stories, parables and meanings to suit their needs as they please. Just like every other religion does.

Lori


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 16, 2009)

Swaggart? jeez i remember that asshat. And the $20 hooker he got busted with.

And oh, you're right, in that "some do some dont" stuff. The problem is the ones that do, well, they are perfectly willing to kill anyone, even other muslims that dont do that stuff, while they are doing that stuff.

It doesnt really happen with any other groups on the scale it does with islam.

No matter what you say, you cant deny Islam is causing lots of problems world wide

I have said all along my problem isnt with the people, the faith itself is the problem, and you cant really deny that since that faith is producing murderers in pretty damned scary numbers.



elder999 said:


> Jimmy Swaggert said
> he'd kill a gay guy and "tell God 'he died'" for looking at him....:lfao:
> 
> While the Christian faith has unquestionably moved beyond its medieval and pre-medieval roots in some ways, in others it has not. The evidence of it is in scripture for anyone to see, just as it is in the Quran. While many of the Islamic faith have moved beyond those medieval roots, others have not, and use them to justify a variety of crimes. Would we condemn the entirety of the faithful, just because of the misery inflicted by a few, or would we give them a chance to move out of the dark ages?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 16, 2009)

but islam encourages ignorance, and in many cases, enforces it.

And Darlin', show me any couple that agrees on everything and I will show you 2 people who are lying to each other

*smooch*



Carol Kaur said:


> The enemy is *not* Islam.
> 
> The enemy is *IGNORANCE*.
> 
> ...


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 16, 2009)

wait a sec, you can read arabic?

I tried once, written chinese made more sense to me than written arabic.



elder999 said:


> I've read the Quran-in _Arabic_, no less.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 16, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> wait a sec, you can read arabic?
> 
> I tried once, written chinese made more sense to me than written arabic.


 

I'm the victim of a classical education-Homeric and koine Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic, in addition to a couple of modern languages-though my German is hardly conversational anymore....

I'm also the captive of a somewhat flexible and inquisitive mind-I played with some Lebanese brothers as a kid, so I picked up some Arabic, and pursued it when I had a chance. Additionally, I took studied the Quran for my religious studies degree, back in 1975.....

Try Korean for a completely incomprehensible language, or, worse even, Navajo.....:lfao:


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 16, 2009)

naw, korean isnt bad, even the written form, Hongul is easier to read than either Kanji or Chinese

navajo i have heard a couple times, but I cant wrap my head around the sounds.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 16, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> navajo i have heard a couple times, but I cant wrap my head around the sounds.


 
Most dreadful words to hear at midnight (actually, sunrise is even worse!): "_Now, I'm going to pray, but  in my native language..._"


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 16, 2009)

bleah

that would suck epic amounts of suckage


----------



## elder999 (Jan 16, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> bleah
> 
> that would suck epic amounts of suckage


 

It's not soo bad. Of course, Dine will go on, and on, pray for everybody (as in *EVERYBODY!*) before they get down to finishing. It also doesn't help when you're as big as I am, you've basically been kneeling in the same spot for 10 or 12 hours, and you're ready to _get out!_ and be done with the ceremony, but hey-I'm there to pray.....:lfao:


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 16, 2009)

Grendel308 said:


> From the "No, You Read it Wrong File".
> One of the 10 commandments loosely says " thou shall not worship craven idols".  This little gem was used by politically motivated players of the Protestant Reformation as an excuse to attack the Catholics as they left church and bash their heads in. Men, women, children.  They had a statue of the Virgin Mary that they would light candles and pray to. Thus they were worshiping a craven image and were therefor heathens and God would want them to be punished..... right It's in the bible!  Of course to the founder of the movement, if you look at why he split from the Catholic church in the first place, this was abhorrent. But hell, who looks at the ideology any more.
> The interpretation was done by Men, each with their own agenda, and taught by men, each with their own agenda. I'm sure they can twist the words, stories, parables and meanings to suit their needs as they please. Just like every other religion does.
> 
> Lori


:idunno: I... I thought... I thought that was my point? Did I miss something? 

I could kiss Carol right now (on the cheek) but am worried about getting a :btg: ... the enemy IS indeed ignorance.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 16, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> but islam encourages ignorance, and in many cases, enforces it.



Christianity (at least some major streams of it) doesn't?

Have you heard of a magical place called the Creationism Museum?  Or noticed that a large percentage of the population completely rejects well established science when the bible tells them otherwise?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 16, 2009)

you know, they do call it the THEORY of evolution for a reason

there is almost as much hard scientific data for creationism as there is for evolution

which is to say, not much

now to my mind, evolutiona dn creationism dont conflict


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 16, 2009)

andrew, your entire contribution to this thread has been one "they do it too" post after another

SO FRIGGIN WHAT

even if other people do it to, we are not talking about ALL, we are talkign about ONE

bringing other groups into it is just deflection

or

a symptom of a lack of courage to call Islamic acts what they are.






Andrew Green said:


> Christianity (at least some major streams of it) doesn't?
> 
> Have you heard of a magical place called the Creationism Museum?  Or noticed that a large percentage of the population completely rejects well established science when the bible tells them otherwise?


----------



## tellner (Jan 16, 2009)

Twin Fist, you obviously do not understand what a scientist means by the word "theory". Until you do you are simply embarassing yourself and wasting everyone else's time with your statements. They betray a profound ignorance of science not to mention the specific areas you are talking about.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 16, 2009)

ad hom, ad hom, ad hom, blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda yadda

you just said nothing Tellner. About par for the course.

the food chain is as follows:
idea
hypothesis
theory
fact

hypothesis has some evidence, but not much

theory cant be proven, but there is a large body of evidence

Evolution cant be proven. To go from theory to fact, something has to be able to be seen, observed, measured, duplicated

because of the amount of time evolution takes, you cant really observe it.

all you really get by your observations is snapshots.

but snapshots do not make a movie, no matter how many of them you get.

Free advice for you tellner,
you will get better results if you SHOW how someone is wrong rather than just tell them they are wrong, without proving it and blathering on with various pathetic insults. That might work if y9ou had ANY cedibility,but you dont. Any. At all.

More free advice, dont bother with me, if you told me what TIME it was i would check it twice.


----------



## teekin (Jan 16, 2009)

MA, I was just trying to rephrase your very well made point and tying it to Andrew's point about Western based religions . It is the individual(s) that are responsible for their actions not an ideology. My bad, sorry. :wah: Other stuff on my mind, I didn't make myself clear.
lori


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 16, 2009)

are the people alone responsible when the belief system expressly alows and in fact encourages that bad behavior?


----------



## searcher (Jan 16, 2009)

crushing said:


> Is a crusade in order?
> 
> Peace be upon you,
> crushing


 

What do you think we have been doing in Iraq?:samurai::idunno:

I know it sounds barbaric, but why ahve we not pulled out and shot off a few nukes?   It would keep American lives in tact and fixes the problem en mass.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jan 16, 2009)

Wow.  The food fight continues.  Twin, you in a hurry to join Big Don in exile or you want to calm down a bit? You get wound up sometimes bro, I think you're gonna pop.  That would be messy, expecially if you have a cheepy keyboard.

Anyways, more foder for the fire here.  Shiny happy Xianism and Judism on how you should kill people for god, because they somehow are different, deserve it, or have offended the local big wigs, and thereby the invisible man in the clouds.



> *Kill False Prophets*
> If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through.   (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
> 
> *Pillage and Plunder *
> ...


 
I've seen enough so called "Christians" on this very site claim "God" wants certain groups dead. God need to get of his *** and do the job himself, rather than letting inbreds and asshats do it. Or, is "God" too weak to do it himselff without one of us being his "sword"?  If so, I sure aint scared of him.  He can strike me dead right now if he's, oh wait, I felt a twinge, no, just a little gas from the bratwurt I had for dinner.  So, I guess I'll be waiting a while.

I recall this little think called the "Inquisition". Lots of Jews killed there by the Christian Church, for God, don't ya know.  Oh wait, something a little more recent eh?

ok, hows these?

*Sept 2004* - Swaggart said: "_I'm trying to find the correct name for it ... this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. ... I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died_." 

The remarks were met with applause from his congregation. 

*Oct 2008* - Extreme Christian runs on &#8220;Kill Gays&#8221; platform
David Popescu reasserted his view. &#8220;_A young man asked me what I think of homosexual marriages and I said I think homosexuals should be executed_,&#8221; he said. &#8220;_My whole reason for running is the Bible and the Bible couldn&#8217;t be more clear on that point_.&#8221;

But, don't worry.  You can relax with a nice positive video game, where you get to kill all those nasty non-Christians and "Praise Jesus" while doing it. Whee!  This is a truly loving faith, not at all like thos nasty hate mongering moslams.



> _Left Behind: Eternal Forces_ is a real-time strategy game whose creators have ties to *Rick Warren*, author of _The Purpose Driven Life_. The game as described by Jonathan Hutson of Talk2Action:
> "Imagine: you are a foot soldier in a paramilitary group whose purpose is to remake America as a Christian theocracy, and establish its worldly vision of the dominion of Christ over all aspects of life. You are issued high-tech military weaponry, and instructed to engage the infidel on the streets of New York City. *You are on a mission - both a religious mission and a military mission -- to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state - especially moderate, mainstream Christians. Your mission is 'to conduct physical and spiritual warfare'; all who resist must be taken out with extreme prejudice*. You have never felt so powerful, so driven by a purpose: you are 13 years old. You are playing a real-time strategy video game whose creators are linked to the empire of mega-church pastor Rick Warren, best selling author of The Purpose Driven Life."​The game also features *characters exclaiming "Praise the Lord" as they exterminate people.* Sweet Jesus.


 
Hey! that name sounds familiar. Where have I heard Rick Warren before?
Oh yeah, he's with Obama.  Maybe we can do another Holy War and make all the peaceful Christians happy once we exterminate all those evil Mosllams who want only to kill us in our sleep. You know, when they aren't busy with other evil things like eating, drinking, sleeping, pooping, reading books, riding trains, and punching a time clock at the magic carpet dealership.

Sometimes I read **** here and I really onder where some peoples heads are, then I remember this picture and I understand. 

Now please excuse me, I have to stock up on ammo and porn before the JesusJunkies come for me.


----------



## Carol (Jan 16, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> are the people alone responsible when the belief system expressly alows and in fact encourages that bad behavior?



That's one helluva question.

Babe, don't get yourself in trouble with the mods. I'll be too lonely without you.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 16, 2009)

cant let that happen

/ thread


----------



## teekin (Jan 17, 2009)

Well TW,  yes I do. I used the Reformation for a very specific reason. Do you know anything about the ideology or theology of Luther's split with the Catholics? Luther himself, not the garbage that was added later by the self serving gentry. We can leave all that twisted crap out of this.
lori


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> the food chain is as follows:
> idea
> hypothesis
> theory
> ...



Wrong.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

A theory is an explanation to fit an established set of facts.  Gravity is a fact, I think we can all agree.  Yet, the explanation for that phenomenon is the "*Theory *of Gravity."  Similarly, evolution is a fact.  It has been observed and quantified in a multitude of settings.  The explanation for those observations, the postulated reasons how and why those facts came about and work, is the "Theory of Evolution."  The fact that theory is in the title doesn't make evolution shaky or untrue anymore than gravity is shaky or untrue.

Other "just a theory" phenomena that absolutely no one questions:
Cell Theory
Germ Theory of Disease
General Theory of Relativity
Theory of Plate Tectonics

Leave the science to the scientists.


----------



## Carol (Jan 17, 2009)

Don't even get me started on Proof Theory... :lol:


----------



## seasoned (Jan 17, 2009)

And on the 95 post they rested. You guys are killing my faith, but wait, it is by faith that we believe. Believe in what? If all there is, is this life, what a sad commentary. The basic fundamentals of Christianity are love and repent, sounds like a winner to me. Faith is believing in things we cant see, this word faith takes a lot of people out of the picture. It must have something to do with the road is narrow thing.


----------



## seasoned (Jan 17, 2009)

I may be off topic, but some of the post have done the same. I think it was the God bashing that comes to mind. J


----------



## elder999 (Jan 17, 2009)

The definition of the word "theory," and how it is applied varies from field to field-since we're not talking mathematics, philosophy or law here, though, the National Academy of Sciences defines "_scientific_ theory" thusly:



> A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.


 
Thus, when the Apollo astronauts dropped a hammer and a feather on the moon at the same time, and they landed at the same time, they further "proved" the "theory of gravity" in that they had removed an element from the situation (atmospheric drag) for experimentation and received a result that followed predictions and supported the theory based on the known facts.More complicated experiments have been done for the theory of relativity.The same sort of thing has been done with evolution-there are experiments with bacteria, DNA and insects that provide experimental support for the theory of evolution. _No such experiment has been conceived for "creationism."_ Doesn't make it wrong or right, merely, until such time as an experiment that can prove or disprove it is conceived, *not* a theory.It's a fair _postulate_, which is a better word for a ""scientific guess," but it's not a theory. Doesn't mean that they conflict, or that they don't-just that one is a genuine theory supported by experimentation, observation and results, and the other is an educated guess that has none of these things to support it.

Same, incidentally, kind of goes for "global warming." While the *facts* that support it have been observed, we can hardly alter any aspect of them _experimentally_ to prove or disprove it. It is, for now, a pretty good postulate, the only experiments we can do are models and simulations, from which we can make observations and predictions, and the only proof we will have is when the climate matches those models, and predictions come true, or the climate doesn't match those models, and the predictions don't come true.

Back on topic, though:



seasoned said:


> . The basic fundamentals of Christianity are love and repent, sounds like a winner to me.


 
 The bedrock message of the Koran is not to kill the infidels, but an insistence that it is wrong to build up a private fortune, and good to share your wealth fairly. On the Last Day the one question God asks of Muslims is whether they have looked after orphans, widows and the oppressed, and if they have not, they cannot enter Paradise.


----------



## seasoned (Jan 17, 2009)

elder999 said:


> The definition of the word "theory," and how it is applied varies from field to field-since we're not talking mathematics, philosophy or law here, though, the National Academy of Sciences defines "_scientific_ theory" thusly:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Maybe, just maybe then, there are many narrow roads leading to God. The secrete, sounds like we need to be on one of them.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2009)

elder999 said:


> The bedrock message of the Koran is not to kill the infidels, but an insistence that it is wrong to build up a private fortune, and good to share your wealth fairly. On the Last Day the one question God asks of Muslims is whether they have looked after orphans, widows and the oppressed, and if they have not, they cannot enter Paradise.


 :lfao:

That's certainly ONE version of the question that will be asked.....many in the Islamic world disagree.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2009)

Andrew Green said:


> Christianity (at least some major streams of it) doesn't?
> 
> Have you heard of a magical place called the Creationism Museum?  Or noticed that a large percentage of the population completely rejects well established science when the bible tells them otherwise?



First, let me point out i'm agnostic.....so I have no dogmatic interest in this debate.....

Second, let me point that in the interest of honesty, Christianity did not start out as a violently proselytizing conqueror's religion at the hands of a bloody warlord....... 

That's all i've really got to say about that.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 17, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Second, let me point that in the interest of honesty, Christianity did not start out as a violently proselytizing conqueror's religion at the hands of a bloody warlord.......


 
you're right, it put off the violent proselytization until the 4th century.

jf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2009)

I note that what ALWAYS happens when this discussion comes up, is a retort along the lines of 'Oh yeah, well Christianity, blah, blah, blah'.....as if making the argument about Christianity wins the point.....i'm not a Christian, i'm as secular as the day is long......and I see the problem as religious fundamentalism.......and the MOST powerful fundamentalist sect of any religion on the planet isn't Christianity, which is rather mild, even in it's most fundamentalist 'Fred Phelps' mode (Yelling idiotic statements outside funerals is nothing like killing thousands of people). 

As a secularist, I view the fundamentalist aspect of Islam, which most estimate at 10% of the Islamic world, as one of the greatest threats to western civilization in existence......I certainly see it as a threat to Europe over the next 40 or 50 years.......

Yes, we have a tendency to shield religions from criticism.......but a religion is nothing but an ideology with a supernature reinforcer......so why can we not rationally discuss the ideological implications of certain beliefs just as we do political ideologies.........if anything religious ideologies, because of the supernatural reinforcer, can be VASTLY MORE DANGEROUS that political ideologies.......the majority of the Islamic world are peaceful, but a minority has a VERY DANGEROUS ideology that needs to be addressed.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2009)

jarrod said:


> you're right, it put off the violent proselytization until the 4th century.
> 
> jf


 Actually, it put off the violent proselytizing until the Mohammadan's invaded Europe......it's a dirty little historic secret, apparently, that European Christian aggression was a RESPONSE to pressure from Islamic invasion........within 2 centuries of it's founding, Islamic forces had conquered, by force, all of the middle east, north Africa, and had invaded in to the Iberian Peninsula.

Europe, to the contrary, was not violent because of Christianity, but in spite of it......it was actually the void left by the Roman Empire that is the cause of European violence prior to the Islamic Invasion.......in the face of it, however, the Christian world had two choices......unite under a common banner, or yield to Islam.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

and again

"they did it too"

is not a defense

it's a deflection


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> and again
> 
> "they did it too"
> 
> ...


 Especially when the 'they' which are being referred to, in this case Christianity, did so ONLY as a direct result of pressure and provocation........there are many who wish to discuss the Crusades, in a vacuum, without historical context.......but discussing the Crusades, without discussing Islamic Imperial expansion from the 7th century onwards is dishonest to say the least.


Now i'm not excusing the disgraceful behavior of the church.......there is no excuse for it, but context is EVERYTHING!

And since i'm agnostic......I don't have to get in debates over 'true religions'.......that's a moot point to me.......historical context is what's important to me.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 17, 2009)

i agree, fundamentalism is the core problem, & it's a problem that NO RELIGION is free from.  i wasn't pointing out christianity's violent past to make a dig at you, but to illustrate that all religions tend to follow an ebb & flow of violence & peace.  

i do disagree with you that christian fundamentalism is mild.  it is mild compared to muslim suicide bombers, but this will most likely change if & when our economy totally destabalizes.  peace tends to follow prosperity, & islam was born out of a historically poor region.  if the tables ever turn, meaning that muslim nations become prosperous & sustain a large middle-class while christian nations fall on harder times, i'm sure we'll see islam become very moderate while fundamentalist christianity becomes more & more...well, weird.

while your point about islam being spawned from a bandit is accurate, i think it's irrelevant.  mainstream religions seldom reflect the teachings of their founder past a generation or two anyway.

jf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2009)

jarrod said:


> while your point about islam being spawned from a bandit is accurate, i think it's irrelevant.  mainstream religions seldom reflect the teachings of their founder past a generation or two anyway.
> 
> jf


 I think the history of Islam refutes that point......the Islamic world was on the violent offensive from it's founding for the next 1000 years.....it was only western technical advancements that finally turned the Islamic invasion back, at Vienna, Austria in 1683.......it has only been in the last 400 years that Islam has been kept at bay by western technology........and we are about to lose that technological.......because oil buy's technological parity.

Many folks refuse to see the situation for what it REALLY is......a clash of civilizations......the nature of Islamic fundamentally is that it cannot live in a world of unbelievers........there is dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb........and you either are a true believer, or you aren't.

Secularism is the only answer.......so long as fundamentalist true belief exists, those believes will not accept a secular world.


Discussing other religions is a deflection, as only one major religion on the planet exhibits conflict among it's followers where they border ANY other group of people on the planet, from Sudan, to the Philippines........the fundamentalist followers of Mohammad are at war with their neighbors.

And yes, there is a moderate form of Islam.......it's built on respect for the tradition, without literal belief in it's more dangerous aspects.......just as there is with Christianity and Judaism.......but Islam has not yet had it's Reformation.......honestly i'm not so sure Islam won't win this conflict and inherit Western Civilization!


----------



## jarrod (Jan 17, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Actually, it put off the violent proselytizing until the Mohammadan's invaded Europe......it's a dirty little historic secret, apparently, that European Christian aggression was a RESPONSE to pressure from Islamic invasion........within 2 centuries of it's founding, Islamic forces had conquered, by force, all of the middle east, north Africa, and had invaded in to the Iberian Peninsula.
> 
> Europe, to the contrary, was not violent because of Christianity, but in spite of it......it was actually the void left by the Roman Empire that is the cause of European violence prior to the Islamic Invasion.......in the face of it, however, the Christian world had two choices......unite under a common banner, or yield to Islam.


 
actually christian persecution of roman paganism began prior to the muslim invasion, & was as pretty grotesque affair.  christian europe may have acted in defense against islam, but it had a well established precedent of eradicating contrary views.



Twin Fist said:


> and again
> 
> "they did it too"
> 
> ...


 
this is true.  however it isn't fair to single out one religion for something others are equally guilty of.  if i got on here & said "black people beat their wives & rob liquor stores" i would be suggesting that this was a problem specific to the black community, when in fact it isn't.  people would reply by telling the that all races participate in those crimes, & they would be right to point that out.  

jf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2009)

jarrod said:


> actually christian persecution of roman paganism began prior to the muslim invasion, & was as pretty grotesque affair.  christian europe may have acted in defense against islam, but it had a well established precedent of eradicating contrary views.


 You mean the Roman pagans who threw Christians to the lions?  What you REALLY have there is the Roman state that does not tolerate any religion except the official one, christian, pagan or otherwise......not a product of the ideology, but a product of the state.....not the same thing.





jarrod said:


> this is true.  however it isn't fair to single out one religion for something others are equally guilty of.  if i got on here & said "black people beat their wives & rob liquor stores" i would be suggesting that this was a problem specific to the black community, when in fact it isn't.  people would reply by telling the that all races participate in those crimes, & they would be right to point that out.
> 
> jf


 Since the EVILS of 'Christianity' as a group have to be discussed in reference to the DISTANT past.......your comparison is fundamentally flawed........it's like saying 'Yeah, I might have robbed a liquor store.......but your great, great, great grandfather was a horse thief!'.....it's only there to distort the issue, which is the problems of TODAY!

IF the Spanish Inquisition was going on in Spain right now, though, you might really have a point. 

As it is it's mere deflection.....the POWER of Christianity over the Western World is more and more symbolic every day......not so the Islamic world.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 17, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I think the history of Islam refutes that point......the Islamic world was on the violent offensive from it's founding for the next 1000 years.....it was only western technical advancements that finally turned the Islamic invasion back, at Vienna, Austria in 1683.......it has only been in the last 400 years that Islam has been kept at bay by western technology........and we are about to lose that technological.......because oil buy's technological parity.
> 
> Many folks refuse to see the situation for what it REALLY is......a clash of civilizations......the nature of Islamic fundamentally is that it cannot live in a world of unbelievers........there is dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb........and you either are a true believer, or you aren't.
> 
> ...


 
the only real reason that islam provided a springboard for invasion was that it unified the arab people.  prior to the birth of islam arabs were more interested in killing each other in blood feuds rather than worrying about infidels.  islam in & of itself, outside of the context of arab culture, is not any better or worse than any other religion.  

jf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2009)

Want to see the difference in action?  Go to Europe and put a derogatory drawing of Christ in a major newspaper, with your name and address attached to it.........then draw a picture of Mohammad.........see whether it's Christians or Muslim's that come calling on you.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2009)

jarrod said:


> the only real reason that islam provided a springboard for invasion was that it unified the arab people.  prior to the birth of islam arabs were more interested in killing each other in blood feuds rather than worrying about infidels.  islam in & of itself, outside of the context of arab culture, is not any better or worse than any other religion.
> 
> jf


 I know that's the official politically correct line......but ideologies ARE better and worse than each other......ideologies and beliefs have power, and Islam is particularly powerful (I did not say bad or evil).

If we're discussing political ideologies you wouldn't make the claim that a political ideology was 'not any better or worse' than any other.....as we know how untrue that is.

Religion is political ideology with a supernatural reinforcement.


----------



## seasoned (Jan 17, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I note that what ALWAYS happens when this discussion comes up, is a retort along the lines of 'Oh yeah, well Christianity, blah, blah, blah'.....as if making the argument about Christianity wins the point.....i'm not a Christian, i'm as secular as the day is long......and I see the problem as religious fundamentalism.......and the MOST powerful fundamentalist sect of any religion on the planet isn't Christianity, which is rather mild, even in it's most fundamentalist 'Fred Phelps' mode (Yelling idiotic statements outside funerals is nothing like killing thousands of people).
> 
> As a secularist, I view the fundamentalist aspect of Islam, which most estimate at 10% of the Islamic world, as one of the greatest threats to western civilization in existence......I certainly see it as a threat to Europe over the next 40 or 50 years.......
> 
> Yes, we have a tendency to shield religions from criticism.......but a religion is nothing but an ideology with a supernature reinforcer......so why can we not rationally discuss the ideological implications of certain beliefs just as we do political ideologies.........if anything religious ideologies, because of the supernatural reinforcer, can be VASTLY MORE DANGEROUS that political ideologies.......the majority of the Islamic world are peaceful, *but a minority has a VERY DANGEROUS ideology that needs to be addressed.*



And that, is what we, as a nation, are trying to do.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2009)

seasoned said:


> [/b]
> And that, is what we, as a nation, are trying to do.


 We're actually attacking individuals who embrace that ideology, which really isn't the same thing......and no, I don't have an answer as to what we should do......if I did i'd be in a different pay grade.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 17, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> You mean the Roman pagans who threw Christians to the lions? What you REALLY have there is the Roman state that does not tolerate any religion except the official one, christian, pagan or otherwise......not a product of the ideology, but a product of the state.....not the same thing.


 
pagan persecution of christians ended a good hundred years prior, retaliation doesn't hold up as an excuse.  also a lot of people don't realize that christianity was legalized in rome before it was adopted as the official religion; rome did have periods of religious tolerance.  even constantine allowed paganism to exist under a christian state.   



sgtmac_46 said:


> Since the EVILS of 'Christianity' as a group have to be discussed in reference to the DISTANT past.......your comparison is fundamentally flawed........it's like saying 'Yeah, I might have robbed a liquor store.......but your great, great, great grandfather was a horse thief!'.....it's only there to distort the issue, which is the problems of TODAY!
> 
> IF the Spanish Inquisition was going on in Spain right now, though, you might really have a point.
> 
> As it is it's mere deflection.....the POWER of Christianity over the Western World is more and more symbolic every day......not so the Islamic world.


 
like i said, when christian nations lose there economic security we will see these crimes again.  frankly, we've been too prosperous to kill ourselves for idealism.

the "evils" of christianity (or more accurately, fundamental christianity) are still out there in the forms of ignorance & political oppression.  

jf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2009)

jarrod said:


> pagan persecution of christians ended a good hundred years prior, retaliation doesn't hold up as an excuse.  also a lot of people don't realize that christianity was legalized in rome before it was adopted as the official religion; rome did have periods of religious tolerance.  even constantine allowed paganism to exist under a christian state.


 You missed the point......the issue was the Roman state, not Christianity......there is a difference, and you well know it.  The state persecuted those who didn't adhere to the current religion in the same manner........if the issue was Christianity, then it would have not fit the pattern that occured PRIOR to Christianity........and since it fit the SAME pattern of repression before Christianity, your point is moot........Christianity was not the cause.

In short......arguing that Christians did it is not the same as arguing Christianity causes it.....that's the issue.......correlation does not equal causation.

In the case of fundamentalist Islam, however, a firm link exists between cause and effect. 





jarrod said:


> like i said, when christian nations lose there economic security we will see these crimes again.  frankly, we've been too prosperous to kill ourselves for idealism.
> 
> the "evils" of christianity (or more accurately, fundamental christianity) are still out there in the forms of ignorance & political oppression.
> 
> jf


 We are not a 'christian nation'......saying it for the purposes of this argument doesn't make it so.

I honestly think you guys have honed your argument with the notion that you'll be arguing with Christians so much, that you can't shift gears.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 17, 2009)

i'll have to get back to this later, i'm about off work


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Since the EVILS of 'Christianity' as a group have to be discussed in reference to the DISTANT past.......your comparison is fundamentally flawed........it's like saying 'Yeah, I might have robbed a liquor store.......but your great, great, great grandfather was a horse thief!'.....it's only there to distort the issue, which is the problems of TODAY!
> 
> IF the Spanish Inquisition was going on in Spain right now, though, you might really have a point.
> 
> As it is it's mere deflection.....the POWER of Christianity over the Western World is more and more symbolic every day......not so the Islamic world.




QFMFT

thats the point I have been trying to make for the last 3 days, said so very very well.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2009)

jarrod said:


> i'll have to get back to this later, i'm about off work



No prob, we'll continue it another time.


----------



## seasoned (Jan 17, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> We're actually attacking individuals who embrace that ideology, which really isn't the same thing......and no, I don't have an answer as to what we should do......if I did i'd be in a different pay grade.


 

As you know, crime is like the same thing. We can't just sit back and do nothing. We have to hit it where it pops up.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2009)

seasoned said:


> As you know, crime is like the same thing. We can't just sit back and do nothing. We have to hit it where it pops up.


 Crime is an individual phenomenon........when a common ideology exists, it's more than crime.......Stalin and Hitler, for example, were not the products of mere crime, they were the products of ideologies that tied them and their followers together......ideologies have power!

IF Christianity produces a sect that believes that it needs to bring about conversion by violent religious war, I will condemn and oppose it completely!


----------



## seasoned (Jan 17, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Crime is an individual phenomenon........when a common ideology exists, it's more than crime.......Stalin and Hitler, for example, were not the products of mere crime, they were the products of ideologies that tied them and their followers together......ideologies have power!
> 
> *IF Christianity produces a sect that believes that it needs to bring about conversion by violent religious war, I will condemn and oppose it completely![/*quote]
> 
> And I will stand with you on that one. Behind the scenes it may be a holy war, but at face value, we are fighting radicalism at its worst. To do nothing would be a disaster for our country, not just our beliefs.


----------



## Carol (Jan 17, 2009)

It was so much easier when all we had to do was hate the Communists...


----------



## jarrod (Jan 17, 2009)

lol, one more go around before i get to bed.



sgtmac_46 said:


> I know that's the official politically correct line......but ideologies ARE better and worse than each other......ideologies and beliefs have power, and Islam is particularly powerful (I did not say bad or evil).
> 
> If we're discussing political ideologies you wouldn't make the claim that a political ideology was 'not any better or worse' than any other.....as we know how untrue that is.
> 
> Religion is political ideology with a supernatural reinforcement.


 
religion _can_ be a political ideology with supernatural reinforcement, but all religion is not. i was not saying that one ideology is not better or worse than another. every religion allows for a wide variety of interpretation. now if someone wants to make the claims like "_militant_ islam is dangerous", "fundamentalism is dangerous", or even "elements of arab culture foster intolerance & aggression" then i would agree. but when someone says "islam is bad" i will argue with them, just like i would if they said "christianity is bad". religions in & of themselves are seldom good or bad. they are all able to enlighten or enslave. 



sgtmac_46 said:


> You missed the point......the issue was the Roman state, not Christianity......there is a difference, and you well know it. The state persecuted those who didn't adhere to the current religion in the same manner........if the issue was Christianity, then it would have not fit the pattern that occured PRIOR to Christianity........and since it fit the SAME pattern of repression before Christianity, your point is moot........Christianity was not the cause.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
ah, but you missed the point! any religion can be used to manipulate a political agenda. over here it's used to win elections, in arab nations it's used to get people to kill each other. just like the issue was the roman state & not the christian religion, the present day issue is far more complicated than simply islam. ignorance, poverty, a blood-feud culture are all significant factors. moderate & mystic muslims are no more dangerous than their counterparts in other world religions. unfortunately, "millions of muslims mind their own business" doesn't make a good headline. 



sgtmac_46 said:


> We are not a 'christian nation'......saying it for the purposes of this argument doesn't make it so.
> 
> I honestly think you guys have honed your argument with the notion that you'll be arguing with Christians so much, that you can't shift gears.


 
right you are, we are not a christian nation...i was refering to the fact that the majority of our population profess christianity, i did not mean to suggest that we are a theocracy comprable to muslim nations.

& please don't refer to me as one of "you guys"...i'm actually not spouting a party line & i'm not arguing under the assumption that you are a christian. i am operating on the assumption that you are more familiar with christianity than any other religion. religions do not exist in a bubble; religious adherents will be just as much if not more influenced by their culture, education, & economic status as their religion. 

jf


----------



## seasoned (Jan 17, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> It was so much easier when all we had to do was hate the Communists...


 


I do like your humor.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

if you think her humor is nice you should see her booty, err, i mean DUTY


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 17, 2009)

People, not religion, produce these sects, so we should condemn their acts, not the religion.

Same for any other. There's fringe nuts in every one of 'em, some in more numbers than others, but they don't live in the same world as us, so they are more free to "recruit" followers.

I think if we look around, there are more nutcases in our own country, just under different names, like anarchists, new-nazis, militias, liberals, PETA...need I go on? If they all flew the Christian flag, things would look a little different.

I would suggest reading the Bible and QURAN in context, and try to understand the time period they were written. I think both can exists peacefully - less the fundamentalists in each group.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

good advice

and just another "they did it too"

you do not and can not justify or excuse bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> you do not and can not justify or excuse bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior.



What you fail to comprehend, no matter how many times it is pointed out to you, is that no one is trying to defend the excesses of Islam or deflect that attention elsewhere.  You put forward a proposition: Islam, the religion, is uniquely bad because of X.  It is not deflection or defense to counter your point that other religions do X too.  It directly addresses your claim, and points out that Islam is not unique in the way that you claim.

Continued blindness to that fact, combined with your baseless personal claims (i.e. Muslims are more likely to be perverts than anyone else), is what has drawn your criticism here.  If you don't understand that, it's because you don't want to.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

you are getting personal again, and it is starting to get annoying, quit it.

and for the record Sparky, I didnt say the Mulims were more likely to be pervy.

i think the chance of pervy inclinations is pretty much equal all around the world

but most cultures/religions have controls and inhibitors in place so that those people with the freaky deaky impulses feel less inclined to act on them.

Islamic religion and culture by and large DONT

you cant tell a muslim not to pork the nieghbors kid when the Mullahs say it is ok

you cant tell a muslim not to feel itchy over the 9 year old, cuz the prophet did it.

I didnt say they are more likely to be pervy, I said that they are more prone to act on thier pervy-ness

those are 2 different things, but that distinction might have gone over your head.

so thats one of your craptatic accusations about me blown out of the water 

want to go for two?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> want to go for two?



Want to address the main point?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

sure I will be happy to slap you around some more.

The FACT is that NO ONE is even saying that Islam is bad, which it in fact IS.

they are blowing it off onto the PEOPLE

My point is, when the people are being taught that it is ok to kill the infidel, of course they are gonna.

Chrisitianity teaches to love thy neighbor, when chrisitians DONT, they are acting against thier religion

the inquisistion was contrary to Christ's teachings

when muslims kill infidels, they are acting in accordance WITH thier religion.

9-11 would have given the Prophet a chubby

no matter how you spin it, Islam is responsible for way too much violence and death TODAY than can be explained as "just some isolated bad people"


----------



## elder999 (Jan 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479878,00.html
> 
> RIYADH, Saudi Arabia &#8212; A pan-Arab newspaper quotes Saudi Arabia's most senior Muslim cleric as saying it is OK for 10-year-old girls to marry.
> 
> ...


 

Firstly, perhaps we could go back and give this thread a more accurate title, like _More from the Mufti of Saudi Arabia." :lfao:_

More to the point, perhaps we should look at the other things he's said.

For example, on Dec. 8, 2008, he said:



> _"Islam does not support terrorism in any form and strictly prohibits shedding blood of innocents." _


_ Seen here_

He's also said that Saudis shouldn't join jihad in Iraq or Gaza.

He's also said that people shouldn't celebrate their birthdays and women shouldn't work in lingerie stores-which is, in Saudi Arabia, a complicated legal and social issue. Women have objected to dealing with male salesmen, and the Saudi ministry of commerce and the religious police (Commission for the Prevention of Virtue and Promotion of Vice...er...reverse that.) have said that as long as it's a women only mall, women could work there, but the Mufti has his reasons for going against it. He's also against women driving, because it will lead to mingling (with men they aren't related to) which is, of course, the root of all evil. :lfao:

Perhaps it's just that he's blind as a bat, and probably a little nuts.._.:lfao:_

OF course, he's also called for moderation in Islam:



> _&#8220;Fanatical zeal cannot be considered part of religion, even if they [extremists] falsely pretend to be devout.&#8221;_


 
In any case, here's some _more from the Mufti of Saudi Arabia,_ which would be proper billing, at least.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

hmmm, food for thought a nutbark can apparently becoem the senior cleric in the homeland of islam.

says a LOT for them and thier standards.....


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> The FACT is that NO ONE is even saying that Islam is bad, which it in fact IS.



No more so than the other religions it is being compared against.  It isn't hard to find a minority of scum in any group.  As for the theology and clergy, it is easy to find dogma and leaders preaching the same for horrible ends the same in any religion.  We are trying to point out that most Muslims, just like most Christians (or anything else), are good people following moderate interpretations of their religion.



Twin Fist said:


> Chrisitianity teaches to love thy neighbor, when chrisitians DONT, they are acting against thier religion



No True Scotsman logical fallacy.  Christians teach all manner of things, and most of them have pretty solid backing from the Bible.  If you are going to claim that Jesus invalidated the law and all of the nastiness it contained, I would point you to several verses:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." -Matthew 5:17
"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." -Matthew 5:18

Meanwhile, there are a multitude of verses from the Old *and *New Testaments that have been used to condone every manner of brutality.



Twin Fist said:


> the inquisistion was contrary to Christ's teachings



Not according to the, uh, Pope of the Christians...



Twin Fist said:


> when muslims kill infidels, they are acting in accordance WITH thier religion.



"And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors." (Qur'an, 2:192)

What do you know, Islam has passages which can be interpreted for evil or for good.  Just like the rest of them...



Twin Fist said:


> 9-11 would have given the Prophet a chubby



If you have any Muslim students, I hope for their sake they aren't reading this.



Twin Fist said:


> no matter how you spin it, Islam is responsible for way too much violence and death TODAY than can be explained as "just some isolated bad people"



There are 1.5 billion Muslims in this world.  The death toll from Islamic terrorism in the past 8 years measures in the few thousands, caused by an even smaller number of terrorists.  I don't find it difficult at all to describe a few thousand of that 1.5 billion as "some isolated bad people."

Other points you have ignored in this thread which cut against your thesis:
- There are 57 majority Muslim countries in the world, most of which have no terrorists.
- Even several states in the US theoretically allow marriage as young as that proposed by the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia.
- The Grand Mufti of SA has no binding hierarchical authority in Islam as compared to your fallacious comparison to the Pope.  Even if he did, however, as Elder points out, he has also called for moderation and an end to terrorism.

At the end of the day, to get back to the main point, no one defends the excesses of Islam here.  No more than they do for other religions.  Which also have their extremists, and their dogma which can be used to promote extremism.  Which makes your singling out of Islam as uniquely bad, especially when it has been proven it is not, bigoted.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> hmmm, food for thought a nutbark can apparently becoem the senior cleric in the homeland of islam.
> 
> says a LOT for them and thier standards.....


 

Oh yeah. And Jimmy _\"Kill a gay for lookin' at me, and tell God he died,and a $20 hooker"_ Swaggert, Pat _" "I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you"_Robertson, Jerry_"the Antichrist will, by necessity, be a Jewish male_ Falwell and Oral _"God's gonna take me away if I don't raise $10 Million"_ Roberts are just the models of stability for "senior clerics" of Christianity in our homeland...

says a LOT for _us and our standards_:lfao:


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

there are some absolute moonbats in organized televised american christianity

but AGAIN, they aint emmulating Christ

The mufti, at least in THIS case, is emmulating the prophet

once again proving my point that islam is an inherently Bad religion.

prophet is a pedophile=bad religion
prophet is a science fiction writer=bad religion

prophet is a science fiction write and you buy his crap and dont let your autistic kid take medicines that could save his life=bad religion


*There are 1.5 billion Muslims in this world. The death toll from Islamic terrorism in the past 8 years measures in the few thousands, caused by an even smaller number of terrorists. I don't find it difficult at all to describe a few thousand of that 1.5 billion as "some isolated bad people."

*thats cuz you are being simplistic. "a few thousand" I think you mean if you only count American dead.Kurds killed by muslims, tens of thousands, iraqi killed by muslim rebels, several thousand, the philipines, indonesia, Europe, Mumbai,etc etc etc Just since they started acting up in at the Olympics they are EASILY in the 100's of thousands, if not millions.* 

Other points you have ignored in this thread which cut against your thesis:
- There are 57 majority Muslim countries in the world, most of which have no terrorists.

*Even a busted watch is right twice a day. Are those countries as fervently Muslim as the trouble makers? whole different answer when you ask an HONEST question*

- Even several states in the US theoretically allow marriage as young as that proposed by the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia.

*No one came up with a state that allows marraige at 10, now today.*

- The Grand Mufti of SA has no binding hierarchical authority in Islam as compared to your fallacious comparison to the Pope.

*The comparison to the pope is pretty good, not exact, but the closest thing to it that Islam has to offer. I didnt ignore it, i addressed it and disagreed. LEARN TO READ

 BTW- using words like Fallacious? makes you come across as a nancy boy book nerd. No one like those guys. In fact, those guys? they get swirly's. For a reason. Dont be that guy*

 Even if he did, however, as Elder points out, he has also called for moderation and an end to terrorism.* 

See above RE Busted Watch. 

Thanks, I sparred today, but i still needed someone to slap around. Your good for that!

KTHXBAI


----------



## Carol (Jan 17, 2009)

Babe, you need a better outlet for that pent-up energy...


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

gimme a better suggestion...........%-}


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 17, 2009)

> *- Even several states in the US theoretically allow marriage as young as that proposed by the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia.
> 
> *No one came up with a state that allows marraige at 10, now today.



From wikipedia.



> United States: Usually 18. Most states, however, allow marriage at a younger age with parental and/or judicial consent. Some states allow marriage at a still younger age if the female is pregnant. There are a few states that have a higher age. Note that violation of the law occurs at the moment of physical contact (before pregnancy), and so most men are imprisoned before any marriage takes place, leaving marriage de facto illegal.
> Alabama: 18, 16 with parental consent. (statute).
> Alaska: 18, 16 with parental consent.[35]
> Arizona: no statutory minimum, under 18 with parental consent, under 16 with approval of a superior court judge and parental consent. (statute)
> ...


----------



## elder999 (Jan 17, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> From wikipedia.


 

So, basically, Arizona, California, Kansas and West Virginia, a kid can get married at 10, if I read that right???


----------



## elder999 (Jan 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> BTW- using words like Fallacious? makes you come across as a nancy boy book nerd. No one like those guys. In fact, those guys? they get swirly's. For a reason. Dont be that guy


 

Well, I'm yer huckleberry.....:lol:

I mean, I'm a "book nerd," for sure, but I *ain't no nancy boy.*

In fact,not to stick up for Empty or anything, but I have to downright resent the implication. "Fallacious" is a perfectly`_cromulent_ word....:lfao:

Don't get no swirlies. Never did. Never will. That ain't no way for a proper Texan to talk, anyway....



Carol Kaur said:


> Babe, you need a better outlet for that pent-up energy...


 

Oh, will you two get a room or something? Jesus! :lol:


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 17, 2009)

oh elder, you do give me a tickle......

you're funny


----------



## jarrod (Jan 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Chrisitianity teaches to love thy neighbor, when chrisitians DONT, they are acting against thier religion


 
if all christianity taught was "love thy neighbor" we wouldn't have all of these denominations.  now the denomination that i was raised in taught me that blacks are inferior to whites, & that women were inferior to men.  i also learned loving teachings such as it's okay to beat up homosexuals since we can't stone them to death anymore.  all of these teachings were supported by scripture.  

now since then i've been exposed to other forms of christianity that make a lot more sense.  this split is universal in all organized religions; you will have your liberals, your moderates, your conservatives, & your none-of-the-aboves.  what the founder of a religion taught is of fairly little consequence since his teachings will inevitably be cherry-picked by his followers.  otherwise modern day christians would give everything they own to the poor & live in poverty themselves.  

jf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 18, 2009)

Monadnock said:


> People, not religion, produce these sects, so we should condemn their acts, not the religion.


 For the sake of argument, would you agree that fascism and nazism are evil ideologies in and of themselves, beyond the individuals who adhere to them?

Would you agree that those ideologies should be condemned wholesale?

People produced fascism and nazism, but the evil of those ideologies exists separate from an individual, as they can spread to others.

Now, that point is only to say that ideologies CAN be bad in and of themselves........it's not a direct comparison of nazism and fascism to anything in particular.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 18, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> What you fail to comprehend, no matter how many times it is pointed out to you, is that no one is trying to defend the excesses of Islam or deflect that attention elsewhere.  You put forward a proposition: Islam, the religion, is uniquely bad because of X.  It is not deflection or defense to counter your point that other religions do X too.  It directly addresses your claim, and points out that Islam is not unique in the way that you claim.
> 
> Continued blindness to that fact, combined with your baseless personal claims (i.e. Muslims are more likely to be perverts than anyone else), is what has drawn your criticism here.  If you don't understand that, it's because you don't want to.


 Islam IS uniquely powerful for one overwhelming reason........it teaches that individual muslims must STRUGGLE for their salvation.

Where Christianity is less powerful is in the belief that salvation is freely given, and paid for by the blood of Christ.......hence all that is required is acceptance of that sacrifice.

Islam, on the other hand, requires religious struggle in order to EARN salvation, and, while many Muslims believe the struggle to be a spiritual symbolic one (feeding hungry children) from the VERY BEGINNING that requirement to under salvation through Jihad (religious struggle) has been interpreted QUITE LITERALLY to mean Religious War.

That is powerful because it raises fearless warriors who believe, not just that they are secure in death, but that death will ensure salvation!

Hence, Islam, more than many other religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or Hinduism, is useful as a tool for those seeking to subvert it's principles to their own end........even at the hands of Mohammad itself, and ever since.



> "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live."
> 
> "A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."
> 
> ...




I think there are many good people who cannot bring themselves to be honest with themselves about this issue.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 18, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Oh yeah. And Jimmy _\"Kill a gay for lookin' at me, and tell God he died,and a $20 hooker"_ Swaggert, Pat _" "I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you"_Robertson, Jerry_"the Antichrist will, by necessity, be a Jewish male_ Falwell and Oral _"God's gonna take me away if I don't raise $10 Million"_ Roberts are just the models of stability for "senior clerics" of Christianity in our homeland...
> 
> says a LOT for _us and our standards_:lfao:


 You guys just can't resist the 'Oh yeah, well Christianity, blah, blah, blah' argument can you? :lfao:

I've actually coined a term for it.....'Mac's Law'.....that in any discussion involving Islam and it's extremes, someone will, within 10 posts or less, come out with 'Oh yeah, well Christianity, blah, blah, blah' followed by a diatribe about real and alleged extremes of Christianity.......the assumption being that the poster is arguing with a Christian, and scoring points by attacking the faith of the original poster.

Quite frankly i'm not impressed.........I first cannot think of any Christian theocratic states in existence right now, and SECOND cannot think of any current group of Christians condemning rape victims to death for adultery.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 18, 2009)

jarrod said:


> if all christianity taught was "love thy neighbor" we wouldn't have all of these denominations.  now the denomination that i was raised in taught me that blacks are inferior to whites, & that women were inferior to men.  i also learned loving teachings such as it's okay to beat up homosexuals since we can't stone them to death anymore.  all of these teachings were supported by scripture.
> 
> now since then i've been exposed to other forms of christianity that make a lot more sense.  this split is universal in all organized religions; you will have your liberals, your moderates, your conservatives, & your none-of-the-aboves.  what the founder of a religion taught is of fairly little consequence since his teachings will inevitably be cherry-picked by his followers.  otherwise modern day christians would give everything they own to the poor & live in poverty themselves.
> 
> jf


 If the current conflict were 'Christianity versus Islam' this whole 'Christianity, blah, blah, blah' line of argument might make sense......instead of being an obvious deflection.

The reality is that under Sharia, Judaism and Christianity are both allowed to be practiced, so long as the practioners live in dhimmitude. 

Secularists like myself have only the choice of conversion or death under Sharia.......I have more interest in the issue than Christians. 

Again, anyone who tells me that Christianity is no different than Islam has yet to take up my challenge.........publish an unflattering drawing of Christ, and see how you're free speech is protected........draw ANY PICTURE OF MOHAMMAD and watch as those who spout 'free speech' abandon you, and you get visited by some new 'friends' quite interested in your drawings.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 18, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> If the current conflict were 'Christianity versus Islam' this whole 'Christianity, blah, blah, blah' line of argument might make sense......instead of being an obvious deflection.
> 
> The reality is that under Sharia, Judaism and Islam are both allowed to practiced, so long as they live in dhimmitude.
> 
> Secularists like myself have only the choice of conversion or death under Sharia.......I have more interest in the issue than Christians.


 
read what i wrote in context...twin fist is holding up christianity as superior to islam, which it isn't.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 18, 2009)

The hypocrisy among those, especially on the left, when it comes to free speech and Islam ASTOUNDS me........you can have 'Family Guy' cartoons depicted Christ and, what can only be the Christian God, in all sorts of risque activities.........but 'Family Guy' wouldn't DARE show an image of Mohammad doing ANYTHING!

I think Matt Stone and Trey Parker fleshed this subject out pretty good on South Park when they made an episode with 'Peter' from 'Family Guy' in a scene with Mohammad.......and Comedy Central REFUSED to run the episode! 




> So Matt and I were like, &#8220;This is great; we have our first episode.&#8221; Comedy Central kept saying, &#8220;We&#8217;re not going to broadcast a Muhammad episode.&#8221; And we said, &#8220;You totally have the right, it&#8217;s your network, but we&#8217;re going to make one, and it&#8217;s going to be one of the seven you pay for.&#8221;



http://www.reason.com/news/show/116787.html

I have no problems with criticisms of Christianity......I have a HUGE PROBLEM with the cowardice displayed by the folks with no problem ridiculing Christianity, who turn spineless on the subject of ISLAM!


----------



## jarrod (Jan 18, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> good advice
> 
> and just another "they did it too"
> 
> you do not and can not justify or excuse bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior.


 
here's about all i have to say, then i think i'll bow out of this one for the time being.

nobody is excusing the immoral acts of certain muslims.  but if you are going to blame one religion for the actions of some of its adherents, then you have to hold all religions accountable for the negative actions of its adherents.  

no religion is "bad" or dangerous.  militancy, fundamentalism, extremism, & intolerance are dangerous, however.  i really don't care if these things manifest themselves in islam, christianity, or loyalty to coke over pepsi.  in any case these things are dangerous & deserve to be opposed.  however, islam, christianity, & soft drinks in & of themselves aren't the problem.  

jf


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 18, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> The hypocrisy among those, especially on the left, when it comes to free speech and Islam ASTOUNDS me........you can have 'Family Guy' cartoons depicted Christ and, what can only be the Christian God, in all sorts of risque activities.........but 'Family Guy' wouldn't DARE show an image of Mohammad doing ANYTHING!
> 
> I think Matt Stone and Trey Parker fleshed this subject out pretty good on South Park when they made an episode with 'Peter' from 'Family Guy' in a scene with Mohammad.......and Comedy Central REFUSED to run the episode!
> 
> ...


 
And will we ever see someone explaining WHY that is? I doubt it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 18, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> And will we ever see someone explaining WHY that is? I doubt it.


 You'll never seen an admission as to why that is......but my suspicion as to the root of it rests with the mindset of the leftist intelligentsia.......the core of the left buys in to the Marxist mindset that all conflict is rooted in wealth inequality.......ergo, they view Islamic Fundamentalism as a by-product of Capitalist (i.e. western, i.e. American, etc) greed and oppression of the Islamic world over the last 100 plus years.

As such, the left is under the belief that ULTIMATELY the Global Jihad movement is merely another quasi-nationalistic struggle against Capitalism, with the Jihadist as misguided, but ultimately seeking the same goal.....in a sense misguided brothers in the struggle against the common enemy of Capitalism.

It is that belief that drives much of the lefts debate strategy and talking points on the issue, the practice of always changing the subject to Christianity and it's excesses, the history of the western world, etc......I don't claim that this is the conscious thinking of all those who use those arguments, merely that those arguments are rooted in an ideology of it's own that views western civilizations as the root of all evil, and all others merely responding to it.

One can view the Palestinian debate as an example of this.....the REASON the Palestinian issue is such a hot one is three fold.....One, Europeans natural anti-semetism, but more importantly, second that the Soviet Union supported, armed and trained the Palestininan cause, and used it's influence to push it front page on the world stage for the last several decades prior to the Soviet Union's collapse.

It was the influence of the Soviet Union that caused their proxies in the US Student movements and left-wing intelligentsia in academia to take up the cause of the Palestinians.

And of course the final reason that the Palestinian cause is in such lime-light is the power of the Arab League as a body in the UN General Assembly.....the reason that Israel has had dozens upon dozens of UN Resolutions against it is owed ENTIRELY to the HUGE Islamic voting block in the UN General Assembly.


----------



## searcher (Jan 18, 2009)

elder999 said:


> So, basically, Arizona, California, Kansas and West Virginia, a kid can get married at 10, if I read that right???


 

Actually no.   Here in this state(KS), you will get locked up for doing anything with any child under age 16, even if you are 17.   My Wife works in the district courthouse and we see this all of the time, guys and girls convicted of rape, for having inetrcourse with ther bf or gf that is under age 16, even though it is consentual.   I am not sure where Wikipedia got their info, but it is wrong in this instance.



And on another note, the Pope does not control all Christians, only the Catholics.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 18, 2009)

searcher said:


> Actually no. Here in this state(KS), you will get locked up for doing anything with any child under age 16, even if you are 17. My Wife works in the district courthouse and we see this all of the time, guys and girls convicted of rape, for having inetrcourse with ther bf or gf that is under age 16, even though it is consentual. I am not sure where Wikipedia got their info, but it is wrong in this instance.


 
Actually, the statute in Kansas for _marriage_ (which is what was under discussion) *had no minimum age until 2006*. So, Wikipedia was *right*. One could, in theory, with the permission of the parents, the signature of an officiant recognized by the state, and proper witnesses, have  obtained a marriage license and marry a 10 year old. _Not necessarily have sex with them_, though it seems that under those circumstances it might be more difficult to prosecute. THe marriage age in Kansas is now 15, for instance, though this can be waived with a court order. Under these circumstances, one could also marry a 15 year old, which, while not quite as "icky" as a 10 year old, still might come under the statutory rape circumstances you've outlined.




searcher said:


> And on another note, the Pope does not control all Christians, only the Catholics.


 
More to the point, the Pope does not control all Catholics, only _Catholicism_.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 18, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Again, anyone who tells me that Christianity is no different than Islam has yet to take up my challenge.........publish an unflattering drawing of Christ, and see how you're free speech is protected........draw ANY PICTURE OF MOHAMMAD and watch as those who spout 'free speech' abandon you, and you get visited by some new 'friends' quite interested in your drawings.


 
I agree. When you can paint a picture (or was it a sculpture, it escapes me now) of Christ made from Fecal matter, and everyone attacks the Christians who condemmed the "art" but then calls making a Muslim watch someone wiping ones backside with pages from the Koran "tasteless" and "torture"... It astounds me.  It goes back to what I have always said, everyone claims to want Equality amongst men (and women) but what they really want is "Special"


----------



## searcher (Jan 18, 2009)

elder-good points on both.   I suppose one could marry and not concemate the marriage.


----------



## searcher (Jan 18, 2009)

And for all of you guys talking about free speach, give it a rest.   As of Tuesday, you are not going to have it anymore.    Or at least by the end of the week.



This is my opinion and I will stick by it.    Feel free to flame all you wish.


----------



## tellner (Jan 18, 2009)

sgtmac, the first ****er who tried to kill me was a Christian. It was because I was a Jew, was happy to be a Jew and didn't want to chew crackers and guzzle grape juice on Sunday. He tried to stick a ****ing knife into my guts for it and threatened to come back with a gun. 

So don't give me that self-righteous crap about how your tribe's taboos and rituals are better than any other tribe's. At least the Muslims have some place for people who don't stick their butts up in the air five times a day. 

From the time they first took power until damn near today it's been S.O.P. for Christians to convert, expel or kill anyone who wasnt' one of them. The only non-Christians left alive in Europe after the Jesus-worshippers took it over were Jews. That's only because your religion forbids killing every one of us off. A few have to be left as sacrifices to Gog and Magog or be converted. It didn't mean you couldn't rape us, burn our houses, kill most of us, steal everything we had and throw us out of our homes.

Until Church-loving Franco died and the fascists were finally eased into the toilet of history there hadn't been a single Muslim or Jew legally living in Spain or Portugal for almost five hundred years. Until that time there was an Inquisition against the Jews and Muslims. Its orders were simple. Find anyone who didn't bend his knee and engage in ritual cannibalism, torture him, and kill him for the Glory of Christ. Oh yes, they were supposed to torture and kill the women and little children as well.

The Christians murdered Jews wholesale throughout Eastern and Central Europe from the thirteenth century to the point where the Nazis had to protect them from Polish and Romanian Christians so they could be rounded up and slaughtered in an orderly fashion. 

The lucky were kept in ghettoes.

That was when Catholics weren't murdering Hugenots, the Church of England wasn't murdering Catholics, Catholics and Orthodox werent' slaughtering each other from the Balkans to Byeloruss and everyone wasn't practicing outright genocide against the Romany. 

The saying "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" was just that sort of thing. There were towns of Cathar Christians. It was hard to tell who was the right sort of Christian. So Christian policy was to kill everyone and wait for Judgment Day to sort it all out. 

The bloodiest and most terrible civil war in history was the Tai-Peng rebellion in China. Crazed Christians ended up murdering at least twenty million, and that was just battlefield casualties and official dead. That doesn't include the millions starved because he expected Jesus to come back any minute and took planting the fields as a lack of faith. 

Not too far off we had the aftermath of the Opium Wars. As the Chinese say "Buddha came into China on a white horse. Christ came in on a cannonball." The missionaries hand in glove with the drug dealers who forced their disgusting filth into Chinese ports to help with the Christian world's balance of payments. 

America? People who could read and think had to fight like hell to keep the Christians from having an Established Church. The only reasons we don't have one is a disagreement among the fanatics about which shaman would have the Big Juju and get to Lord it over the rest and some glimmerings among the thinkers that nobody should have the big sticks of Church AND State in the same set of hands. But that didnt' stop "restricted" neighborhoods. It didn't stop quotas to keep Jews and Catholics out of universities, trades and jobs in areas which didn't want that sort around. It didn't stop your Brothers in the Klan from coming around to burn and kill. And it didn't stop the blanket parties for Jews when my father was in the Army. 

Your Commander in Chief, George W. Bush, has said publicly that he "chosen by G-d" to lead the country. His daddy said that people who didn't believe in your Big Magic Sky Guy weren't citizens. Your Ayatollahs like Warren say your sort should be "like the Hitler Youth", that you have to wage "spiritual warfare" against everyone who isn't just like you, that we should invade countries "kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" and replace secular govnerment with a theocracy. These aren't fringe nuts. These are people like Dobson, Robertson and Kennedy, your religion's respected leaders.

So don't get so superior and sanctimonious. There's at least as much innocent blood on Christ's hands as on Mohammed's.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 18, 2009)

the fact that you referre to this person as "the first...." says there have been more...

you know, if billy doesnt like susie, it might be susie, it might be billy. If billy, freddie, jack, joe, larry, shemp and curly dont like susie, it's prob susie

Hmmmm. After reading your stuff for the last 10 months, I have a funny feeling it was just because me met you, not cuz you were a jew......







tellner said:


> sgtmac, the first ****er who tried to kill me was a Christian. It was because I was a Jew, was happy to be a Jew and didn't want to chew crackers and guzzle grape juice on Sunday. He tried to stick a ****ing knife into my guts for it and threatened to come back with a gun.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 18, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> No one came up with a state that allows marraige at 10, now today.



Arizona, California, Kansas, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.  Although in all those cases, you would need to find a judge to go along with it.



Twin Fist said:


> BTW- using words like Fallacious? makes you come across as a nancy boy book nerd.



I have a Bachelor's and Master's Degree, and have nearly completed my PhD.  I've been in school of one form or another for 26 years.  That makes me a nancy boy book nerd, I guess.  I'm not going to throw away my hard earned education to sound like and earn the approval of a herd of yokels.



Twin Fist said:


> No one like those guys. In fact, those guys? they get swirly's. For a reason.



No one has accomplished it yet.  You can try if you like...


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 18, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Where Christianity is less powerful is in the belief that salvation is freely given, and paid for by the blood of Christ.......hence all that is required is acceptance of that sacrifice.



That is a highly contentious issue among Christianity, actually, and is far from settled.  The Catholic church for one posits (or at least they used to) salvation by works.  This was a major issue of the Protestant split, who generally believed in salvation by grace.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 18, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> I agree. When you can paint a picture (or was it a sculpture, it escapes me now) of Christ made from Fecal matter, and everyone attacks the Christians who condemmed the "art" but then calls making a Muslim watch someone wiping ones backside with pages from the Koran "tasteless" and "torture"... It astounds me. It goes back to what I have always said, everyone claims to want Equality amongst men (and women) but what they really want is "Special"


 
I agree. I could care less about which religion has more skeletons in the closet. My issue is with the various forms of blatant inequality like those that you have pointed out. The reasons for which I think Sgtmac is probably hitting close to the mark.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 18, 2009)

that nancy boy book nerd thing?

you're doing it again.With an added bit of "i am better than you"

Dont be that guy. it just invites swirly's




Empty Hands said:


> I'm not going to throw away my hard earned education to sound like and earn the approval of a herd of yokels.


----------



## tellner (Jan 18, 2009)

You're getting desperate here TF. You've spouted your megachurch propaganda and had it ripped to shreds. You've dutifully repeated Party talking points and found out they don't stand up to facts and history. You've tried to tell convince of us of the personal moral superiority of you and your tribe. It hasn't worked. In fact, it turns out you know less about it than the people you're trying to browbeat.

So now you're reduced to calling people names if they know more than you, casting aspersions about their heterosexuality and threatening to stick their heads in the toilet. 

If that's the quality of Spiritual Warrior your sort throws up to combat the forces of Evil, Satan, Science, Islam, Communism, Evolution, Homosexuality, Women, Negroes, Sinister Orientals, Trade Unions, Freemasonry, Atheism and Four-Eyed Nancy Boy Intellectualism you might as well pack it in now.

Color me extremely unimpressed.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 18, 2009)

wow, you really do just make this stuff as you go along dont you??


----------



## searcher (Jan 18, 2009)

tellner, sorry to hear that a supposed Christian tried to stab you for be of the Jewish faith.   I am part Israeli(1/16th), but I am also a Christian and I assure you, I will never condone the stabbing of a person for their spiritual belief.


Now I wish to make a statement about Islam in comparison to Jewish or Christian beliefs.     I will allow for more tollerance of Islam when I stop seeing them having their believers strap bombs onto themselves and blowing up innocent people.    I find it quite hypocritical that the clerics of Islam tell others to kill themselves, but they are to cowardly to do it themselves.    Not that I want to see themselves blowing themselves or anyone else up.   And the marrying of a child of 10 is quite disgusting, they are babies andneed to be allowed to grow up and make decisions for themselves.


OK, let me have it.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 18, 2009)

Islam is about as old now as Xtianity was at the time of the Inquisition. 

Islam just has the advantage of better weapons and transportation.

Just saying..


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 18, 2009)

scary thought


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 18, 2009)

tho in fairness, the inquisistion wasnt christianity, it was the catholic church


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jan 18, 2009)

You know, this is a good debate topic, and it'll be a damn shame if you (generic you here) get kicked out of the party because you let your passions get the better of you. Calm down, stop trying to kick each other in the junk and Vulcan up a bit already. As much as I think a few of you are a bit thick sometimes, and maybe in need of some electroshock treatment, I enjoy reading what you write, even when I disagree, and even when I want to jump in and stir up some ****, but now's not the time for that. Not unless you want to piss off the boys with the axes. Cool it with the personal shots and all that huh?

Because if you don't, I'll go cook that bunny with the pancake on his head. You wouldn't want him to get hurt now, would you? irate:


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 18, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> tho in fairness, the inquisistion wasnt christianity, it was the catholic church


 
In fairness, Islamic terrorism isn't all of Islam, just some sects.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 18, 2009)

never said otherwise


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2009)

jarrod said:


> read what i wrote in context...twin fist is holding up christianity as superior to islam, which it isn't.


 Yeah, well, i'm not.....i'm holding up secularism as superior to Islam, and the secular Western world as superior to the Islamic world.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> I agree. When you can paint a picture (or was it a sculpture, it escapes me now) of Christ made from Fecal matter, and everyone attacks the Christians who condemmed the "art" but then calls making a Muslim watch someone wiping ones backside with pages from the Koran "tasteless" and "torture"... It astounds me.  It goes back to what I have always said, everyone claims to want Equality amongst men (and women) but what they really want is "Special"


 Exactly!

And I think granting the Islamic world this status is fundamentally dangerous!  The same standard should apply which is, if you want to LIVE in the western world, you've got to get over this 'Lets KILL anyone who blasphemes ALLAH!' mentality.

Yet, in the interest of wanting to APPEAR 'Tolerant' too many folks are actually endorsing special protective status on Islam, that doesn't apply to any other major religion.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2009)

tellner said:


> sgtmac, the first ****er who tried to kill me was a Christian. It was because I was a Jew, was happy to be a Jew and didn't want to chew crackers and guzzle grape juice on Sunday. He tried to stick a ****ing knife into my guts for it and threatened to come back with a gun.
> 
> So don't give me that self-righteous crap about how your tribe's taboos and rituals are better than any other tribe's. At least the Muslims have some place for people who don't stick their butts up in the air five times a day.


 I don't have a tribe, Champ, I'm agnostic.....but thank you for playing! 


Again, you folks seem stuck on the notion that ANYONE who criticizes Islam MUST be a Christian.....and it's looking sillier and more ridiculous every time!

Quite frankly I don't want to convert to ANY religion......but at least the Jehovah Witnesses leave when I shut the door!



tellner said:


> So don't get so superior and sanctimonious. There's at least as much innocent blood on Christ's hands as on Mohammed's.


 Well, assuming Christ actually existed, there is no evidence he was a WARLORD!  So your statement is asinine on it's face....again, thank you for playing. 


There's SOMEONE superior and sanctimonious (with the wrong idea) in this conversation, but it AIN'T ME!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> That is a highly contentious issue among Christianity, actually, and is far from settled.  The Catholic church for one posits (or at least they used to) salvation by works.  This was a major issue of the Protestant split, who generally believed in salvation by grace.


 It's all irrelevant, as I pointed out, since you have to go in the INCREASINGLY distant past to find larger numbers of folks killing each other in Christian religious wars.......the western world has become SECULARIZED!

So the 'Oh yeah, well Christianity, blah, blah, blah' continues to be exposed for the canard that it really is.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> wow, you really do just make this stuff as you go along dont you??


I'm guessing yes.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> In fairness, Islamic terrorism isn't all of Islam, just some sects.


 By most rational estimates the Fundamentalist Islamic population is roughly 10% of the 1 Billion Muslims worldwide......or roughly 100 Million muslims.

Now, that entire 100 million certainly isn't militant, perhaps......10 percent of that......perhaps 10 million muslims worldwide qualify as MILITANT Islamic Fundamentalists.

'Tiny' sect.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Islam is about as old now as Xtianity was at the time of the Inquisition.
> 
> Islam just has the advantage of better weapons and transportation.
> 
> Just saying..


 Actually, for the sake of historical accuracy.....Islam BEGAN this way, at the bloody hands of it's Warlord founder, Mohammad, who converted by the sword those who did not convert by the word.....and Islam conquered everything between the middle east and the Iberian Peninsula in Europe over the next 200 years, only stopping in the face of European military force at the Battle of Tours.

Islam actually had the military advantage until 1683 when they were turned about at the gates of Vienna......and only for the last 400 years have they been on the decline owing to Western technological superiority only.

None of those facts are in dispute.


----------



## jarrod (Jan 19, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Yeah, well, i'm not.....i'm holding up secularism as superior to Islam, and the secular Western world as superior to the Islamic world.


 
well guess what mac...i agree with you.  but you were taking a comment of mine directed at twin fist & acting as if i was arguing with you.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 19, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Now, that entire 100 million certainly isn't militant, perhaps......10 percent of that......perhaps 10 million muslims worldwide qualify as MILITANT Islamic Fundamentalists.
> 
> 'Tiny' sect.


 
Actually, since only about 1 in 50 terrorist acts worldwide are committed by women, we can toss just under 50% of that 10 million, to bring the pool down to 5 million. And, since the vast majority of terrorist acts committed by Islamic men is committed by men between the ages of 15 and 30, we caln lower that pool by another 75% to 1.25 million. 

Of that 1.25 million, though, how many do you suppose are living in caves in Afghanistan, or the jungles of the Phillipines, or....well, how many do you figure were killed in Gaza last week, and how much do you think the ones that are left can do to us....

(Actually,based on CIA estimates, your initially posted estimates are probably wrong, and probably grossly underestimating, but since I can't post a link to those CIA estimates, we'll use your numbers-the last sentence still applies: most of that number can't do diddly-they lack the support, logistics and ability to act against us. All they can do is sit in their caves, wishing they had some plastique and some way of moving against the U.S. in the U.S.........and maybe masturbate thinking about the 72 virgins they're not gonna get....)


----------



## searcher (Jan 19, 2009)

Not to get to sidetracked here or anything, but this discussion makes me think of that door-gunner in _Full Metal_ _Jacket.:biggun:   _As sad as it is, how do we decide who to shoot at and who to leave alone.   Do we just need to start shooting and whoever is left must be the non-militant ones?    Probably not.   It is going to take the non-militant Muslims getting tired of the militant ones before any real change will happen.    But I don't think we can sit back and wait on that to happen.  
 Where is the CIA when you need them?verkill:


----------



## elder999 (Jan 19, 2009)

searcher said:


> As sad as it is, how do we decide who to shoot at and who to leave alone. Do we just need to start shooting and whoever is left must be the non-militant ones?


 
By way of an answer, I offer the following:




Twin Fist said:


> *
> it's hard sometimes to not wish for the removal of this......"religion" from our world.*


 


Twin Fist said:


> we are not primitive barbarians brainwashed by a cult that teaches it is ok to stone rape victims, force school girls to burn to death cuz we wont let them outside without thier hijab, or to "seek out the infidel and kill them wherever you find them, or force them to pay the jiziza"
> 
> This isnt just SOME cleric, this is the GRand Mufti of SA, thats like the Pope comming out and saying it is ok to rape little boys. So EH's comparison to LDS practicing Plural marraige FAILS.
> 
> ...


 



Twin Fist said:


> AGAIN for teh dense, this was the GRAND MUFTI, the equivilent of the POPE. Arguably the most powerfull single cleric in ALL ISLAM


 
(*Again,* I need to point out that he is not at all "arguably the most powerfil single cleric in ALL ISLAM," in fact he's not at all "the equivalent of the POPE," in fact, he's just some guy-they don't even follow his orders about terrorism and jihad, so why should they listen to what he says about marrying little girls? 

I also need to point out how indicative this is of your ignorance in this regard. 

If you were so wrong about this, what else are you wrong about?)



Twin Fist said:


> And as far as deviency goes, getting it on with kids is pretty common.
> 
> *ALL muslims? of course not. But theones that DONT think that way do so not becausefo the religion, they do it IN SPITE of the religion,* cuz the religion tells them it is ok.


 




Twin Fist said:


> *Bluntly, I consider islam a cult of death*. I consider pretty much all religion silly, but *Islam is dangerous. No other religion that i know of commands it's followers to go out and KILL
> 
> Islam does. And they do.
> 
> ...


 


Twin Fist said:


> *the enemy IS islam*
> 
> the book says flat out to seek out the infidel and kill them, to convert them by force, to have sex with 9 year olds.
> 
> ...


 

....so, I guess we have to kill them all.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 19, 2009)

ok Elder, NOW you are annoying me

The mufti isnt just some guy.


grand Mufti:
Senior cleric, voted in my all the other clerics in Saudi, the homeland of islam

the Pope:
senior cleric, voted in by all the other clerics in the vatican, the heart of the catholic church

that makes him considerable more than "some guy" and you know full well it does.

what I actually said:
Islam is a religion
islam was founded by a pedophile
islam tells it's followers to go out and kill infidels
there is no excuse for these actions
it is BS to compare christianity 500 years ago to Islam TODAY
I think the world would be better without Islam (just my opinion)
Islam is a religion, not a race, so my feelings cannot be described honestly as racist.

every single one of these statements are true (or an opinion, not a statement of fact)

none of them are NICE, but they are all true.  

what I didnt say:
kill all muslims

i said, explicitly that the problem isnt the people, the problem is the religion itself.

now thats an opinion, and can tbe proven or disproven in any real way. But it is in fact my opinion.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> ok Elder, NOW you are annoying me


 
*Good!* :lfao:




Twin Fist said:


> The mufti isnt just some guy.
> 
> 
> grand Mufti:
> ...


 
Well, is he considerable more than the Grand Mufti of Yemen? Or the Grand Mufti of Australia? I think Australia has more people, so he must be greater than that one.....of course, they've *both* issued _fatwa_ agianst terrorism, and yet there are still fundamentalists willing to carry out "_jihad_" against the U.S., so it must be someone even greater than them...let's see....the population of Saudi Arabia is about 27 million, the population of Iraq is also about 27 million-but wait, they're mostly _shia_, and the shiites don't have a _mufti_. I know! The population of Russia is about 140 million.

It must be the Grand Mufti of Russia...:lfao: you've been barking up the wrong mufti...:lfao:




Twin Fist said:


> what I actually said:


 
I posted and quoted what you *"actually said." *Do you deny saying those things? 



Twin Fist said:


> islam was founded by a pedophile


 
"Christianity was founded by a cannibal."

"Buddhism was founded by a spoiled rich kid."

"The Fransiscan order was founded by a schizophrenic."

"Lutheranism was founded by a drunkard."

"Mormonism was founded by a con-man." 

Of course, Muhammad had _already_ "founded Islam" when he took his 10 year old bride, so that's not exactly true anyway.....better to say that Islam was founded by a guy who _became_ a pedophile, but that's not quite right either, any more than any of that other nonsense I just posted....

Context is everything. _Today_ he'd be a pedophile, _in our culture_. 700 odd years ago, in the Arab world, just not that unusual, I'll bet. And it's not like the Mufti-any of them-could say that the "prophet was wrong," and it's not like their culture forbids it (unlike, say, in _Russia_), so of course the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia said that it's okay to marry a 10 year old-not desirable, not necessary, but acceptable.This brings up a few questions, though, but the primary one would have to be: 

*How many men are going to give their 10 year old daughters in marriage anyway, do ya think?* :lfao:

Even in as bass ackwards a place as Saudi Arabia? :lol:

Where the average marriage age for a woman is 20.1 years? :lol:

Where, not incidentally, women are getting more rights, bit by bit,dowries are going up, and the divorce rate is going up..... 

(Not to mention that by *your own logic* mentioning the "Prophet's pedophilia" 700 years in the past is no more a valid argument than bringing up past "Christian evils." :lfao: So, I won't even bother mentioning that the Old Testament doesn't give a lower age limit for marriage, either, and that some of those "Biblical babes" were kinda young when they got married. Oops, I did mention it, didn't I? :lfao



Twin Fist said:


> I think the world would be better without Islam (just my opinion)
> Islam is a religion, not a race, so my feelings cannot be described honestly as racist.


 
No, you're right. They're not "racist" -it's just hard to see how you _aren't_ calling for some sort of genocide, though-albeit one that wipes out most of the Arab world, parts of Asia, parts of Europe, and a few million U.S. citizens.

Don't know what you'd call that...."_religionist_?" _Theobigotry_?" I know!

*"Anti-Islamism!"*

And, at this point John, while not a moderator, I should remind you of a few rules here-otherwise, you might just get removed from the sandbox, leaving me without such an inadequate and amusing "punching bag" as yourself..... (I'd say "sparring partner," but you're not even decent a moving target on this one...) :lfao:



The Rules can be found here

And they say:




> *Hate Speech*
> 
> Hate speech is not allowed. Posts that contain material that is racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted, or otherwise offensive, are not allowed. While discussion of certain social and political issues may require the use of sensitive or potentially offensive terms, outside of those limited contexts the use of such terms is not allowed on this board.


 
They also say:



> *MartialTalk Policy on Religious Tolerance*
> 
> 
> Religion is an important part of the lives of many of our members, and we believe it is important that people be given the opportunity to express their religious and spiritual beliefs in their online lives. This goes for all faiths, equally.
> ...


----------



## searcher (Jan 19, 2009)

Alright boays and girls, in about 2 seconds I am going to pull this planet over and toss a nuke into the backseat.:tantrum:

:redeme:

And ifwe don't get this problem solved, I will toss another. And I will keep tossing nukes until this problem goes away.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 19, 2009)

Not quite there Slick



elder999 said:


> "Christianity was founded by a cannibal."
> 
> "Buddhism was founded by a spoiled rich kid."
> 
> ...


 
not so fast
Mohammad was a pedophile. That is a fact. Those others are not facts, but opinions. So the comparison isnt exact. I know you were making stupid comparisons to try and make a point, but some people are too stupid not to realize this, sarcasm fails in print for the most part remember, so it has to be said.



elder999 said:


> *How many men are going to give their 10 year old daughters in marriage anyway, do ya think?* :lfao:


 
with the big cleric telling them it is ok? prob more than one, and thats too many in this day and age. And it is just an example of why Islam is bad, it is backward. They are trying to return to the 6th century, and that is bad.



elder999 said:


> No, you're right. They're not "racist" -it's just hard to see how you _aren't_ calling for some sort of genocide,


 
that isnt my problem. i didnt say that, so accusing me of it is unfair and untrue. not that you have, but some have and it is dishonest and unfair.



elder999 said:


> Don't know what you'd call that...."_religionist_?" _Theobigotry_?" I know!
> 
> *"Anti-Islamism!""*




I tend to call it "common sense" and "courage to tell the truth"

if, as someone posted upthread, the pope's failure to condemn the scandel is paramount to approving of it, then the failure on my part to denounce some of the practices of a group, even though they be a religion, (and why should religions be off limits anyways?) would be the same as endocring those practices.




elder999 said:


> leaving me without such an inadequate and amusing "punching bag" as yourself.....


 
I would say the score is pretty much even on that one partner.....


----------



## elder999 (Jan 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Not quite there Slick
> not so fast
> Mohammad was a pedophile. That is a fact. Those others are not facts, but opinions. So the comparison isnt exact.


 
Well, I dunno.

Joseph Smith *was* a convicted con man.In March, 1826, a court in Bainbridge, N.Y., convicted a 21- Joseph Smit of being "a disorderly person and an impostor."At he trial admitted to defrauding citizens by organizing mad golddigging expeditions and also to claiming to possess dark or "necromantic" powers. Of course, unlike Muhammad, we can actually read archival copies of the newspaper accounts.....that's a *fact*, BTW.....:lfao:

I could go on about the cannibalistic roots of theophagy, the psychological analysis of St. Francis, the drinking habits of Martin Luther, and the upbringing of Siddharta Gautama, but I'll try not to confuse you with too many more *facts*, since you seem to get "fact" and "opinion" a little mixed up...:lfao:




Twin Fist said:


> I would say the score is pretty much even on that one partner.....


 

Well of course you would. That's okay, it's not the first time you've been *wrong* in this thread, and it's not the first time you won't admit being wrong, either.

Probably won't be the last....seems you have a little trouble telling the difference. :lfao:

I just can't resist for some reason, but Daddy used to always tell me not to get in a battle of wits with someone who was unarmed....:lol:

(You'd still do well to pay attention to what I said, John. A word to the not-so-wise...:lfao


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 19, 2009)

you know, you can give advice without sounding so condescending. Much like sarcasm, humor doesnt translate to th written form very well.

something apparently YOU didnt know.

(wait, what do you mean there's no more room on the list of stuff Elder didnt know? really? well scratch off something thats not important, like the difference between "wont admit they are wrong " and "not convinced they are wrong")


----------



## tellner (Jan 19, 2009)

For chrissake Twinnie. "They were Catholics, not Christians"? Come on, you can do better than that. That's like saying "Those Shia aren't real Muslims" or "No True Scotsman". 

Outside of the Orthodox Church the Catholics have been the majority of Christians from the word "go". And the Orthodox and Protestants have been just as vicious, just as bloodthirsty. 

And sgtmac, the proportion of truly whacked out murderous Christians in this country is probably just as great as whacked out murderous Muslims in any Muslim country. The fact that they came out in droves for their "Esther" the execrable crazed Sarah Palin speaks volumes. So does the quality of Christianity in much of the world including the supposedly-developed United States - exorcisms, demons, speaking in tongues, touching your television so the witch doctor can heal you. Or consider the Dominionists, the Christian Reconstructionists, the Dispensationalists and the rest of that evil crew who make up the political arm of the Church Militant. Consider examples like that disgrace to the Uniform, General Boykin or the takeover of the Air Force Academy by the Fundamentalists.

These are hard-core Christians who believe that your god Jesus will not be allowed to return until America is a theocracy and we have conquered most of the rest of the world in Jesus' name. And they have been embraced by your Decider who has said he was chosen by the Almighty as the Commander Guy ( his words).

And you have the temerity to talk about any other religion's fanatics.

As far as that goes the Crusade against the Muslims has killed staggeringly more innocents than all the acts of terrorism against the Christians. The only difference is that we call it "statesmanship" or "collateral damage". The fanatics who ran the US government caused the deaths of at least half a million Iraqis. The entire Christian population has been forced into exile. We don't even let people in to estimate the number of Afghani dead, but it's at least in the hundreds of thousands. Economic warfare alone killed at least a quarter million Iraqis between the Persian Gulf Live Fire Exercise and *O*peration *I*raqi *L*iberation.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Jan 19, 2009)

Though Muhammad married a bride of 10yrs of age I doubt it was for a Pedophile reason.



> British historian William Montgomery Watt suggests that Muhammad hoped to strengthen his ties with Abu Bakr;[1] the strengthening of ties commonly served as a basis for marriage in Arabian culture


 
In other cultures marriage can be used as a political motivation,or strenghtening bond of two rivial families.

Muhammad's first wife was not a child but at an age of 40yrs

He married in his later youth implying late teens or maybe mid 20's.

Islam as a whole does not tell people to kill infidels anymore then 
Catholics as a whole molest little boys.

You may not be a racist Twin Fist but you fit this defination:



> *big·ot·ry *
> 
> (b
> 
> ...


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Mohammad was a pedophile. That is a fact.


 

Actually, Mohammad married a 10 year old. That is pedophilia by *today's* standards. It was not back then. Stop trying to impose today's moral standards to the past.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> you know, you can give advice without sounding so condescending. Much like sarcasm, humor doesnt translate to th written form very well.
> 
> something apparently YOU didnt know.


 
And yet you seem to know I'm joking.....must be all those rolling on the floor laughing their asses off smilies I use... :lfao:



Twin Fist said:


> (wait, what do you mean there's no more room on the list of stuff Elder didnt know? really?


 
Sure there's lots of room on that list, just like there's lots of _stuff_ on that list..... Not really sure what you're trying to say here, but that's not unusual. It must be something like "humor not translating well to written form," I guess. (BTW, not that I'd compare myself to them, but you should read some Mark Twain, or even Steve Martin. Dave Barry, too...they're _really_ funny!)

In any case: 



Twin Fist said:


> well scratch off something thats not important, like the difference between "wont admit they are wrong " and "not convinced they are wrong")


 
In *your* case, apparently there isn't *any* difference.....and why would there be?.:lfao:


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 19, 2009)

BZZZZZZZZZ wrong answer. Thanks for playing

the bible doesnt say "take your pleasure with the youth"

the Koran DOES say "seek out the infidel and kill them"

you are wrong



JadecloudAlchemist said:


> Islam as a whole does not tell people to kill infidels anymore then
> Catholics as a whole molest little boys.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 19, 2009)

Elder, you may be joking, but you are essentially calling me dishonest, and you know i am not that.

BTW- research shows that Smith didnt admitt defrauding anyone, he admitted taking work looking for treasure, and not finding any.
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_1826_Trial_of_Joseph_Smith.html

those are different things.

(BTW, not that I'd compare myself to them, but you should read some Mark Twain, or even Steve Martin. Dave Barry, too...they're _really_ funny!)

well yeah, they are actually, you know....._FUNNY_

and I know the difference there Sparky. I am not convinced Oswald acted alone. I wont admit that I love Conway Twitty's music......

oh damn i just did


----------



## elder999 (Jan 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Elder, you may be joking, but you are essentially calling me dishonest, and you know i am not that.
> 
> BTW- research shows that Smith didnt admitt defrauding anyone, he admitted taking work looking for treasure, and not finding any.
> http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_1826_Trial_of_Joseph_Smith.html
> ...


 

Actually, I said he was *convicted*, and what it was for. Those would be, you know, what's that word you like so much? Oh, yeah! *FACTS!*

Fact is, Joe Smith from N.Y. was a convicted con man-and prophet of the LDS.





Twin Fist said:


> BZZZZZZZZZ wrong answer. Thanks for playing
> 
> the bible doesnt say "take your pleasure with the youth"
> 
> ...


 
But we can't even use what the Bible _does_ say, because, according to you and others, "past atrocities of Christianity" don't count, or something, never mind the simple *facts* of what the book actually says......

...funny how easy it is for everyone else to be "wrong" when *you're* the one making the rules .....

....let's take a look at what the Bible *does* say, and we'll just restrict it to those patriarchs and prophets that might be comparable to Muhammad....

Abram tells his wife, Sarai, to lie about being his wife, and at Genesis 20:2, Abram, now called Abraham for his "just actions," he himself lies about "Sarah" being his wife. When Abraham is caught in his fib regarding Sarah not being his wife, he continues the lie and doesn't even bat an eye at the incestuous implications, as he tells the king of Gerar--who, thinking Sarah is Abraham's sister, has nearly had sex with her--that Sarah is both Abraham's wife _and_ his sister, but not by the same father. And at Genesis 16:3, Abraham continues his godly behavior and commits adultery and bigamy with Hagar the Egyptian (not to mention treason, since Egypt is an enemy of the Lord's chosen). Remember, this is the behavior of one of the Lord's greatest prophets.

*Who was Abraham?* An insane barbarian patriarch who married his sister, denied his wife, and seduced her handmaid; who drove one child into the desert to starve, and made preparations to butcher the other.

The pious prophet's son, Isaac, has also learned his father's trick of lying, and he too plays it upon the king of Gerar at Genesis 26:7. The king finds him out when he catches Isaac fondling his wife, but Isaac, not as good a liar as his papa, tells him the truth. For his high moral character, Isaac is eventually made very wealthy by the Lord.Of course, Abraham is not the only pious person who displays behavior which would be unacceptable by today's moral standards but which is considered perfectly fine and virtuous because it is committed by a biblical character. At Genesis 20:32-36, the divinely chosen Lot is made drunk and then seduced by his daughters. This immoral act is done, one assumes, with the blessings of the Lord, because it serves to continue the Hebraic lineage.


*Who was Jacob? *Another patriarch, who won God's love by deceiving his father, cheating his uncle, robbing his brother, practicing bigamy with two of his cousins, and committing fornication with two of his housemaids. 

*Who was Moses?* A model of meekness; a man who boasted of his own humility; a man who murdered an Egyptian and hid his body in the sand; a man who exterminated whole nations to secure the spoils of war, a man who butchered in cold blood thousands of captive widows, a man who tore dimpled babes from the breasts of dying mothers and put them to a cruel death; a man who made orphans of thirty-two thousand innocent girls, and turned sixteen thousand of them over to the brutal lusts of a savage soldiery. 

*Who was David?* "A man after God's own heart." A vulgar braggadocio; a traitor, desiring to lead an enemy's troops against his own countrymen; a thief and robber, plundering the country on every side; a liar, uttering wholesale falsehoods to screen himself from justice; a red-handed butcher, torturing and slaughtering thousands of men, women, and children, making them pass through burning brick-kilns, carving them up with saws and axes, and tearing them into pieces under harrows of iron; a polygamist, with a harem of wives and concubines; a drunken debauchee, dancing half-naked before the maids of his household; a lecherous old libertine, abducting and ravishing the wife of a faithful soldier; a murderer, having that faithful soldier put to death after desolating his home; a hoary-headed fiend, foaming with vengeance on his dying bed, demanding with his last breath the deaths of two aged men, one of whom had most contributed to make his kingdom what it was, the other a man to whom he had promised protection. 

And so on and so on throughout the "Holy" Bible. Which "should be taught in every school" but definitely would have a hard time making it to our movies screens or would be V-chipped out of our TVs.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 19, 2009)

Nasty how some things can look when painted in a 'modern' light isn't it?

It's also nasty how some of these posts are starting to shape up here.  It'd be a service to us all if people can bear in mind the most basic of the rules of conduct on these fora (or maybe even read the banner that's at the top of every page where it whispers something about being a "Friendly Discussion Forum").


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 19, 2009)

Not so Fast Sparky

here is what you said



elder999 said:


> At he trial admitted to defrauding citizens by organizing mad golddigging expeditions and also to claiming to possess dark or "necromantic" powers.


 

you said "he admitted to defrauding"

that isnt true. He admitted to taking work looking for treasure. 

subtle difference

and lost on you apparently.

And jade posted:
"Islam as a whole does not tell people to kill infidels anymore then 
Catholics as a whole molest little boys."

which is incorrect, as i pointed out, since Islam does in fact tell it's people to kill infidels. It's in the book

catholics as a whole do not molest boys


the rest of your post is just more "they did it too" deflection

it's GOOD deflection, dont get me wrong, but it isnt really germain to the point.

Suk,
me and elder are being friendly, sure, he is being a little mean about it, but i dont mind, if that much of my forehead was visible, I would be testy too.........%-}


----------



## elder999 (Jan 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> you said "he admitted to defrauding"
> 
> that isnt true. He admitted to taking work looking for treasure.
> 
> ...


 
You're right. He confessed to the crimes he was convicted of, but didn't confess to fraud....of course, just because he committed and was convicted of a crime, doesn't mean he didn't have a legitimate religious experience, or found a legitimate religoin.....subtle difference, and lost on you, apparently...:lfao:



Twin Fist said:


> Suk,
> me and elder are being friendly, sure, he is being a little mean about it, but i dont mind, if that much of my forehead was visible, I would be testy too.........


 
Huh? I'm sure all of *your* forehead is visible, just as all of mine is-or *anyone else's*....please try to make a litle more sense. I realize it's difficult while you're trying to keep up, but do it anyway.....:lfao:


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Jan 19, 2009)

TwinFist can you please cite where in the Quran it says this?

http://shodalap.com/R_Violent_Verses.pdf

I suppose we can take any religious texts and use it for our agenda.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 19, 2009)

I already have. Read up-thread


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 19, 2009)

yeah, but few people have quite that much forehead visable..........


----------



## elder999 (Jan 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> yeah, but few people have quite that much forehead visable..........


 

Dude, I've got a big head-like size 9. Have to have all my hats custom made. Pretty much all of me is big, but my head is BIG. Of course I have more forehead visible than most people.....still don't get what you're saying....it's okay though, most of what you've posted on this thread hasn't made much sense..:lfao:

Wait a minute, I've got just the thing for you somwhere around here....there it is!

Here ya go:


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 19, 2009)

Context of the verse in question:

http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/are_we_really_supposed_to_kill_all_the_infidels/

And for the record, the Christian bible, even looking at just the New Testament, does have some pretty nasty things prescribed for non-believers, especially when we are allowed to cherry-pick verses out of context.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 19, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Actually, I said he was *convicted*, and what it was for. Those would be, you know, what's that word you like so much? Oh, yeah! *FACTS!*
> 
> Fact is, Joe Smith from N.Y. was a convicted con man-and prophet of the LDS.
> 
> ...


 

Well you can't say these guys weren't human can you? don't forget in Judaism, free choice is given, just because the laws are there doesn't mean people chose to follow them. Each person is the architect of his own life. 

"_A man came to a Polish magnate and asked him " What do you think of the Jews?" The answer was "Swine, Christ-killers, usurers, not to be trusted." "But what do you think of of Isaac?" " A man after my own heart. An honourable man. A kind man. He saved me from bankrupcy" And what do you think of Berl? " I have known Berl all my life. He's one of the best" And of Shmuel? "Shmuel is a saint as everyone knows"_
_The same man went to a rich and pious Jew and asked him "What do you think of the Jews?" The pious man answered " A kingdom of priests and a holy nation, the elect of the Eternal, blessed be his name" And what do you think of Isaac? "That thief? That scoundrel? may his bones be broken. he looks at you and you are robbed" And of Berl? " A fellow of the same kind, without truth or justice" And of Shmuel? "Do you think I'm taken in by his piety? A pretentious idiot"_

_                                                 Ludwig Lewisohn_


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 19, 2009)

heh heh

bunny

D'OH!!

thats like my kryptonite!!!

foiled once again by cute fluffy goodness....


----------



## teekin (Jan 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> ok Elder, NOW you are annoying me
> 
> The mufti isnt just some guy.
> 
> ...



I'm jumping back in a bit late here, sorry for the time lapse. My point with Luther was this; one of his major contentions with the Catholics was that God was not some heavy handed father figure watching every move you made just waiting for you to slip up so he could haul you off to the woodshed for a good smiting, but a king loving soul who wanted to help you live and enjoy the paradise he had created. 
 Of course the only people who really knew what Luther's original vision was were those who could read *Latin!* ( And that was the Clergy and some nobility.) Everything else was a translation, an interpretation. The only way to know what the authors real meaning was is to read the Original source in the original language. The masses relied on what was told to them, how would ever know different?
  You Can NOT know if the original intent of the Islamic faith was to kill all non-believers as you can not access the original document, only nth removed bastardized versions.  Just like the Bible. 
 Thus I say it IS the men who propagate the violence and do so in the name of the religion that are to blame. The religion is an excuse for violence, just as it seems to be an excuse for all sorts of ****ed up things like child brides, multiple wives ( if he can have 3 wives why can't I have 3 husbands?) bride burnings ect. 
Lori


----------



## elder999 (Jan 19, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Well you can't say these guys weren't human can you? don't forget in Judaism, free choice is given, just because the laws are there doesn't mean people chose to follow them. Each person is the architect of his own life.


 

_"Judaism_" didn't exist in the time of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses or David. Judaism didn't exist until the fall of Jerusalem, in 70 A.D. Prior to that you had the tribe of _*Hebrews*_ and later the nation of Israel, who, at various times, performed animal and human sacrifice, worshipped graven images, committed cannibalism, participated in pagan temple sex rites, and raised and worshipped groves of trees.....


.....of course, we can't hold you *or them* responsible for any of that, either-it's in the past.....:lfao:


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 19, 2009)

elder999 said:


> _"Judaism_" didn't exist in the time of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses or David. Judaism didn't exist until the fall of Jerusalem, in 70 A.D. Prior to that you had the tribe of _*Hebrews*_ and later the nation of Israel, who, at various times, performed animal and human sacrifice, worshipped graven images, committed cannibalism, participated in pagan temple sex rites, and raised and worshipped groves of trees.....
> 
> 
> .....of course, we can't hold you *or them* responsible for any of that, either-it's in the past.....:lfao:


 
I was meaning more the relevance of your post about Abraham etc in todays society rather than in their times. We don't have to follow what they do but we can learn from their behavior which is why it's in our history I believe.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 19, 2009)

elder999 said:


> .....of course, we can't hold you *or them* responsible for any of that, either-it's in the past.....:lfao:


 
so we can hold the present day atrocities of Muslims, done in the name of islam, learned from the teaching of islam and blessed by the clerics of islam against islam? 


lemme guess.............


ok fine, but can we at least all agree that scientology is silly?


----------



## teekin (Jan 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> so we can hold the present day atrocities of Muslims_,_* done in the name of islam*, learned from the teaching of islam and _blessed by _*some *_ the clerics of islam _against islam?
> 
> 
> lemme guess.............
> ...



* A *scam from the word go. :roflmao:
Well We do agree on some things.:cheers:
Lori


----------



## elder999 (Jan 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> ok fine, but can we at least all agree that scientology is silly?


 
*No sillier than any other man made belief system.*

That is to say: Buddhism, Hinduism,Taoism, Confucianism, Zorastrianism, B'Hai, Sikh dharma, Islam, Christianity in all its sundry forms, and a few forms that the others say aren't Christianity, and a few other forms that say they aren't Christianity that probably are, Jehovah's Witnesses, Momonism, Catharism, Druze, Sufism, Wahhabism, Mithraism, Judaism, reconstituted Odinism, Aryanism, Wicca, Satanism, Babaism, Krisna Consiousness, TM,Peyotism, shamanism, Sundancing, etc., etc., etc., _ad infiniteum ,ad nauseum_

but, most especially, Christianity, christianity, and Xtianity...:lfao:....and Judaism.....:lfao:......and Islam....:lfao:.....and, well, you get the idea...:lfao:

_It's really *none of my business.*_

Of course, Scientology, or at least, _Scientologists_ have been responsible for acts of terrorism like bombings, and leaving snakes in mailboxes and such. Guess that means we shouldn't watch any more movies with John Travolta in them, never mind Tom Cruise-most of whose movies I won't see anyway, but Travolta's pretty cool...Scientologist or not....:lfao:



Twin Fist said:


> so we can hold the present day atrocities of Muslims, done in the name of islam, learned from the teaching of islam and blessed by the clerics of islam against islam?


 
How about we hold them against the Muslims that commit them-ignoring, as we do with most crimes, what they're done in "the name of"?And, how about we blame the clerics that teach them that way, rather than say, all of the clerics of that faith? Wouldn't that at least be.....more productive? I mean, more productive than saying that nearly 15% if the world's population need to change their ways, in order for the rest of us-_who, incidentally_,* can't agree on a goddam thing within a single faith*, _let alone with other faiths_-to live with them peacefully?


----------



## MJS (Jan 19, 2009)

*thread closed pending review*

*mjs*
*mt asst. Admin*


----------

