Muslims show Christian minister whose is religion of peace

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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

like until the 1900's women were property?

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

are you saying the tripe you spew is universal to islam?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
:rolleyes:

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.
 
i answered your bs, now show where your previous statements against islam are true.
 
Please find the Bible verse where it says women are property.

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

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
the declaration of sentiments, 1848

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they were accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.

He has compelled her to submit to law in the formation of which she had no voice.

He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men, both natives and foreigners.

Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.

He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead. He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.

He has made her morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master-the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty and to administer chastisement.

He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes and, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women-the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man and giving all power into his hands.

After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.

He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration. He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.

He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education, all colleges being closed against her.

He allows her in church, as well as state, but a subordinate position, claiming apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the church.

He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man.

He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and to her God.

He has endeavored, in every way that he could, to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.

Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation, in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of the United States.

In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the state and national legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of conventions embracing every part of the country.

Resolutions
Whereas, the great precept of nature is conceded to be that “man shall pursue his own true and substantial happiness.” Blackstone in his Commentaries remarks that this law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this, and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their validity, and all their authority, mediately and immediately, from this original; therefore,

Resolved, That such laws as conflict, in any way, with the true and substantial happiness of woman, are contrary to the great precept of nature and of no validity, for this is superior in obligation to any other.

Resolved, that all laws which prevent woman from occupying such a station in society as her conscience shall dictate, or which place her in a position inferior to that of man, are contrary to the great precept of nature and therefore of no force or authority.

Resolved, that woman is man's equal, was intended to be so by the Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she should be recognized as such.

Resolved, that the women of this country ought to be enlightened in regard to the laws under which they live, that they may no longer publish their degradation by declaring themselves satisfied with their present position, nor their ignorance, by asserting that they have all the rights they want.

Resolved, that inasmuch as man, while claiming for himself intellectual superiority, does accord to woman moral superiority, it is preeminently his duty to encourage her to speak and teach, as she has an opportunity, in all religious assemblies.

Resolved, that the same amount of virtue, delicacy, and refinement of behavior that is required of woman in the social state also be required of man, and the same transgressions should be visited with equal severity on both man and woman.

Resolved, that the objection of indelicacy and impropriety, which is so often brought against woman when she addresses a public audience, comes with a very ill grace from those who encourage, by their attendance, her appearance on the stage, in the concert, or in feats of the circus.

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.

Resolved, that it is the duty of the women of this country to secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective franchise.

Resolved, that the equality of human rights results necessarily from the fact of the identity of the race in capabilities and responsibilities.

Resolved, that the speedy success of our cause depends upon the zealous and untiring efforts of both men and women for the overthrow of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to woman an equal participation with men in the various trades, professions, and commerce.

Resolved, therefore, that, being invested by the Creator with the same capabilities and same consciousness of responsibility for their exercise, it is demonstrably the right and duty of woman, equally with man, to promote every righteous cause by every righteous means; and especially in regard to the great subjects of morals and religion, it is self-evidently her right to participate with her brother in teaching them, both in private and in public, by writing and by speaking, by any instrumentalities proper to be used, and in any assemblies proper to be held; and this being a self-evident truth growing out of the divinely implanted principles of human nature, any custom or authority adverse to it, whether modern or wearing the hoary sanction of antiquity, is to be regarded as a self-evident falsehood, and at war with mankind.



was it universal? at one time. when did it change? i don't believe it has completely changed. some still prefer even the traditional wedding vows of LOVE,HONOR,OBEY.




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." 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."

need a little more damning evidence from within the church itself?
if things were hunky dory, there wouldn't have been the need for NAWSA.
here, i'll spell that out for you
NATIONAL AMERICAN WOMEN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION.
 
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.

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.
 
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. :rolleyes:

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.
 
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. :rolleyes:
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top