FSTDT Forums
Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: Ultimate Paragon on May 04, 2015, 09:46:03 am
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/04/us/garland-mohammed-drawing-contest-shooting/ (http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/04/us/garland-mohammed-drawing-contest-shooting/)
I'm just happy nobody died except the shooters.
But when are these morons going to understand that these reactions do far more damage to Islam's reputation than some drawings?
-
So the shooters only managed to injure one security officer?
2/Charlie, would not jihad again.
-
Remember: Islam is a religion of peace. Any fear that expressing disagreement with Islam will result in violence is clearly an irrational, racist, Zionist imperialist fear.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/04/us/garland-mohammed-drawing-contest-shooting/ (http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/04/us/garland-mohammed-drawing-contest-shooting/)
I'm just happy nobody died except the shooters.
But when are these morons going to understand that these reactions do far more damage to Islam's reputation than some drawings?
IslamoFrums, like ChristoFrums, JudeoFrums, etc. don't care. They're totalitarian psychopaths who crave power and use a perversion of their faith as an excuse.
Remember: Islam is a religion of peace. Any fear that expressing disagreement with Islam will result in violence is clearly an irrational, racist, Zionist imperialist fear.
So, I guess we should violently hate and persecute all Christians because of Eric Rudolph, right?
How about hate Malala Yousafzai since she's a Muslim.....or all those Sufi dervishes who hurt nobody! Let's trash all Bauhaus CDs/LPs/old cassettes and kill Peter Murphy, while we're at it! Let's assassinate Congressman Keith Ellison (D), as well!
Y'know, IslamoFrums tend to slaughter their fellow Muslims more than anybody! They destroy Islamic monuments, tombs of Muslim saints, murder Muslims who follow a more peaceful Islam......
-
Easy there, Barb, I wasn't suggesting we kill everybody who identifies as a Muslim. I was pointing out that the doctrines of Islam, as set forth by the Quran, are blatantly hateful and violent, and I was criticizing the apologists who will inevitably try to deny it. When I refer to Muslims, I am not making up my own definition of what it means to be a Muslim. I am simply letting the Quran, the book which establishes the religion, set the definition. And whether you admit it or not, the Quran defines a Muslim as someone who wants to kill so many Jews that the rocks themselves cry out "Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him quickly!"
But thank you for bringing up Eric Rudolph. After the tragic jihad against Charlie Hebdo, thousands of Muslims in Britain and other countries rallied..... in support of the shooters. Aside from a few obscure fringe groups that nobody has ever heard of, I can't say the same for Eric Rudolph.
As for Malala, for all her bravery she is still a child. I suspect she has no idea that, in a direct mirror of the Bible, the relatively benign earlier verses are retconned out by the violent later verses. Some of the people who hate Islam the most are former progressive Muslims who actually read the Quran and realized that the Ayatollahs and the al Wahhabs of the world were right about it. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one example.
-
Easy there, Barb, I wasn't suggesting we kill everybody who identifies as a Muslim. I was pointing out that the doctrines of Islam, as set forth by the Quran, are blatantly hateful and violent, and I was criticizing the apologists who will inevitably try to deny it. When I refer to Muslims, I am not making up my own definition of what it means to be a Muslim. I am simply letting the Quran, the book which establishes the religion, set the definition. And whether you admit it or not, the Quran defines a Muslim as someone who wants to kill so many Jews that the rocks themselves cry out "Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him quickly!"
But thank you for bringing up Eric Rudolph. After the tragic jihad against Charlie Hebdo, thousands of Muslims in Britain and other countries rallied..... in support of the shooters. Aside from a few obscure fringe groups that nobody has ever heard of, I can't say the same for Eric Rudolph.
As for Malala, for all her bravery she is still a child. I suspect she has no idea that, in a direct mirror of the Bible, the relatively benign earlier verses are retconned out by the violent later verses. Some of the people who hate Islam the most are former progressive Muslims who actually read the Quran and realized that the Ayatollahs and the al Wahhabs of the world were right about it. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one example.
I agree that there are two Qurans, The gentler Mecca verses & bloodthirsty Medina verses. I've heard of the concept of the Medina verses that contradict the Meccan verses overruling the Meccan. That said, why mix the verses up so the average Muslim doesn't know which is which or which came when?
I think the Meccan verses where genuine but the Medina verses were made up when Mohammed got all power-hungry. It didn't help that he and his followers were being attacked a lot.
Perhaps there's two Islams with two Qurans. They should be separated & seen as separate faith/approaches. The good, peaceful, intelligent Muslims follow Mecca Islam, the true Religion of Peace inspired by the Divine. The monster IslamoFrum terrorist freaks, however, follow the false, demiurgic Medina Islam.
-
If we're discussing theology, it's important to remember that the Socratic problem exists just as much for the Quran as the Bible. Muhammad was illiterate, and the Quran compiled after his lifetime. I fully admit that it is possible that he never uttered a single word of it. But whereas we could easily start an Internet flamewar over whether or not there was a historical Jesus and if so what he was like, there is no debate that Muhammad definitely existed, and many of the events depicted in the Quran (yes, the bloody ones) are based on actual history.
Of the three Abrahamic faiths, Christianity (or at least, the New Testament) says nothing about how to govern society, other than saying Christians should obey the law. Christianity, it should be noted, is the only of the three faiths which did not possess a sovereign nation state at the time of or shortly after being formed. Whereas Muhammad (later on) and the writers of the Torah could make and enforce any law they wished, the early Christians were prosecuted as atheists for suggesting that the Roman gods straight up didn't exist.
For all my dislike of the man, I will give Muhammad this: had he never become anything more than a radical street preacher, and in fact, had he been put to sleep before he left Mecca, Islam might very well be more benevolent today. And had Jesus had an army, well......
-
I know this is wildly inappropriate of me and I actually feel like an asshole for this crossing my mind, but I can't help recall the Charlie Hebdo attack and think of the differences between these two events.
In France, the murderers killed 12 people, wounded 11 and had free reign for two days before they got their heads splattered. In Texas they wounded one person who was discharged the next day and started assuming ambient temperature in less time than it takes to have a pizza delivered.
Oh, wait, this happened in Texas. Well, there's your problem.
*goes to sit in the asshole corner*
-
I know this is wildly inappropriate of me and I actually feel like an asshole for this crossing my mind, but I can't help recall the Charlie Hebdo attack and think of the differences between these two events.
In France, the murderers killed 12 people, wounded 11 and had free reign for two days before they got their heads splattered. In Texas they wounded one person who was discharged the next day and started assuming ambient temperature in less time than it takes to have a pizza delivered.
Oh, wait, this happened in Texas. Well, there's your problem.
*goes to sit in the asshole corner*
On the other hand, a mass shooting that kills 12 people in France sparks international outrage. Here it's practically a monthly event.
-
I know this is wildly inappropriate of me and I actually feel like an asshole for this crossing my mind, but I can't help recall the Charlie Hebdo attack and think of the differences between these two events.
In France, the murderers killed 12 people, wounded 11 and had free reign for two days before they got their heads splattered. In Texas they wounded one person who was discharged the next day and started assuming ambient temperature in less time than it takes to have a pizza delivered.
Oh, wait, this happened in Texas. Well, there's your problem.
*goes to sit in the asshole corner*
On the other hand, a mass shooting that kills 12 people in France sparks international outrage. Here it's practically a monthly event.
french parodists had this to say about the attack: "here in texas, it's not "i am charlie", but "i am armed, bitch!"
i laughed way more than i should have.
-
So the shooters only managed to injure one security officer?
2/Charlie, would not jihad again.
Body armor and assault rifles and they couldn't even kill anybody, no way they're getting the full amount of virgins in paradise. they'll be lucky if they even get one!
-
Easy there, Barb, I wasn't suggesting we kill everybody who identifies as a Muslim. I was pointing out that the doctrines of Islam, as set forth by the Quran, are blatantly hateful and violent, and I was criticizing the apologists who will inevitably try to deny it. When I refer to Muslims, I am not making up my own definition of what it means to be a Muslim. I am simply letting the Quran, the book which establishes the religion, set the definition. And whether you admit it or not, the Quran defines a Muslim as someone who wants to kill so many Jews that the rocks themselves cry out "Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him quickly!"
But thank you for bringing up Eric Rudolph. After the tragic jihad against Charlie Hebdo, thousands of Muslims in Britain and other countries rallied..... in support of the shooters. Aside from a few obscure fringe groups that nobody has ever heard of, I can't say the same for Eric Rudolph.
As for Malala, for all her bravery she is still a child. I suspect she has no idea that, in a direct mirror of the Bible, the relatively benign earlier verses are retconned out by the violent later verses. Some of the people who hate Islam the most are former progressive Muslims who actually read the Quran and realized that the Ayatollahs and the al Wahhabs of the world were right about it. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one example.
I agree that there are two Qurans, The gentler Mecca verses & bloodthirsty Medina verses. I've heard of the concept of the Medina verses that contradict the Meccan verses overruling the Meccan. That said, why mix the verses up so the average Muslim doesn't know which is which or which came when?
I think the Meccan verses where genuine but the Medina verses were made up when Mohammed got all power-hungry. It didn't help that he and his followers were being attacked a lot.
Perhaps there's two Islams with two Qurans. They should be separated & seen as separate faith/approaches. The good, peaceful, intelligent Muslims follow Mecca Islam, the true Religion of Peace inspired by the Divine. The monster IslamoFrum terrorist freaks, however, follow the false, demiurgic Medina Islam.
Yeah, no. You don't get to arbitrarily define what's "true" Islam and what isn't. It's all part of Islam, the violent and psychopathic verses of the Quran are just as much a part of the Quran as the stuff you personally agree with, and the terrorists are just as much "true Muslims" as any others. You can't just handwave it away as "perverting the faith" or some other nonsense just because you don't like it.
-
Easy there, Barb, I wasn't suggesting we kill everybody who identifies as a Muslim. I was pointing out that the doctrines of Islam, as set forth by the Quran, are blatantly hateful and violent, and I was criticizing the apologists who will inevitably try to deny it. When I refer to Muslims, I am not making up my own definition of what it means to be a Muslim. I am simply letting the Quran, the book which establishes the religion, set the definition. And whether you admit it or not, the Quran defines a Muslim as someone who wants to kill so many Jews that the rocks themselves cry out "Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him quickly!"
But thank you for bringing up Eric Rudolph. After the tragic jihad against Charlie Hebdo, thousands of Muslims in Britain and other countries rallied..... in support of the shooters. Aside from a few obscure fringe groups that nobody has ever heard of, I can't say the same for Eric Rudolph.
As for Malala, for all her bravery she is still a child. I suspect she has no idea that, in a direct mirror of the Bible, the relatively benign earlier verses are retconned out by the violent later verses. Some of the people who hate Islam the most are former progressive Muslims who actually read the Quran and realized that the Ayatollahs and the al Wahhabs of the world were right about it. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one example.
I agree that there are two Qurans, The gentler Mecca verses & bloodthirsty Medina verses. I've heard of the concept of the Medina verses that contradict the Meccan verses overruling the Meccan. That said, why mix the verses up so the average Muslim doesn't know which is which or which came when?
I think the Meccan verses where genuine but the Medina verses were made up when Mohammed got all power-hungry. It didn't help that he and his followers were being attacked a lot.
Perhaps there's two Islams with two Qurans. They should be separated & seen as separate faith/approaches. The good, peaceful, intelligent Muslims follow Mecca Islam, the true Religion of Peace inspired by the Divine. The monster IslamoFrum terrorist freaks, however, follow the false, demiurgic Medina Islam.
Yeah, no. You don't get to arbitrarily define what's "true" Islam and what isn't. It's all part of Islam, the violent and psychopathic verses of the Quran are just as much a part of the Quran as the stuff you personally agree with, and the terrorists are just as much "true Muslims" as any others. You can't just handwave it away as "perverting the faith" or some other nonsense just because you don't like it.
Honestly, I've got to agree with this. When I question whether somebody's a Christian, it's because of theological differences, not because I think they're a bad person. For example, I don't doubt that the LRA are Christians, but I do doubt it about Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.
-
Honestly, I've got to agree with this. When I question whether somebody's a Christian, it's because of theological differences, not because I think they're a bad person. For example, I don't doubt that the LRA are Christians, but I do doubt it about Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.
Mormons and JWs say they're Christians. That's about as detailed as you can get with "true Christianity" (or every other world religion for that matter) while keeping all your other denominations in a big tent.
-
Honestly, I've got to agree with this. When I question whether somebody's a Christian, it's because of theological differences, not because I think they're a bad person. For example, I don't doubt that the LRA are Christians, but I do doubt it about Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.
Mormons and JWs say they're Christians. That's about as detailed as you can get with "true Christianity" (or every other world religion for that matter) while keeping all your other denominations in a big tent.
There's an argument to be made that Christians are those who accept, at a bare minimum, the First Council of Nicaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) and the First Council of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople). Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses don't.
-
I'm a pantheistic NeoPagan with a Universalist/Interfaith bent. So that's that.
-
I think it is ridiculous to suggest that Islam cannot be a peaceful religion because what is in the Quaran. Equally bloody and genocidal chapters are in the old testament, yet you don't hear (mainstream/not fuckwit) people suggesting that Judaism is inherently violent and redeemable.
But I'm sure this sort of attitude makes sure that muslims don't feel isolated from the rest of the community and therefore more prone to radicalization.
-
I think it is ridiculous to suggest that Islam cannot be a peaceful religion because what is in the Quaran. Equally bloody and genocidal chapters are in the old testament, yet you don't hear (mainstream/not fuckwit) people suggesting that Judaism is inherently violent and redeemable.
But I'm sure this sort of attitude makes sure that muslims don't feel isolated from the rest of the community and therefore more prone to radicalization.
Read the Torah. Then look at modern Judaism. You'll be shocked by how different the two are. It was Jewish theologians who came up with the Documentary Hypothesis for the origins of the Torah. Furthermore, many Jewish religious schools emphasize critical thinking and debate, even against God himself. Just imagine how that would fly in an American Christian Sunday School!
-
The Abrahamic faiths are one gigantic clusterfuck. Not even Judaism is immune to the whole "one book, fifty dozen different sects" thing. Might not be as pronounced as Islam and Christianity, but they've still got a noticeable amount of splinter group fuckery going on.
-
I think it is ridiculous to suggest that Islam cannot be a peaceful religion because what is in the Quaran. Equally bloody and genocidal chapters are in the old testament, yet you don't hear (mainstream/not fuckwit) people suggesting that Judaism is inherently violent and redeemable.
But I'm sure this sort of attitude makes sure that muslims don't feel isolated from the rest of the community and therefore more prone to radicalization.
Read the Torah. Then look at modern Judaism. You'll be shocked by how different the two are. It was Jewish theologians who came up with the Documentary Hypothesis for the origins of the Torah. Furthermore, many Jewish religious schools emphasize critical thinking and debate, even against God himself. Just imagine how that would fly in an American Christian Sunday School!
That's kind of the point. The argument that Islam is inherently violent because of the Quran implies that Christianity and Judaism should also be inherently violent because of the Old Testament. Since people can take a look at a bloody and violent holy texts and then reinterpret the fuck out of it in Judaism and Christianity, we should assume Muslims also have that same ability and look for explanations of violence elsewhere.
-
I think it is ridiculous to suggest that Islam cannot be a peaceful religion because what is in the Quaran. Equally bloody and genocidal chapters are in the old testament, yet you don't hear (mainstream/not fuckwit) people suggesting that Judaism is inherently violent and redeemable.
But I'm sure this sort of attitude makes sure that muslims don't feel isolated from the rest of the community and therefore more prone to radicalization.
Read the Torah. Then look at modern Judaism. You'll be shocked by how different the two are. It was Jewish theologians who came up with the Documentary Hypothesis for the origins of the Torah. Furthermore, many Jewish religious schools emphasize critical thinking and debate, even against God himself. Just imagine how that would fly in an American Christian Sunday School!
That's kind of the point. The argument that Islam is inherently violent because of the Quran implies that Christianity and Judaism should also be inherently violent because of the Old Testament. Since people can take a look at a bloody and violent holy texts and then reinterpret the fuck out of it in Judaism and Christianity, we should assume Muslims also have that same ability and look for explanations of violence elsewhere.
I hate to say something that you could hear any amateur Christian apologist say, but the New Testament clumsily retcons the violence out. Jesus often changes the subject when asked about putting people to death, and in some cases outright condemns the practice. And so you can have a Christian fundamentalist who is functionally a pacifist, and that person can base their pacifism on the Bible. The same is not true of Islam. Muhammad, unlike Jesus and Moses, is uncontroversially acknowledged to have existed, and to have been a brutal warlord as described by the Quran. For a peaceful person who identifies as a Muslim to claim they are emulating Muhammad, they must willfully distort history.
-
So now that ISIS has claimed that this attack is one of their's...how long until the GOP makes that a sticking point for Obama?
Ironbite-negative 12 minutes?
-
I think it is ridiculous to suggest that Islam cannot be a peaceful religion because what is in the Quaran. Equally bloody and genocidal chapters are in the old testament, yet you don't hear (mainstream/not fuckwit) people suggesting that Judaism is inherently violent and redeemable.
But I'm sure this sort of attitude makes sure that muslims don't feel isolated from the rest of the community and therefore more prone to radicalization.
Read the Torah. Then look at modern Judaism. You'll be shocked by how different the two are. It was Jewish theologians who came up with the Documentary Hypothesis for the origins of the Torah. Furthermore, many Jewish religious schools emphasize critical thinking and debate, even against God himself. Just imagine how that would fly in an American Christian Sunday School!
That's kind of the point. The argument that Islam is inherently violent because of the Quran implies that Christianity and Judaism should also be inherently violent because of the Old Testament. Since people can take a look at a bloody and violent holy texts and then reinterpret the fuck out of it in Judaism and Christianity, we should assume Muslims also have that same ability and look for explanations of violence elsewhere.
I hate to say something that you could hear any amateur Christian apologist say, but the New Testament clumsily retcons the violence out. Jesus often changes the subject when asked about putting people to death, and in some cases outright condemns the practice. And so you can have a Christian fundamentalist who is functionally a pacifist, and that person can base their pacifism on the Bible. The same is not true of Islam. Muhammad, unlike Jesus and Moses, is uncontroversially acknowledged to have existed, and to have been a brutal warlord as described by the Quran. For a peaceful person who identifies as a Muslim to claim they are emulating Muhammad, they must willfully distort history.
Actually there is some disagreement both over whether Muhammed existed and what we can know about him. Tom Holland wrote a whole book about it called 'Under the Shadow of the Sword'. But if for a moment you accept that the 4 biographies of Muhammed written 200 years after his death are an accurate description of him, then you should also accept that Muhammed chose peace rather than war at almost every opportunity. If you accept we can know anything about Muhammed, then you accept that apart from being a religious leader he was also a political leader.
The comment about retconning the violent parts of the bible simply ignores the comments where Jesus says he comes not to change the law (that not what jot or tittle of the law would be changed).
As for the Torah evolving due to jewish theology (apart from being entirely my point) you ignore that Maimonides who was central to this lived and worked in where? Oh that's right Moorish Cordoba (under islamic rule). And was influenced strongly in his views by the islamic Falysufs. Anyway Nemo don't let me interfere with your blind hatred of Islam. Fuck I'm close to godwinning this argument...
-
I cannot help but think the people involved in the contest kinda wanted some nutters to come, just so they / the police could shoot em dead.
-
The best part is they were having some sort of drawing contest. This was like strapping a bloody carcass to yourself and jumping in shark infested waters. They wanted these idiots to come. And they did come. Of course this is Texas where you fire your first gun while still in the womb so these idiots thought they could do some Charlie Hebo shit just found out how wrong they really were.
Ironbite-and now they're dead.
-
The best part is they were having some sort of drawing contest. This was like strapping a bloody carcass to yourself and jumping in shark infested waters. They wanted these idiots to come. And they did come. Of course this is Texas where you fire your first gun while still in the womb so these idiots thought they could do some Charlie Hebo shit just found out how wrong they really were.
Ironbite-and now they're dead.
Something something VICTIM BLAMING
-
The best part is they were having some sort of drawing contest. This was like strapping a bloody carcass to yourself and jumping in shark infested waters. They wanted these idiots to come. And they did come. Of course this is Texas where you fire your first gun while still in the womb so these idiots thought they could do some Charlie Hebo shit just found out how wrong they really were.
Ironbite-and now they're dead.
Something something VICTIM BLAMING
I'm with ironbite on this zone. Stirring suit UP un texas ils asking to be shot
-
The best part is they were having some sort of drawing contest. This was like strapping a bloody carcass to yourself and jumping in shark infested waters. They wanted these idiots to come. And they did come. Of course this is Texas where you fire your first gun while still in the womb so these idiots thought they could do some Charlie Hebo shit just found out how wrong they really were.
Ironbite-and now they're dead.
Something something VICTIM BLAMING
I'm with ironbite on this zone. Stirring suit UP un texas ils asking to be shot
Seconded, they had it coming.
-
ISIS: We are responsible for two idiots getting themselves shot dead in the craziest fucking state in the USA.
-
CAUSE WE'RE SMART!
Ironbite-no ISIS...you're really fucking not.
-
ISIS: We are responsible for two idiots getting themselves shot dead in the craziest fucking state in the USA.
Florida disagrees.
-
I think it is ridiculous to suggest that Islam cannot be a peaceful religion because what is in the Quaran. Equally bloody and genocidal chapters are in the old testament, yet you don't hear (mainstream/not fuckwit) people suggesting that Judaism is inherently violent and redeemable.
But I'm sure this sort of attitude makes sure that muslims don't feel isolated from the rest of the community and therefore more prone to radicalization.
Read the Torah. Then look at modern Judaism. You'll be shocked by how different the two are. It was Jewish theologians who came up with the Documentary Hypothesis for the origins of the Torah. Furthermore, many Jewish religious schools emphasize critical thinking and debate, even against God himself. Just imagine how that would fly in an American Christian Sunday School!
That's kind of the point. The argument that Islam is inherently violent because of the Quran implies that Christianity and Judaism should also be inherently violent because of the Old Testament. Since people can take a look at a bloody and violent holy texts and then reinterpret the fuck out of it in Judaism and Christianity, we should assume Muslims also have that same ability and look for explanations of violence elsewhere.
I hate to say something that you could hear any amateur Christian apologist say, but the New Testament clumsily retcons the violence out. Jesus often changes the subject when asked about putting people to death, and in some cases outright condemns the practice. And so you can have a Christian fundamentalist who is functionally a pacifist, and that person can base their pacifism on the Bible. The same is not true of Islam. Muhammad, unlike Jesus and Moses, is uncontroversially acknowledged to have existed, and to have been a brutal warlord as described by the Quran. For a peaceful person who identifies as a Muslim to claim they are emulating Muhammad, they must willfully distort history.
And yet there are lots of Muslims who go on about how they base their pacifism in the Quran. You can argue that such is a biased interpretation of the text, but the point is moot. Muslims are not constrained to interpret the Quran the way you do, including on war. Like the Bible, the Quran manages to support any number of contradictory interpretations, including violent and pacifist.
That you see more Muslims choosing violent interpretations than Christians has almost certainly very little to do with the text and more with other factors, cultural or economical or sociological or fucking biological for all I know*.
*I've seen people argue that Muslims countries tend to have certain nutritional deficiencies, I don't recall the exact argument now and I don't put much credence into it, but it's interesting anyway.
-
ISIS: We are responsible for two idiots getting themselves shot dead in the craziest fucking state in the USA.
Florida disagrees.
Florida and Texas have had long disagreements over who, exactly, is the craziest state in the USA.
Its never really been resolved.
-
the correct answer is Alabama.
-
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/8488743168/hF059611B/)
-
Actually there is some disagreement both over whether Muhammed existed and what we can know about him.
I'll have to take a look at that. Thank you.
But if for a moment you accept that the 4 biographies of Muhammed written 200 years after his death are an accurate description of him, then you should also accept that Muhammed chose peace rather than war at almost every opportunity.
Well someone hasn't read the Quran.
If you accept we can know anything about Muhammed, then you accept that apart from being a religious leader he was also a political leader.
If you've been reading my posts about Islam, you'd know that I know that already. I've talked in the past about how things might be different had Muhammad not gotten an army, and about how he, unlike Jesus if such a person existed, had a nation state in which to make and enforce laws. I know that Muhammad was a political leader. And that's the problem....
The comment about retconning the violent parts of the bible simply ignores the comments where Jesus says he comes not to change the law (that not what jot or tittle of the law would be changed).
And Paul says the Mosaic law no longer counts. And Jesus himself awkwardly changed the subject whenever killing in the name of the law was brought up, assuming he doesn't outright condemn it. Now, as an unbeliever, I can easily see the contradiction there, but for believers, they see only Jesus telling them not to kill for religion.
-
Look dickhead. I have read the Quran. I have also read biographies of Muhammed and critical works about the historicity of Muhammed. I have read Hadith. I have read the Pentateuch. I have read the prophets, kings and chronicles. I have read most of the new testament. As for reading the Koran and knowing what Muhammed did because of that, I assume you are basing that mostly on the commentary rather than the actual words of the Quran. There is nothing in the Quran that is worse than what is in the pentateuch. Yet you don't make these allegations about Jews. Why is that cracker?
Without being dismissive (as you were) I suspect you aren't nearly as knowledgeable about Islam as you pretend to be. Largely this is because the Quran is the recitation and while it may reflect aspects of Muhammed and what he was doing at the time (see if you can figure out what that was without relying on the commentary) it isn't a record of his sayings and actions. That would be the Sunnah and Hadith which are the collected works which are verified by ifstahads( Not sure if I spelt that correctly) which were chains of derivation. However their reliability is seriously fucking questionable.
However a good summary of the biographies and hadith can be found in Karen Armstrong's biography of Muhammed. I would recommend it to you Nemo as it might make some impact on your understanding of Islam. Although I seriously doubt it. It will also give credence to the fact that Muhammed was in fact very dovish for a political leader. Particularly a political leader in a tribal warzone.
The point about him being a political leader is that all political leaders need at times to weigh up morality with expediency as well as making difficult decisions with conflicting communal interests. We should also remember that until very recently conquest and expansion was viewed as a good rather than a bad thing. That is why Alexander the Great (who was -or his legend at least- very influential on the religions of the Mediterranean, including Islam), Julius Caesar, Henry the Vth, Elizabeth the first among many many others are still revered and thought of as good kings, leaders etc. As for violence Muhammed probably chose violence less that Winston Churchill or Bill Clinton and you condemn him as a hawkish political leader. Besides which the islamic ummah during the life of Muhammed was probably at war less than the US has been since the Civil War.
But go on dickhead.
Edit: Oh and I'm not going to bother pointing out the violent parts of the teachings of Jesus, you obviously havent read the bible. But irrespective of which we have had 1500 odd years or more killing for christianity, whether or not jesus was a pacifist or not (which if he existed is open to debate) by Christians believing they were doing the work of god. So it really doesn't seem to me that the founders character has any great influence on whether the religion will be peaceful or not. One of the clearest things Jesus said was to dispossess yourself of all property. Yet Christians have been getting around that for as long as there's been Christians. Finally the episode of 'whoever is without sin may cast the first stone' is almost certainly a later addition to the gospels.
-
Look dickhead. I have read the Quran. I have also read biographies of Muhammed and critical works about the historicity of Muhammed. I have read Hadith. I have read the Pentateuch. I have read the prophets, kings and chronicles. I have read most of the new testament. As for reading the Koran and knowing what Muhammed did because of that, I assume you are basing that mostly on the commentary rather than the actual words of the Quran. There is nothing in the Quran that is worse than what is in the pentateuch. Yet you don't make these allegations about Jews. Why is that cracker?
Without being dismissive (as you were) I suspect you aren't nearly as knowledgeable about Islam as you pretend to be. Largely this is because the Quran is the recitation and while it may reflect aspects of Muhammed and what he was doing at the time (see if you can figure out what that was without relying on the commentary) it isn't a record of his sayings and actions. That would be the Sunnah and Hadith which are the collected works which are verified by ifstahads( Not sure if I spelt that correctly) which were chains of derivation. However their reliability is seriously fucking questionable.
However a good summary of the biographies and hadith can be found in Karen Armstrong's biography of Muhammed. I would recommend it to you Nemo as it might make some impact on your understanding of Islam. Although I seriously doubt it. It will also give credence to the fact that Muhammed was in fact very dovish for a political leader. Particularly a political leader in a tribal warzone.
The point about him being a political leader is that all political leaders need at times to weigh up morality with expediency as well as making difficult decisions with conflicting communal interests. We should also remember that until very recently conquest and expansion was viewed as a good rather than a bad thing. That is why Alexander the Great (who was -or his legend at least- very influential on the religions of the Mediterranean, including Islam), Julius Caesar, Henry the Vth, Elizabeth the first among many many others are still revered and thought of as good kings, leaders etc. As for violence Muhammed probably chose violence less that Winston Churchill or Bill Clinton and you condemn him as a hawkish political leader. Besides which the islamic ummah during the life of Muhammed was probably at war less than the US has been since the Civil War.
But go on dickhead.
You made a good point. There's good and bad in everything. I think we Westerners need to be educated on what Islam really is and not some scary misinterpretation of it. I would love to know but I don't know where to look for answers. I wish there was a site that explained everything, answered questions. Explained & debunked misconceptions and so on. Islam is a very diverse faith with many diverse interpretations. The fact that there are are peaceful groups like Sufis shows than Islam can be interpreted as a more peaceful religion. It's all very confusing.
As for me, I'm dumping all that religious confusion and live as a NeoPagan.
-
My leather clad space nymphette, I would suggest for you Karen Armstrong's biography of Muhammed. You would also probably enjoy her History of God. Tom Holland's book 'Under the Shadow of the Sword' is (like all his other stuff) great.
I wasn't really suggesting that there is good and bad in everything but your second point that we should not be scared of a scary misinterpretation of Islam is the point I was trying to make. I also think we should be taking each of the Abrahamic faiths as something which can transcend violence (even though all 3 are violent) it serves no purpose to unnecessarily demonise any of them.
As for ending confusion by being a NeoPagan, well that seems to me to be a symptom of confusion rather than a cure. But whatever helps with the existential angst that there is no god, no plan, no purpose and no great parent in the sky making sure we are all good. Once we are past that angst we must realise that all of us, must strive to make this life and this world the best that it can be, for the benefit of all.
-
Barb, it almost seems silly, but start with the Koran. At least that'll give you a platform to start with. It might also be helpful to think in terms of tribal rather than schism.
-
Yet you don't make these allegations about Jews. Why is that cracker?
Ignoring the random assumption as to my racial identity (which is completely irrelevant, by the way), you're right. I should take all of the incidents of gays being dropped off of buildings in the name of YHWH and tie them to Judaism..... oh darn, there aren't any. Well, maybe all the incidents of cartoonists being slaughtered for hurting some Jewish person's feelings..... no. Hmmmm, maybe Jewish majority countries where non Jewish citizens are denied their rights...... no, no, Israel doesn't work, they give Muslims more rights than the Muslims give themselves....... I'll get back to you on this one.
.....aspects of Muhammed and what he was doing at the time (see if you can figure out what that was without relying on the commentary).....
In the modern world, we call it mass murder and terrorism.
.......Karen Armstrong.......
Wait, is this that lady who wrote A History of God, an otherwise excellent book by the way, and started gushing about Islam?
We should also remember that until very recently conquest and expansion was viewed as a good rather than a bad thing.
One thing that Muhammad has that the other leaders you listed do not is a cult of personality and an entire religion devoted to continuing his actions.
-
You think I care about your race because I call you a cracker? I call everyone a cracker you fucking cracker. If you told me you ethnicity I would still call you cracker. When I call you a dickhead that's when I'm insulting you. Dickhead.
Your entire premise you immature dickhead is that because of Muhammed, Islam must be violent. Well fundamentalist jews consider that the pentateuch (or Torah/ I don't use Torah because I don't read hebrew) were the words of Moses himself. They believe intrinsically in Moses and that he was a genocidal maniac who murdered many of his own people and issued an edict to wipe out Amelek. (nowhere in the Quran does Muhammed say that the jews must be sought and destroyed or that God would not abide any of them) Yet you accept that judaism can be religion of peace. Yet you are so fucking stupid that you don't see the inherent contradiction in your point. When it is pointed out you ignore it.
Nor do I accept for a moment that you have read 'the History of God' because otherwise you would well understand that Islam can be a peaceful religion and was essential for the theology that allowed judaism to become a peaceful religion.
Actually both Alexander and Julius Caesar had personality cults. To call Islam a personality cult is incredibly demeaning. Particularly so when Islam is not devoted to Muhammed but to god. "There is no God but God." Whereas Christianity could easily be a personality cult of Jesus if anyone actually cared to emulate him (apart from the odd lunatic and St Francis of Assisi). Alexander actually believed that he was divine and Julius Caesar played up that he was descended from Venus, whether he really believed it or not.
As for the Modern World - we would call Caesar a genocidal maniac (he killed one million people in europe), let alone what you would call the British invading India and Africa, Napoleon, the conquistiadors in America, the American settlers and their treatment of the Natives, the doctrine of Terra nullius in Australia. It's patently facile to compare the modern world with the past.
Apart from which stop selectively quoting part of what I said and eliding the rest. It is both annoying and question dodging.
Finally I doubt any sought of reasoned debate will alter your anti-islamic feeling which is suspiciously similar to other anti-religious feelings, which all decry the religion of choice as being incapable of peace or honesty.
Edit: But please continue to be scared about something that doesn't exist in the way that you fear it and continue grouping 1 billion people around the world with small groups of extremists. It doesnt make you a fuckwit at all.
-
Your entire premise you immature dickhead is that because of Muhammed, Islam must be violent. Well fundamentalist jews consider that the pentateuch (or Torah/ I don't use Torah because I don't read hebrew) were the words of Moses himself. They believe intrinsically in Moses and that he was a genocidal maniac who murdered many of his own people and issued an edict to wipe out Amelek.
Well, since name calling is now welcomed in this, let me ask you, dhimmi, why do you always direct the conversation to Christianity or Judaism? Look at my comments on FSTDT. I am more than happy to respond to the stuff by Christian fundamentalists by attacking them and their faith and their Bible without feeling the need to deflect criticism by calling attention to Islam. But if I ever attack Islam...... well, the dhimmis like you should know.
Yeah, Moses was a monster if he existed. Now do tell me all about the thousands of deaths at the hands of Jewish fundamentalists in the modern world.
(nowhere in the Quran does Muhammed say that the jews must be sought and destroyed or that God would not abide any of them)
My second comment on this thread referenced a well known verse from the Quran about how Muslims should treat Jews.
Yet you accept that judaism can be religion of peace. Yet you are so fucking stupid that you don't see the inherent contradiction in your point. When it is pointed out you ignore it.
Judaism is peaceful in the modern world because the Jewish people don't follow their holy books. Yes, I said that. And Islam can be peaceful too, as long as Muslims don't follow their holy book, and don't try to emulate Muhammad. Does me saying this shock you? It does not contradict a single thing that I have ever said.
Nor do I accept for a moment that you have read 'the History of God' because otherwise you would well understand that Islam can be a peaceful religion and was essential for the theology that allowed judaism to become a peaceful religion.
It's been a few years, I'll admit, but your entire rationale seems to be me rolling my eyes at Armstrong gushing at how compassionate and enlightened Islam is. Sad thing is, at the time I believed it. The good news is that if I could change my views, there's hope for anyone.
Actually both Alexander and Julius Caesar had personality cults.
Had. If people in the modern world still bought into that, you'd better believe I'd be concerned.
To call Islam a personality cult is incredibly demeaning. Particularly so when Islam is not devoted to Muhammed but to god. "There is no God but God."
God will tell me, and I will tell you. Such notions make the human prophets indistinguishable from the gods they claim to speak for. That is true regardless of what the man's name is.
Whereas Christianity could easily be a personality cult of Jesus if anyone actually cared to emulate him (apart from the odd lunatic and St Francis of Assisi).
I have no objection to this, and never have.
Alexander actually believed that he was divine and Julius Caesar played up that he was descended from Venus, whether he really believed it or not.
See what I said about them above.
As for the Modern World - we would call Caesar a genocidal maniac (he killed one million people in europe), let alone what you would call the British invading India and Africa, Napoleon, the conquistiadors in America, the American settlers and their treatment of the Natives, the doctrine of Terra nullius in Australia.
Yes.
It's patently facile to compare the modern world with the past.
Literally every history person I've spoken to, on both sides of the political spectrum, acknowledges that Andrew Jackson was, simply put, a monster. But if there were people who wanted to promote him today as the ideal man, and continue his "policies", I would oppose that. If people want to promote the values of the past, those values will be compared with those of the modern world.
Apart from which stop selectively quoting part of what I said and eliding the rest. It is both annoying and question dodging.
I didn't quote the first paragraph of your comment. 8) In all seriousness, would you like future responses to just include one big quote? Or even just start a new comment since repeated quoting can be an eyesore?
Finally I doubt any sought of reasoned debate will alter your anti-islamic feeling which is suspiciously similar to other anti-religious feelings, which all decry the religion of choice as being incapable of peace or honesty.
If you're bringing up the Antisemites, the people who are fearful of a minority religion that holds almost no political power outside of a single tiny country with a body count of almost nothing within the past few centuries, do tell me where the similarities are.
But please continue to be scared about something that doesn't exist in the way that you fear it and continue grouping 1 billion people around the world with small groups of extremists.
Tens of thousands of people rallied in Chechnya against Charlie Hebdo in response to the infamous shooting. That was just one protest, and there were others. These extremist groups don't include every single person who identifies as Muslim, but they most certainly are not small.
-
My leather clad space nymphette, I would suggest for you Karen Armstrong's biography of Muhammed. You would also probably enjoy her History of God. Tom Holland's book 'Under the Shadow of the Sword' is (like all his other stuff) great.
I wasn't really suggesting that there is good and bad in everything but your second point that we should not be scared of a scary misinterpretation of Islam is the point I was trying to make. I also think we should be taking each of the Abrahamic faiths as something which can transcend violence (even though all 3 are violent) it serves no purpose to unnecessarily demonise any of them.
As for ending confusion by being a NeoPagan, well that seems to me to be a symptom of confusion rather than a cure. But whatever helps with the existential angst that there is no god, no plan, no purpose and no great parent in the sky making sure we are all good. Once we are past that angst we must realise that all of us, must strive to make this life and this world the best that it can be, for the benefit of all.
Well, I believe in a higher power but I just don't see it as LITERAL super-people floating around out there (deities are archetypes). I believe in a spiritual plane and an afterlife and see the Divine and creation as one and the same. I'm a spiritual Pantheist.
As for my belief in Hell/Inferno, well, it's not exclusively an Abrahamic concept. A lot of spiritual traditions have some sort of "bad afterlife" for bad people. It's universal, be it Hell, Tatarus, Naraka, etc.
-
Davedan, stop being a dick.
You made the cracker comment in the same sentence where you insinuated that Nemo is a racist so assuming that you consider Nemo's race to be relevant to the racism accusation is not some wild asspull, it really does seem to be your implication.
If you want a reasonable debate, make reasonable arguments. If you throw insults and and defend yourself by claiming that you were joking then you can't really expect others to take you seriously.
-
If you want a reasonable debate, make reasonable arguments. If you throw insults and and defend yourself by claiming that you were joking then you can't really expect others to take you seriously.
I see no point in having a reasonable debate with someone as intellectually dishonest as Nemo. Davedan made it amusing to read, at least.
Nemo, if you're going to vehemently criticize Islam for having the poisonous traits of a successful world religion, at least stop defending Judaism and Christianity and it won't seem so much like inter-religious tribalism.
-
If you want a reasonable debate, make reasonable arguments. If you throw insults and and defend yourself by claiming that you were joking then you can't really expect others to take you seriously.
I see no point in having a reasonable debate with someone as intellectually dishonest as Nemo. Davedan made it amusing to read, at least.
Nemo, if you're going to vehemently criticize Islam for having the poisonous traits of a successful world religion, at least stop defending Judaism and Christianity and it won't seem so much like inter-religious tribalism.
Isn't Nemo an atheist? Or am I misremembering?
-
I think davedan & Nemo should take this argument to Flame & Burn. I'm out of this!
-
Davedan, stop being a dick.
You made the cracker comment in the same sentence where you insinuated that Nemo is a racist so assuming that you consider Nemo's race to be relevant to the racism accusation is not some wild asspull, it really does seem to be your implication.
If you want a reasonable debate, make reasonable arguments. If you throw insults and and defend yourself by claiming that you were joking then you can't really expect others to take you seriously.
No, Askold, I won't.
I wasn't accusing him of being racist. I was accusing him of being an inconsistent hypocrite. True, I think he is a bigot. But Islam, like Christianity, is a broad church which includes many races. Nor does Nemo seek to limit his disdain to Arabs but is basically having a crack at 1 billion muslims wherever and of whatever ethnicity. Besides which I tried to have a rational debate and apart from his last post he parsed certain snippets and dodged the rest. Nor has he confronted the basic contradiction in his own belief which I have pointed out to him. It would seem he believes in some global conspiracy of muslims in the ala the 'Protocols of the Elders of Mecca'. He is also completely full of shit. And a condescending motherfucker at that. So no, like Ironchew I don't think there can be a truly rational debate, nor do I think he has any intellectual honesty.
Mostly I think he is a massive dickhead and a pea-hearted coward. So I'm going to continue ...
-
Your entire premise you immature dickhead is that because of Muhammed, Islam must be violent. Well fundamentalist jews consider that the pentateuch (or Torah/ I don't use Torah because I don't read hebrew) were the words of Moses himself. They believe intrinsically in Moses and that he was a genocidal maniac who murdered many of his own people and issued an edict to wipe out Amelek.
Well, since name calling is now welcomed in this, let me ask you, dhimmi, why do you always direct the conversation to Christianity or Judaism? Look at my comments on FSTDT. I am more than happy to respond to the stuff by Christian fundamentalists by attacking them and their faith and their Bible without feeling the need to deflect criticism by calling attention to Islam. But if I ever attack Islam...... well, the dhimmis like you should know.
Yeah, Moses was a monster if he existed. Now do tell me all about the thousands of deaths at the hands of Jewish fundamentalists in the modern world.
(nowhere in the Quran does Muhammed say that the jews must be sought and destroyed or that God would not abide any of them)
My second comment on this thread referenced a well known verse from the Quran about how Muslims should treat Jews.
Yet you accept that judaism can be religion of peace. Yet you are so fucking stupid that you don't see the inherent contradiction in your point. When it is pointed out you ignore it.
Judaism is peaceful in the modern world because the Jewish people don't follow their holy books. Yes, I said that. And Islam can be peaceful too, as long as Muslims don't follow their holy book, and don't try to emulate Muhammad. Does me saying this shock you? It does not contradict a single thing that I have ever said.
Nor do I accept for a moment that you have read 'the History of God' because otherwise you would well understand that Islam can be a peaceful religion and was essential for the theology that allowed judaism to become a peaceful religion.
It's been a few years, I'll admit, but your entire rationale seems to be me rolling my eyes at Armstrong gushing at how compassionate and enlightened Islam is. Sad thing is, at the time I believed it. The good news is that if I could change my views, there's hope for anyone.
Actually both Alexander and Julius Caesar had personality cults.
Had. If people in the modern world still bought into that, you'd better believe I'd be concerned.
To call Islam a personality cult is incredibly demeaning. Particularly so when Islam is not devoted to Muhammed but to god. "There is no God but God."
God will tell me, and I will tell you. Such notions make the human prophets indistinguishable from the gods they claim to speak for. That is true regardless of what the man's name is.
Whereas Christianity could easily be a personality cult of Jesus if anyone actually cared to emulate him (apart from the odd lunatic and St Francis of Assisi).
I have no objection to this, and never have.
Alexander actually believed that he was divine and Julius Caesar played up that he was descended from Venus, whether he really believed it or not.
See what I said about them above.
As for the Modern World - we would call Caesar a genocidal maniac (he killed one million people in europe), let alone what you would call the British invading India and Africa, Napoleon, the conquistiadors in America, the American settlers and their treatment of the Natives, the doctrine of Terra nullius in Australia.
Yes.
It's patently facile to compare the modern world with the past.
Literally every history person I've spoken to, on both sides of the political spectrum, acknowledges that Andrew Jackson was, simply put, a monster. But if there were people who wanted to promote him today as the ideal man, and continue his "policies", I would oppose that. If people want to promote the values of the past, those values will be compared with those of the modern world.
Apart from which stop selectively quoting part of what I said and eliding the rest. It is both annoying and question dodging.
I didn't quote the first paragraph of your comment. 8) In all seriousness, would you like future responses to just include one big quote? Or even just start a new comment since repeated quoting can be an eyesore?
Finally I doubt any sought of reasoned debate will alter your anti-islamic feeling which is suspiciously similar to other anti-religious feelings, which all decry the religion of choice as being incapable of peace or honesty.
If you're bringing up the Antisemites, the people who are fearful of a minority religion that holds almost no political power outside of a single tiny country with a body count of almost nothing within the past few centuries, do tell me where the similarities are.
But please continue to be scared about something that doesn't exist in the way that you fear it and continue grouping 1 billion people around the world with small groups of extremists.
Tens of thousands of people rallied in Chechnya against Charlie Hebdo in response to the infamous shooting. That was just one protest, and there were others. These extremist groups don't include every single person who identifies as Muslim, but they most certainly are not small.
You are a sad pathetic and frightened man with the heart of a shriveled pea.
The fact that you insult me by using the term Dhimmi would be pathetic if it wasn't so hilarious. You also don't seem to understand your own argument, which if you recall (before you started ducking and weaving like Floyd Mayweather on a bad acid trip) was that Islam was inherently violent and due to its scripture could not be peaceful. When the absurdity of this was pointed out you got on your tractor and shifted the goalposts. You now say that they can't be peaceful unless they disbelieve the Quran. Yet you accept that fundamentalist jews who believe in a far more genocidal Moses (who have compared the Arabs to Amelek) can be peaceful. So your entire premise is frankly flatulent.
However I find it hilarious that you would call me a Dhimmi. The fact that you even think that's an insult means that you believe in some united global islamic Ummah. But there is no Islamic Catholic church. They are as riven and divided as the 100s of protestant christian churches. It also means you believe in an imminent islamic takeover of Australia (where I live) - or perhaps more likely the USA or UK (depending on where you fester) which is fucking hilarious, in a chicken little sharia law is coming type of way.
Nothing you say shocks me. Mostly because you're an idiot.
There are 1000s of Americans who continue to promote living like and abiding by (there mostly imagined) ideals of the founding fathers.
I still don't believe you have read Karen Armstrong, nor do I believe you have read the Quran. Karen Armstrong the former Catholic Nun whose book you consider was good other than her 'gushing' about Islam. Yet you have now been re-converted to what? The fear of the Muslim under the bed. You cabbage kneed hamster abuser.
As for your well known quote from the Quran. It's not in the Quran you deluded self abuser. Part of the reason I mentioned the Hadith was because that is where that quote comes from. The Hadith are the sayings of the prophet. Your quote comes from one of those Hadith. Unsurprisingly people tended to make them up to suit their own purposes. Nor are they held by (any of the many Islamic schools of thought) to be on the same level as the Quran because, even if the saying is reliable - and there always must be doubt - it was by definition not part of the 'recitation' of the Quran and was therefore not (on any view) the inspired word of God. The fact that you are unaware of this distinction tells me that apart from being a condescending sucker of syphilitic dog cock, that you don't know very much about this topic, are dishonest, and are probably parroting shit you read on the internet.
I was bringing up Anti-Semites (which includes arabs and hence Islam) but also anti-papism, anti-protestantism and anything else you care to name. Whenever the person is categorised as the 'other' there are a series of myths raised about them which because humans are human are surprisingly similar. They cannot be peaceful. They abduct our children. They are sexually perverted. I'm surprised you didn't say that Muslims drink the blood of infidels. It is stupid and you are stupid.
Thousands of people cheered on the death of Osama bin Laden. No one in the US batted an eyelid about cruise missiles destroying a sudanese pharmaceutical factory while they were under sanction condemning 1000s or more people to death through lack of medicine. But you know what most of that is irrelevant to your main point anyway. You know your incredibly facile and stupid main point.
This is one of the few times that you did respond to most of what I said, rather than simply taking snippets. But you are too much or an ignorant an undereducated dickhead to acknowledge that. You know very well I wasn't complaining about you breaking up the post. It is too hard to argue honestly I guess.
Finally the reasons I use Christianity and Judaism as a the counterpoint is that they worship exactly the same God as Islam and are part of the same heritage. They are remarkably similar and yet only one is so inherently broken in your view that it cannot be lived with. Also to be honest (something you are unfamiliar with) I know much more about the abrahamic faiths than I do about Hinduism, Zorastrianism, Bahai, animism, sikhism or bhuddism.
Anyway to conclude. You are wrong. You are a deficient human being. You are scared of something that doesn't exist. Here's hoping your bile is limited to pointless arguing and sniping on the internet and that you never have more control over anything than a carpark toll booth.
-
And this shit, boys and girls, is why so many folks have quietly left the forums... but please, keep having your little shitfits back and forth. Eventually, these forums will be gone because Krad will need donations and the only ones left will be you raving lunatics.
-
I don't know priestling, it seems to me that there was always much more friction back in the day.
-
Ironchew, since you seem to be capable of civility, I will ask you this: aside from saying that Christianity and Judaism are not as bad as Islam, when have I ever defended them? That's more like damning them with faint praise than anything else. In fact, if you look over at FSTDT, you will see on numerous occasions I have responded to fundies by attacking the Bible and the character of Jesus/Yahweh as portrayed in the Bible. Take note that when doing so, I did not feel any urge to change the topic to Islam, nor have I ever been criticized for not deflecting in that manner, except by Christian fundies, but I can see a conflict of interest there. By contrast, if I ever discuss Islam without including it in the category of "all religion", I will be screamed at repeatedly as a bigot. Now, do I have harsher words for Islam than Christianity? Of course. Islam is the religion that beheads cartoonists. Islam is the religion whose critics need armed bodyguards just to sleep at night. If the situation were to somehow reverse itself, I would happily criticize Christianity with the same energy I criticize Islam.
-
And this shit, boys and girls, is why so many folks have quietly left the forums... but please, keep having your little shitfits back and forth. Eventually, these forums will be gone because Krad will need donations and the only ones left will be you raving lunatics.
Sad but true.
-
I'll try to keep this one short.
I said Islam was inherently violent because of the Quran. Later, I said that Muslims could be peaceful as long as they don't follow the Quran. I see no contradiction there. The second actually follows from the first.
Words change over time. Today dhimmi typically refers to someone who takes a submissive or apologetic view of Islam, and you, Dave, most definitely fit the latter, proudly I suspect. As it happens, I don't think Islam represents an immediate threat to the existence of Western civilization. That's why I'm not a fan of the neoconservative foreign policy of the current and previous presidents of the United States (where I "fester", as you call it).
Considering the context of when I asked "does this shock you", you admit, then, that I do not have any sort of blinkers when it comes to Judaism? After all, I straight up said that practitioners of Judaism are peaceful because they don't follow the Torah, and you declared boldly that you are not at all shocked that I would say that.
Yeah, I know that. I have a bunch of them in my own family. And my uncle (one who toys with Birther nonsense), when pressed, did admit the founding fathers had flaws, like the whole slavery thing.
I disagree with an author. Therefore I never really read her. You sound like Ray Comfort when he insists that atheists like me never really read the Book of John. And I said it's been a few years. Calm yourself before you accuse others of being Chicken Littles.
I'll admit that attributing a Hadith quote to the Quran was an honest mistake. There's plenty of nice stuff in the Quran too.
Well, I agree, saying Muslims are "sexually perverted", whatever that means, would make me pretty stupid, as would pulling a Helen Lovejoy and screeching about the children. Note that I have not done that, but instead am basing my critique of Islam off of beheadings and violence that actually takes place.
Wait..... are you objecting to people cheering on the death of bin Laden? I mean, I didn't personally feel any feeling of joy, but seriously?
Yeah, I didn't copy every word you had. If you feel that I dishonestly quote mined you, explain what I left out.
You're right. The art exhibit that this thread is all about was shot up by nothing at all.
Finally, in your response to askold, you made a crucial error: you acknowledged that my opposition to Islam is indeed against Islam and not against Arabs. You've been creative in your attacks against me thus far, I will admit, but you messed up when it comes to my personal berserk button.
-
You retconning, backsliding, no principled dodging fuck, we both know what you meant when you called me a dhimmi and expected it to be an insult.
Oh and what is your personal berserk button. A nuanced understanding of the differences between Arabs and Islam?
Edit: To be entirely clear - I am not suggesting that you didn't really read Karen Armstrong, I'm saying you never read her at all. Nor do I accept that attributing a Hadith to the Quran was an honest mistake. I think you are a lying douchebag.
Besides which I'm not the muslim under the bed, sharia law chicken little you scared pathetic person.
-
And this shit, boys and girls, is why so many folks have quietly left the forums... but please, keep having your little shitfits back and forth. Eventually, these forums will be gone because Krad will need donations and the only ones left will be you raving lunatics.
I thought it's the other way around. Heated arguments about serious topics used to be a pretty regular thing around here, with the expectation that anyone posting here is thick skinned enough to handle it. Nowadays, such things are a rare occurrence, with the majority of posts being about video games, movies, memes and inane little anecdotes about your life. Honestly, I'd point to that being the reason most of the old timers have wandered off, rather than the fact that once commonplace arguments still very occasionally happen at all.
-
TL;DR: We became more about da fee-fees and da poo-poos and less about smacking the shit outta stupid people.
-
What Ravy and Art said
-
You retconning, backsliding, no principled dodging fuck, we both know what you meant when you called me a dhimmi and expected it to be an insult.
Oh and what is your personal berserk button. A nuanced understanding of the differences between Arabs and Islam?
Edit: To be entirely clear - I am not suggesting that you didn't really read Karen Armstrong, I'm saying you never read her at all. Nor do I accept that attributing a Hadith to the Quran was an honest mistake. I think you are a lying douchebag.
Besides which I'm not the muslim under the bed, sharia law chicken little you scared pathetic person.
When have I ever suggested that I believe that the American political institutions and political culture are going to soon be under the control of Islam? I have noted the global threat of Islam, but as a large scale law enforcement issue, not the topic of an airport political thriller. If you're going to try cold reading, it helps to know your subject.
.................. did I speak in riddles or something? My berserk button is when people suggest that opposition to Islam (a religion) is somehow equal to bigotry against Arabs (a race). Since most of your posts are personal attacks, I noted that you missed your chance to press that berserk button.
So basically, if I don't agree with one of your favorite authors, I never ever read her. Such a thing is impossible. Got it. Ray Comfort would be proud of you. I realize by this point that I could paste an entire page from History of God and you would still deny that I read it once, so there's no point in discussing this topic.
As for your last paragraph, I can't really reply to that since there's no substance to reply to. Were I better at mudslinging, I might have a little something. Perhaps I should work on that.
-
Take it to F&B.
-
I just researched the al shifa bombing and now I'm depressed.