Muslims show Christian minister whose is religion of peace

[foxpaws]

How about this- Islam is a violent death cult started by a child molesting, violent, lunatic who was afraid of dogs.

Mutilating women, beating women, honor killings, and engaging in a religion that endorses places all "non-believers" into forced slavery is not at good as the other mainstream religions. The good displayed by some Muslims comes about because of some of the individuals who chose to practice it and make it their own, not the teachings.

So, Cal, what about your statement engages 'discussion'? You were the one that thought "All belief systems are not equal. And without specifics, it's difficult to discuss this further."

So, these are the specifics that you wanted to discuss? That the majority of the approximately 1.5 billion Muslims are engaging in the practices you describe above?

It is possible to debate religion, because it's a tremendously complex issue. It's even better to discuss it. In fact, if not for the thoughtful discussions of religion and religious philosophy, you wouldn't be living in a country that offers such individual freedoms.

Does your statement regarding the 'good' of the Islamic religion really invite discussion or provoke debate?

Well, once again - to try to 'discuss' rather than 'debate'. How do you think Taoist Monks view Christianity - do you believe that from their viewpoint (since you have pulled this discussion into one of 'viewpoint'), that the past actions and ideals of Christianity would hold up well to Islam? Would their view of Christianity look similar to your view of Islam?

I also have noticed a couple of times you have mentioned Mohammad's views on dogs, do you also wonder about the legends of St. Patrick and driving the snakes out of Ireland? Was it a morbid fear that drove St. Patrick in this instance? Or do you bring this up to 'color' Mohammad among pet lovers?

 

[Calabrio]

So, Cal, what about your statement engages 'discussion'?

None. I'm not in the mood- but if someone else wants to, I have no problem with that, nor do I think they should be beaten about the head for accepting such an invitation.

Also, I'm not a moral relativist, a philosophy or a set of values are judged both by what they set out to do as well as what they accomplish.

 

[foxpaws]

None. I'm not in the mood- but if someone else wants to, I have no problem with that, nor do I think they should be beaten about the head for accepting such an invitation.

Also, I'm not a moral relativist, a philosophy or a set of values are judged both by what they set out to do as well as what they accomplish.

So, you just threw out that rather provoking statement for what reason? More argument? You state it doesn't encourage discussion, so what sort of 'invitation' is it?

And by your statement it seems that we should look at all religions, not based only on 'what they say' but what practitioners of that religion interpret 'what they say' and how then they act on it... right?

 

[Calabrio]

So, you just threw out that rather provoking statement for what reason? More argument? You state it doesn't encourage discussion, so what sort of 'invitation' is it?

Because I think it's funny that the cult leader was afraid of dogs, so it's part of the teaching now. I think it's a great way to demonstrate how Islam is a cult established by a lunatic narcissist who wanted to be personally worshiped than this point.

Have you seen how the Muslims treat dogs in the East, it pisses me off.
Not mention the treatment of women and infidels.

And by your statement it seems that we should look at all religions, not based only on 'what they say' but what practitioners of that religion interpret 'what they say' and how then they act on it... right?

You can take it into account, but you don't view isolated incidences the same as the mainstream or reasonable people. You don't base Christianity on the work of the handful of "God Hates :q:q:qs" people, no more than you evaluate the work of the post office by the isolated shooters that have been identified as such as well.

 

[foxpaws]

So, the 1.5+ billion people who are muslims are all alike - they all follow the same "Mutilating women, beating women, honor killings, and engaging in a religion that endorses places all "non-believers" into forced slavery" philosophy?

Wouldn't it follow that, just as in Christianity, where, as you stated, we shouldn't base "Christianity on the work of the handful of "God Hates [blank] people", you shouldn't be basing Islam on the work of the unreasonable Islamic followers Cal? I would think you would be hearing of a lot more problems in the islamic world if there was anything above a minority that participated in all of the items you mentioned above. However, I will give you the way that they have historically treated women is appalling. That is changing, albeit slowly, too slowly. Christians weren't shining lights regarding that for centuries either, but finally, things have improved.

 

[fossten]

So, the 1.5+ billion people who are muslims are all alike - they all follow the same "Mutilating women, beating women, honor killings, and engaging in a religion that endorses places all "non-believers" into forced slavery" philosophy?

Wouldn't it follow that, just as in Christianity, where, as you stated, we shouldn't base "Christianity on the work of the handful of "God Hates [blank] people", you shouldn't be basing Islam on the work of the unreasonable Islamic followers Cal? I would think you would be hearing of a lot more problems in the islamic world if there was anything above a minority that participated in all of the items you mentioned above. However, I will give you the way that they have historically treated women is appalling. That is changing, albeit slowly, too slowly. Christians weren't shining lights regarding that for centuries either, but finally, things have improved.

It is quite well known that according to modern, current muslim teaching, if you're a good muslim then you should be on a jihad.

And the worst Christian practices ever toward women don't hold a candle to the current muslim practices toward women. Your attempts to equivocate fall on deaf ears.

 

[Calabrio]

like until the 1900's women were property?

Really? Are you saying that was universal to Christianity?
Where? And if so, how/when did that change.

And were honor killings ok back then too?

 

[Calabrio]

are you saying the tripe you spew is universal to islam?

You're answering a question with a question, that doesn't work.
You made a stupid charge, now support it or clarify it.

 

[Calabrio]

You seemed to have made a mistake and posted a big bunch of bullcrap without any context instead of answer the question you were asked.

I'll keep waiting for you to answer the question.

 

[fossten]

from the koran

"As for those who lead a righteous life, MALE OR FEMALE. while believing, t hey enter Paradise; without the slightest injustice"

" Anyone who works righteousness, MALE OR FEMALE, while believing, we will surely grant them a happy life in this world, and we will surely pay them their full recompense for their righteous works."

[40:40] Whoever commits a sin is requited for just that, and whoever works righteousness - MALE OR FEMALE - while believing, these will enter Paradise wherein they receive provisions without any limits.


from the bible

2:11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.

2:12 But I don't permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness.

2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

2:14 Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;

2:15 but she will be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.

Any ignoramus can take the Bible out of context.

Thusly:

Psalm 14:1 - ...there is no God.

You don't even understand the verses you quoted.

Please find in Christian teachings where women are supposed to have their cl**s cut off.

 

[fossten]

and it's only quite well known in your little propagandist christian circle.

Please find the Bible verse where it says women are property.

 

[fossten]

you and shag state how america is based on christian values. until the 1900"s in law women were deemed property.

Correlation does not equal causation. Please show me the text and citation of the law, and where the basis for it exists in the Bible.

In short, you need to make your case.

Until you do that, you FAIL.

 

[fossten]

i answered your bs, now show where your previous statements against islam are true.

You didn't answer crap. You c/p'd some verses you found on some ignorant website that couldn't explain the Bible if it had an entire Seminary helping it.

 

[shagdrum]

you and shag state how america is based on christian values. until the 1900"s in law women were deemed property.

So..."women as property" is somehow "christian values"? That makes no logical sense. Not too surprising considering who wrote it.

Just because the country was founded on Christian values doesn't mean that all laws reflect Christian values. You are making a fallacy of division argument.

A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.​

Even if your argument were somehow logical, it still doesn't prove that the idea of women as property is inherent to Christianity as a whole, as opposed to a unique, unorthodox interpretation of Christianity.

 

[Calabrio]

i answered your bs,

Incorrect. You responded by saying something I posted earlier was BS. Fair enough. However, I didn't ask any "BS", I simply asked you to support or clarify your statement. Something you've yet to do.

I'll wait.

now show where your previous statements against islam are true.

We'll get to that next, in order, but support your statement first.
But, in preparation, I should ask, do you want text or video about Islam?

 

[fossten]

hrmwrm isn't any different from the Jagger-bot, except he spews more hate.

Apparently this is the best the atheist community can do by way of debate - misdirect, spam/quote, spew hate, and generally annoy.

 

[shagdrum]

hrmwrm, your post (#47) contained 1772 words, only 86 of which came from you. That is 4.85% of the words in that post that came from you. Are you going to revert back to your dishonest "wall 'o' text" type posts again?

Resolved, that woman has too long rested satisfied in the circumscribed limits which corrupt customs and a perverted application of the Scriptures have marked out for her, and that it is time she should move in the enlarged sphere which her great Creator has assigned her.

This only shows that this group thought that the limitations on them were due to a perverted application of Scripture. It, in no way, shows that the country was actually founding on "perverted" interpretations of Scripture, let alone that the idea of "women as property" is somehow universal in Christianity (which was the original argument here that you seem to be getting away from).

In short, all you are doing to prove your point is citing mere assertions of others that are not backed up (as you have shown them, anyway) and are irrelevant to the original point.

St. Jerome, a 4th-century Latin father of the Christian church, said: "Woman is the gate of the devil, the path of wickedness, the sting of the serpent, in a word a perilous object."

It is clear that the line you are quoting is talking about Eve. How does that have anything to do with the idea that "women are property" is somehow universally applicable to Christianity?

Oh, wait; it doesn't. You are misdirecting and in doing so showing your notorious lack of any intellectual integrity.

Thomas Aquinas, the 13th-century Christian theologian, said that woman was "created to be man's helpmeet, but her unique role is in conception . . . since for other purposes men would be better assisted by other men."

This quote is clearly talking about the unique role that women play in conception. How does that prove that Christianity views women as "property"? You just can't stay on topic, can you.

need a little more damning evidence from within the church itself?

How about we just go for some relevant evidence. A little primary evidence (Scripture) would be nice as well (as opposed to the mere assertions and views of others). You seem incapable of doing that. You are merely trying to smear Christianity in general here and not staying on topic. That, once again, shows you to be incapable of an honest debate and a hack who is only interested in smearing Christianity.

 

[shagdrum]

and you're the best the christian right can do. i feel sorry for you. you seem to keep interjecting with stupid quips like jagger-bot. and you don't even finish debates you get into either. tight spot, just quit. shag did the same in the id thread as well. couldn't make your claims stand, so you quit. or you wait for someone else to come bail you out. check it out. my post was to fossten, then calabrio jumps in . gonna finish YOUR arguements fossten?
what a moron.

How about you stop dishonestly smearing us. I was very clear in that thread as to why I left (I was very busy with finals and term papers at the time). You are spinning and distorting the truth to smear here and you know it. I had also left that thread after showing you to be a hack who could only cut and paste other peoples arguments in large and technically dense chunks, often out of context, in a disingenuous attempt to avoid debate; that you were (and are) incapable of any honest debate yourself.

You are a hateful, petty little man who has no credibility in this political forum due to your dishonest and deceptive arguing tactics. You are not even staying on topic in this debate, but are only working to smear Christianity.

 

[foxpaws]

So - Christians didn't go after women? How about the witch hunts... very 'Christian'... And, lets say 50,000 deaths...

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live; every one, man or woman, actually guilty of witchcraft, was to be put to death. The sorceress is merely named because women were more addicted to this practice than men. (Exodus Ch 22 v 18)

Witch burning happened throughout Europe - across political and geographic boundaries. And the victims were almost always women... It was a church backed initiative. Christian religions, both catholic and protestant supported witch burning.

Brian Levack's book The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe arrives at roughly similar conclusions. Levack "surveyed regional studies and found that there were approximately 110,000 witch trials. Levack focused on recorded trials, not executions, because in many cases we have evidence that a trial occurred but no indication of its outcomes. On average, 48% of trials ended in an execution, [and] therefore he estimated 60,000 witches died. This is slightly higher than 48% to reflect the fact that Germany, the center of the persecution, killed more than 48% of its witches." (Gibbons, Recent Developments.) [From "The European Witch-Hunts, c. 1450-1750 and Witch-Hunts Today; Researched and written by Adam Jones.]

...for the most reasonable modern estimates suggest perhaps 100,000 trials between 1450 and 1750, with something between 40,000 and 50,000 executions (Briggs, Witches & Neighbours, p. 8.) ​

and jihad has many meanings - just as crusade does.

 

[fossten]

and you're the best the christian right can do. i feel sorry for you. you seem to keep interjecting with stupid quips like jagger-bot. and you don't even finish debates you get into either. tight spot, just quit. shag did the same in the id thread as well. couldn't make your claims stand, so you quit. or you wait for someone else to come bail you out. check it out. my post was to fossten, then calabrio jumps in . gonna finish YOUR arguements fossten?
what a moron.

Wow. What a response - the typical "NO U!"

 

[fossten]

So - Christians didn't go after women? How about the witch hunts... very 'Christian'... And, lets say 50,000 deaths...

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live; every one, man or woman, actually guilty of witchcraft, was to be put to death. The sorceress is merely named because women were more addicted to this practice than men. (Exodus Ch 22 v 18)

Witch burning happened throughout Europe - across political and geographic boundaries. And the victims were almost always women... It was a church backed initiative. Christian religions, both catholic and protestant supported witch burning.

Brian Levack's book The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe arrives at roughly similar conclusions. Levack "surveyed regional studies and found that there were approximately 110,000 witch trials. Levack focused on recorded trials, not executions, because in many cases we have evidence that a trial occurred but no indication of its outcomes. On average, 48% of trials ended in an execution, [and] therefore he estimated 60,000 witches died. This is slightly higher than 48% to reflect the fact that Germany, the center of the persecution, killed more than 48% of its witches." (Gibbons, Recent Developments.) [From "The European Witch-Hunts, c. 1450-1750 and Witch-Hunts Today; Researched and written by Adam Jones.]

...for the most reasonable modern estimates suggest perhaps 100,000 trials between 1450 and 1750, with something between 40,000 and 50,000 executions (Briggs, Witches & Neighbours, p. 8.) ​

and jihad has many meanings - just as crusade does.

And how many witch burnings are going on now? You really don't know the difference between Exodus and the rest of the Bible, do you? Are we all going to hell if we eat pork as well? Thanks for displaying your gross ignorance of the Bible for all the rest of us to see.

And I have to yet again object to your blanket inclusion of catholics into Christianity. There are distinct, extreme differences, which I've taken great pains to point out in another thread.

 

[foxpaws]

You really don't know the difference between Exodus and the rest of the Bible, do you? Are we all going to hell if we eat pork as well? Thanks for displaying your gross ignorance of the Bible for all the rest of us to see.

So, lets look at Exodus... Legend has it that Moses wrote Exodus, it gives us the story of the 'exodus' from Egypt. It gave us Passover, the 10 commandments, burning bushes, the parting of the red sea... We pick and choose Foss?

But, you know, if you want to discount Exodus - please do foss, but I will call you on it in the future...

And many Jews still do follow the dietary laws set in Exodus.

How about...
Deuteronomy Ch 18 v 10-12
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.vFor all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

Or does Deuteronomy not count too?

No witch burnings now - I was answering your little tidbit in post #31

And the worst Christian practices ever toward women don't hold a candle to the current muslim practices toward women. Your attempts to equivocate fall on deaf ears.

Christian religions at their worst did a great job of holding that candle next to the Muslims regarding their treatment of women in the past.

And I have to yet again object to your blanket inclusion of catholics into Christianity. There are distinct, extreme differences, which I've taken great pains to point out in another thread.

And Catholicism is a Christian 'religion' as defined by the rest of the world. However, if you toss them out - Christianity moves to 2nd place in total population of religion in the world Foss - behind Islam. You can't have Christianity sit at the top of the heap - as you have stated in the past, if you don't include catholics. And how about Mormons - should we toss them as well? Got a list for us foss - what religions count as 'Christian' and which don't? I am sure that 2 billion Christians world wide is going to dwindle quickly... Just take out Catholics and it is down to just 1 billion. Toss out the rest you probably have 'problems' with and your 'true' Christianity probably is 1/2 the size of Islam. And would only constitute about 1/2 the population of the US.

But, back to the ethical and humane treatment of women... Heck, the real culprits, as far as sheer numbers of witch burnings, were the protestants in Germany - not the Catholics.

 

[fossten]

Again, Fox, you don't understand the difference between Old Testament Law for the Jews and the rest of the Bible. But keep sputtering, it amuses me. Your entire premise of witch killing is nothing but a straw man that has nothing to do with Christianity.

But hey - maybe I'm missing the point. Is there some personal reason why you don't like the Bible's stance on witches?

And Christianity isn't a religion. Catholicism, Mormonism, et al, are religions. There's a difference. Just because mainstream ignorance has lumped them together doesn't make it so.

 

[foxpaws]

Again, Fox, you don't understand the difference between Old Testament Law for the Jews and the rest of the Bible. But keep sputtering, it amuses me. Your entire premise of witch killing is nothing but a straw man that has nothing to do with Christianity.

But hey - maybe I'm missing the point. Is there some personal reason why you don't like the Bible's stance on witches?

And Christianity isn't a religion. Catholicism, Mormonism, et al, are religions. There's a difference. Just because mainstream ignorance has lumped them together doesn't make it so.

However, some of old Testament Law isn't just for Jews - right - the 10 Commandments for instance.

I bet you have used many parts of old Testament law when you needed it to back up an assertion of yours.

How convenient that you can pick and choose - just like you can pick and choose which denominations are real 'Christians' and which aren't... And you can move them in and out of the fold when you need to. Need more Christians to prove that Christianity is larger than Islam - we'll add Catholics. Don't like what the Catholic religion has done in the past - we will exclude them from Christianity.

Certainly 'Christians' of many denominations at the time used those bible references to commit gendercide. You asked for an example, along with biblical verse, I gave both. Now we have to make sure it fits within the magical 'Foss' definition of both?

I don't think so...

And, yes, anytime a group of people, just because of blind prejudice, is singled out for mass murder, it is upsetting. Witch burning is one of those times were a strong group (men who belonged to Christian religions) set out to kill members of another group - in this case women. Women who may not have embraced Christianity the 'correct' way in the view of those men.

 

[Velo]

Please people this kind of dicussing should not be on a car forum.
Give your head a shake and stick to the cars.