Is Islam "The Religion of peace"?
Genioic-acid said: Nope. Also, the reason for terrorism is never religious. It's almost always political tbh, people mistake religion and "religion based organizations" All major religions is based on peaceful ideologies. Christianity is also religion based on it, tho where it was as young of a religion as Islam is, it was in whole lot of wars in the "name of god", while religion as cause of war is just propaganda type of idea push for people for easier manipulation. |
| Signature was not removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Tulip & Flower Guidelines. |
Chiki said: Ah yeah but many would suggest that one must read it in Arabic to get a better understanding in it.. http://www.all-quran.com/extdocs/Holy_Quran_Full.pdfThebigofan said: This thread is garbage. All I see is cherry-picking of verses in the Quran by people who aren't Muslims. Newsflash: People who aren't Muslims can read and criticize the Quran. |
 Behold of my awesomeness~ controversial and/or sensitive topics likely devolve into the same repetitive, derogatory, abusive, and harassing comments can no longer be posted. But my feels. |
| Islam is religion and political doctrine. All in one. |
Rasco said: Chiki said: Ah yeah but many would suggest that one must read it in Arabic to get a better understanding in it.. http://www.all-quran.com/extdocs/Holy_Quran_Full.pdfNewsflash: People who aren't Muslims can read and criticize the Quran. "Slay" means kill, etc. regardless of whether or not it's in Arabic. "Roasting in hellfire" means burning in hellfire regardless of whether or not it's in Arabic. Anyone who thinks that there would be such incredible changes in meaning due to translations is an imbecile and should be ignored. |
Helenus said: Islam is religion and political doctrine. All in one. False, no religion is political doctrine, this would imply that all nations with major Muslim population has completely same political views. It could be said that religion may be to motivate less educated people towards war, for other reasons that had nothing to do with religion, while making them believe that they fighting for religion. |
| Signature was not removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Tulip & Flower Guidelines. |
Temoze said: Helenus said: Islam is religion and political doctrine. All in one. False, no religion is political doctrine, this would imply that all nations with major Muslim population has completely same political views. It could be said that religion may be to motivate less educated people towards war, for other reasons that had nothing to do with religion, while making them believe that they fighting for religion. Nope. |
Helenus said: Temoze said: False, no religion is political doctrine, this would imply that all nations with major Muslim population has completely same political views. It could be said that religion may be to motivate less educated people towards war, for other reasons that had nothing to do with religion, while making them believe that they fighting for religion. Nope. One word is not making a point. Ether say something to defend your point or stop making random claims. |
GhostOutOfShellNov 15, 2015 3:38 PM
| Signature was not removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Tulip & Flower Guidelines. |
Chiki said: Thats called confirmation bias, since you think translating is so easy, thus the understanding should be just as easy.Rasco said: Ah yeah but many would suggest that one must read it in Arabic to get a better understanding in it.. http://www.all-quran.com/extdocs/Holy_Quran_Full.pdf "Slay" means kill, etc. regardless of whether or not it's in Arabic. "Roasting in hellfire" means burning in hellfire regardless of whether or not it's in Arabic. Anyone who thinks that there would be such incredible changes in meaning due to translations is an imbecile and should be ignored. While I do think the Quran is just as crazy as the bible, it has less translations than the bible. Since they want to teach the quran in its most original form. |
Behold of my awesomeness~ controversial and/or sensitive topics likely devolve into the same repetitive, derogatory, abusive, and harassing comments can no longer be posted. But my feels. |
| The "read it in Arabic" line is pure obfuscation. There is nothing you can't translate. If certain famous, violent lines were translated wrongly, then post the real translation. That doesn't happen though. What you get instead is people saying this or that word can mean multiple, similar things, which allows for slight differences in interpretation. I think that argument has run its course. If the intuitive, straightforward reading leads to violence (from guys who's first language is Arabic), then it's a shitty book and about as far from divine as you can get. That's just the Quran. Then there's Muhammad. I think he's been covered enough. |
Altairius said: The "read it in Arabic" line is pure obfuscation. There is nothing you can't translate. If certain famous, violent lines were translated wrongly, then post the real translation. That doesn't happen though. What you get instead is people saying this or that word can mean multiple, similar things, which allows for slight differences in interpretation. I think that argument has run its course. If the intuitive, straightforward reading leads to violence (from guys who's first language is Arabic), then it's a shitty book and about as far from divine as you can get. That's just the Quran. Then there's Muhammad. I think he's been covered enough. Lets not forget the original writers of the Bible spoke Aramic and Hebrew and that the New Testament came from "fragments" of 5,700 Greek Koine manuscripts. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/P46.jpg/424px-P46.jpg |
Behold of my awesomeness~ controversial and/or sensitive topics likely devolve into the same repetitive, derogatory, abusive, and harassing comments can no longer be posted. But my feels. |
Altairius said: The "read it in Arabic" line is pure obfuscation. There is nothing you can't translate. If certain famous, violent lines were translated wrongly, then post the real translation. Some languages has multi meaning word that can't be translated simply without losing the point, same for metaphors, figures of speech etc. Most poetry works for example can't be translated without losing some of meanings it has. Also no religious text should be taken directly, it's mostly metaphorical meaning wise. |
| Signature was not removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Tulip & Flower Guidelines. |
| It should be taken metaphorically/non-literally, and I would argue that someone who does so is at most a Deist. If you don't believe any of the events in a given holy book literally happened, then you're left with a general God who likes to tell stories. |
Altairius said: It should be taken metaphorically/non-literally, and I would argue that someone who does so is at most a Deist. If you don't believe any of the events in a given holy book literally happened, then you're left with a general God who likes to tell stories. It's a philosophical book, that have mostly stories that teaches people on the way of living and should make them question things, with few events that could be historically true, tho whatever it is or not doesn't matter, it's about points those stories tries to make. Religion is more about teaching people than anything else. God could not write a book or tell a story (well at least directly, if we add view points from some systems to this, he could) , people put their view perspectives while doing so, god in religion is just ultimate form of energy, just like heaven in christian believe system is not a place, but a state. And this comes from a person who does not follow any of the major religions. P.S. By Deist you meant - "a person who believes that God created the universe and then abandoned it"? |
GhostOutOfShellNov 15, 2015 3:53 PM
| Signature was not removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Tulip & Flower Guidelines. |
Caelidesu said: A7MAD111 said: Yet you utterly ignored the whole point , but good for you . At least you show how you are less interested in the discussion , but greatly in grammar ... odd . Your only argument involved misunderstanding of grammar, so it's only natural that I established the truth instead. Altairius said: I'm not even concerned if people want to worship some pedophile warlord from the 7th century. Let's just go with facts. There is far too disproportionate a risk involved with letting in floods of people from the Islamic world, compared with any other group of people. Blame Western interventionism all you want. That doesn't change the proper course of action. I'm not 100% sure as to what that is, but it is definitely not to let tons of these people in. If they very clearly seem to be living under horrible conditions, then it's plausible that some Western country (preferably countries... why should it always have to be the US) should intervene and try to sort things out. That is all though. We will go there, not the other way around. The good country goes in and tries to fix the shit one. The shit one does not smear all of its shit across the good one. Fuck you if you think that's "xenophobic". It's called common sense, and it's increasingly rare. I'm glad you see some sense! It's fucking scary to think that LEADERS OF THE EU are letting girls be raped in broad fucking daylight for nonsensical reasons. I couldn't make that shit up if I tried. Weren't you claiming "holy war" when it mentioned the word war in this sentence c). this also applies during war. If a prisoner is captured by the enemy and perhaps asked how many soldiers are with his army, he can lie about the number in order to protect his own fighters. " And the whole thing about lying Islam ? I am being honest when I told you that you forsaken the whole thing and went to " you wrote x instead of y kekeke ... okay whatever suits your fancy . |
Agafin said: A religion of peace would be one with NO terrorists. But you and I both know that there are plenty of Christian terrorist organizations, not only in Africa but even in seemingly less hostile countries like China or India. Not too mention the US of course. j0x said: i can see the relationship of poverty and religion from those Then why aren't there just as many christian terrorists as there are muslim terrorists in Africa? Take Nigeria for example, half of the population is christian while the other half is muslim yet only one of the two keeps wreaking havoc. A "religion of peace" implies a religion that requires pacifism. Christianity DOES NOT require one to be a pacifist, and in fact, most deeply religious parts of the US also strongly respect and encourage military service. That is not peace. I am sorry, but declaring Christianity a religion of peace is bull shit. Whether you believe that the Middle Eastern Crusades were for "self defense" still cannot justify the Northern Crusades carried out in the same fashion against North Eastern Europe. There is a reason that Christianity is pretty much the only religion in Europe (Not that much different in fact from the reason behind why Islam is the only religion in the Middle East). Also, much like the sectarian violence that is occurring in the Middle East, Europe saw plenty of blood shed between protestants and the catholic church. Do not pretend that Christianity was EVER a religion of peace. A religion of peace is one where its believers (who desire to go to heaven or please their god or whatever) would NEVER break a core tenant. If Christianity was truly centered around peace, then there would be a lot more Quakers in this world. However, there are not. In fact, many religious people at the time (and to this day) mock Quakers for being "conscientious objectors". Religion of peace my ass. Edit: Correction. I will give credit where credit is due. There are sects of Christianity that truly believe in peace, and practice it. But they do not make up a significant portion of Christianity, so applying their beliefs to "christian norms" would be a lie. |
Pirating_NinjaNov 15, 2015 9:13 PM
 |
Pirating_Ninja said: All that is contingent on defining "peace" as never employing any violence whatsoever even in self-defense. As already mentioned, Jainism would be as close as it comes, but that isn't a practical way to live, so even "peace" taken to the extreme is nonsensical. All that being said, Jesus never killed anyone or hit anyone (although he overturned tables to drive out money changers from the temple), but he did recognize self-defense but of course prefaced it with: "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword," to indicate that anyone who does so must be willing to give their life in return. |
RedRoseFringNov 15, 2015 9:24 PM
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
RedRoseFring said: Pirating_Ninja said: All that is contingent on defining "peace" as never employing any violence whatsoever even in self-defense. As already mentioned, Jainism would be as close as it comes, but that isn't a practical way to live, so even "peace" taken to the extreme is nonsensical. All that being said, Jesus never killed anyone or hit anyone (although he overturned tables to drive out money changers from the temple), but he did recognize self-defense but of course prefaced it with: "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword," to indicate that anyone who does so must be willing to give their life in return. So in other words, Christianity (as I stated) is also not a religion of peace. I never said that Christianity itself claimed to be a religion of peace. What I did say was that claiming so is bull @#$%. Also, even if we allow "self-defense", does this mean that Christianity (historically) has only ever resorted to violence in self-defense? No matter what way you define "peace", you cannot claim that Christianity is a practitioner or supporter of peace based upon actions either condoned by leaders in the religion or by the individuals themselves. I am not bashing Christianity and I am not supporting Islam. I am just noting that this recent trend among some truly is the Pot calling the kettle black. |
|
A7MAD111 said: Caelidesu said: Your only argument involved misunderstanding of grammar, so it's only natural that I established the truth instead. Weren't you claiming "holy war" when it mentioned the word war in this sentence c). this also applies during war. If a prisoner is captured by the enemy and perhaps asked how many soldiers are with his army, he can lie about the number in order to protect his own fighters. " Adjective noun is a type of noun. A big table is a kind of table. A green apple is a kind of apple. A holy war is a kind of war. A7MAD111 said: If a prisoner is captured by the enemy and perhaps asked how many soldiers are with his army, he can lie about the number in order to protect his own fighters. Such as calling troops 'refugees' and saying that most Muslims are peaceful. Thanks for being so clear about it. Pirating_Ninja said: RedRoseFring said: All that is contingent on defining "peace" as never employing any violence whatsoever even in self-defense. As already mentioned, Jainism would be as close as it comes, but that isn't a practical way to live, so even "peace" taken to the extreme is nonsensical. All that being said, Jesus never killed anyone or hit anyone (although he overturned tables to drive out money changers from the temple), but he did recognize self-defense but of course prefaced it with: "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword," to indicate that anyone who does so must be willing to give their life in return. So in other words, Christianity (as I stated) is also not a religion of peace. I never said that Christianity itself claimed to be a religion of peace. What I did say was that claiming so is bull @#$%. Also, even if we allow "self-defense", does this mean that Christianity (historically) has only ever resorted to violence in self-defense? No matter what way you define "peace", you cannot claim that Christianity is a practitioner or supporter of peace based upon actions either condoned by leaders in the religion or by the individuals themselves. I am not bashing Christianity and I am not supporting Islam. I am just noting that this recent trend among some truly is the Pot calling the kettle black. Let's pretend that Christianity and Islam are comparable and that one of them is a religion of peace. You have one prophet that spoke harsh truths, fed the hungry, healed the sick, and even let himself be tortured and killed by his enemies. You have another prophet that raided villages, took young girls as sex slaves, and commanded a regime that went on to conquer surrounding countries and force their citizens to submit to his rule by force. Which one is the prophet from the religion of peace? To refer to Jesus merely as a prophet is practically an insult, and I'm doing so merely for the sake of comparison |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Thebigofan said: So only Muslims should be able to have a say about Islam? Yeah that so would be unbiased... its not like theyd have favouritism for their ow religion... oh wait.This thread is garbage. All I see is cherry-picking of verses in the Quran by people who aren't Muslims. |
| I don't care, religion is for low iq pawns |
Pirating_Ninja said: RedRoseFring said: All that is contingent on defining "peace" as never employing any violence whatsoever even in self-defense. As already mentioned, Jainism would be as close as it comes, but that isn't a practical way to live, so even "peace" taken to the extreme is nonsensical. All that being said, Jesus never killed anyone or hit anyone (although he overturned tables to drive out money changers from the temple), but he did recognize self-defense but of course prefaced it with: "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword," to indicate that anyone who does so must be willing to give their life in return. So in other words, Christianity (as I stated) is also not a religion of peace. I never said that Christianity itself claimed to be a religion of peace. What I did say was that claiming so is bull @#$%. Also, even if we allow "self-defense", does this mean that Christianity (historically) has only ever resorted to violence in self-defense? No matter what way you define "peace", you cannot claim that Christianity is a practitioner or supporter of peace based upon actions either condoned by leaders in the religion or by the individuals themselves. I am not bashing Christianity and I am not supporting Islam. I am just noting that this recent trend among some truly is the Pot calling the kettle black. You would then have to go on to separate the actual tenets of the faith from those practitioners who twist it, which is just tedious. I already mentioned that no religion would qualify with that extreme definition of peace because NO person could ever follow such a thing. If we use the practical definition of peace, then I would say so. Again, I am not saying that all practitioners would qualify, as there is no such ideology with 100% adherence, people will be people after all. And I disagree with the description of "the pot calling the kettle black." Even with flawed ideologies such as America's, the reasons for their acts are significantly different. If you meant the atheists on this thread, then the same applies. Their faulty actions and hypocrisies would also be for vastly different reasons. If you meant the Christians, then that would also be awry, because Jesus would have every reason to call Muhammad black. Edit: forgot to add "no", Christians did not always resort to violence in self-defense, but that just pertains to the issue of separating an ideology from its followers. |
RedRoseFringNov 15, 2015 10:40 PM
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
| this kinda topic is restless. never gonna settle anything. sorry but it's useless to discuss something so relative-based on pov thing. what i try to say is. just delete this thread admin. :v |
 |
Caelidesu said: Think you misunderstand me. I am not claiming either religion was founded upon the principle of "peace", or has exemplified peace through action at any point in time.Pirating_Ninja said: So in other words, Christianity (as I stated) is also not a religion of peace. I never said that Christianity itself claimed to be a religion of peace. What I did say was that claiming so is bull @#$%. Also, even if we allow "self-defense", does this mean that Christianity (historically) has only ever resorted to violence in self-defense? No matter what way you define "peace", you cannot claim that Christianity is a practitioner or supporter of peace based upon actions either condoned by leaders in the religion or by the individuals themselves. I am not bashing Christianity and I am not supporting Islam. I am just noting that this recent trend among some truly is the Pot calling the kettle black. Let's pretend that Christianity and Islam are comparable and that one of them is a religion of peace. You have one prophet that spoke harsh truths, fed the hungry, healed the sick, and even let himself be tortured and killed by his enemies. You have another prophet that raided villages, took young girls as sex slaves, and commanded a regime that went on to conquer surrounding countries and force their citizens to submit to his rule by force. Which one is the prophet from the religion of peace? To refer to Jesus merely as a prophet is practically an insult, and I'm doing so merely for the sake of comparison My answer to your question is neither. I mean are you implying that if the founder supported peace, then that religion is inherently a religion of peace, regardless of any actions they commit in the name of that religion? Again, take a look at Europe. Why is a country that had so many different religions all now different sects of Christianity? Do you think that it was a coincidence? Did you think that the Catholic church didn't lead "holy wars" to purge the lands of heretics? Did you think that when a group broke off and declared themselves protestants, claiming the catholic church corrupt, they just said "whatever"? Do you truly believe that the Crusaders marched onto Jerusalem carrying an olive branch and a dove? The list goes on and on and on. Events in history PROVE that neither Islam NOR CHRISTIANITY, have completely admonished violence. Not even just violence that was not for "self-defense". Do not sit here and tell me that Christianity (or Islam or Judaism) is a Religion of Peace. |
|
Temoze said: All it takes to get around that is simple notes that explain the double meanings. Metaphors are pretty easy to understand if you have some familiarity with a culture.Altairius said: The "read it in Arabic" line is pure obfuscation. There is nothing you can't translate. If certain famous, violent lines were translated wrongly, then post the real translation. Some languages has multi meaning word that can't be translated simply without losing the point, same for metaphors, figures of speech etc. Most poetry works for example can't be translated without losing some of meanings it has. Also no religious text should be taken directly, it's mostly metaphorical meaning wise. |
Pirating_Ninja said: are you implying that if the founder supported peace, then that religion is inherently a religion of peace, regardless of any actions they commit in the name of that religion? I'm implying that the source material matters. Find the part of the New Testament that shows Christianity to be inherently violent. We know that people are inherently violent, but what matters in this instance is the result of following the holy text properly, as that is what will pass on to future generations. The Quran encourages waging war against all 'unbelievers' as a matter of common discourse. Where is the Biblical equivalent? If there is no Biblical equivalent, then it becomes clear that you're having to conflate countries with ideologies in order to even pretend that there is some sense of equivalence between Christianity and Islam. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Caelidesu said: Since Jesus said that none of the Old Testament laws are removed when confirming he only removed the idea of animal sacrifice to God that makes the ideology violent.Pirating_Ninja said: are you implying that if the founder supported peace, then that religion is inherently a religion of peace, regardless of any actions they commit in the name of that religion? I'm implying that the source material matters. Find the part of the New Testament that shows Christianity to be inherently violent. We know that people are inherently violent, but what matters in this instance is the result of following the holy text properly, as that is what will pass on to future generations. The Quran encourages waging war against all 'unbelievers' as a matter of common discourse. Where is the Biblical equivalent? If there is no Biblical equivalent, then it becomes clear that you're having to conflate countries with ideologies in order to even pretend that there is some sense of equivalence between Christianity and Islam. An example is when Jesus talks about unruly children deserving death when you look at Old Testament law stoning unruly children. Plus he condoned the slavery the Old Testament talks about. Since all religions are anecdotal, they are all equal and debated among historians. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
| just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
Caelidesu said: Have you ever actually read deuteronomy? I don't really want to go into a quoting battle since both sides of this will lead to us pulling quotes that are convenient to prove the other side as saying "x" (even though both are typically just one interpretation of which there are many). Needless to say, yes, the holy text that Christianity must abide by, and that which Muslims must abide by, are both similar. If you truly do want to go down the path though, feel free to cite quotes, but if you haven't read deuteronomy, make sure to read it BEFORE doing this (or just get a basic jist of it). Too be honest though this is pointless. I don't know why anyone thinks they can prove a religion as being one of peace. By that same logic the people behind the crusades, inquisition, etc. should have all been tried as heretics and similarly been put to death.Pirating_Ninja said: are you implying that if the founder supported peace, then that religion is inherently a religion of peace, regardless of any actions they commit in the name of that religion? I'm implying that the source material matters. Find the part of the New Testament that shows Christianity to be inherently violent. We know that people are inherently violent, but what matters in this instance is the result of following the holy text properly, as that is what will pass on to future generations. The Quran encourages waging war against all 'unbelievers' as a matter of common discourse. Where is the Biblical equivalent? If there is no Biblical equivalent, then it becomes clear that you're having to conflate countries with ideologies in order to even pretend that there is some sense of equivalence between Christianity and Islam. |
|
Mr_Mantis said: Caelidesu said: Since Jesus said that none of the Old Testament laws are removed when confirming he only removed the idea of animal sacrifice to God that makes the ideology violent.I'm implying that the source material matters. Find the part of the New Testament that shows Christianity to be inherently violent. We know that people are inherently violent, but what matters in this instance is the result of following the holy text properly, as that is what will pass on to future generations. The Quran encourages waging war against all 'unbelievers' as a matter of common discourse. Where is the Biblical equivalent? If there is no Biblical equivalent, then it becomes clear that you're having to conflate countries with ideologies in order to even pretend that there is some sense of equivalence between Christianity and Islam. Matthew 5: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Jesus comes to fulfil, and not one jot of the law shall pass till all be fulfilled. It's a really difficult concept to grasp apparently, so take your time with it. That likely came across as way more condescending than I meant it to... Mr_Mantis said: An example is when Jesus talks about unruly children deserving death when you look at Old Testament law stoning unruly children. Plus he condoned the slavery the Old Testament talks about. Mark 7: 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. emphasis mine Once you've lost tradition, you've lost cultural strength. If you're a selfish ass then such things won't bother you, but anyone that wants to live in a world where their children aren't raped or murdered needs to heed those words. Mr_Mantis said: Since all religions are anecdotal, they are all equal and debated among historians. Since all x are y, they are all z? Mr_Mantis said: All anecdotes are equal.  Thanks for the laugh. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Pirating_Ninja said: Caelidesu said: Have you ever actually read deuteronomy?I'm implying that the source material matters. Find the part of the New Testament that shows Christianity to be inherently violent. We know that people are inherently violent, but what matters in this instance is the result of following the holy text properly, as that is what will pass on to future generations. The Quran encourages waging war against all 'unbelievers' as a matter of common discourse. Where is the Biblical equivalent? If there is no Biblical equivalent, then it becomes clear that you're having to conflate countries with ideologies in order to even pretend that there is some sense of equivalence between Christianity and Islam. I've done one better, I've read it in full in the context of its surrounding books! That's why I can say with confidence that not ignoring the 61 books that followed it will clear up any misconceptions you might have regarding the idea that: Pirating_Ninja said: the holy text that Christianity must abide by, and that which Muslims must abide by, are both similar. Have you read through Judges, Kings, and Chronicles? You'll see what it means for a nation to follow God's laws, and what inevitably happens after that. Do you know the symbolic importance of the 'tabernacle'? Do you understand the following verses? Mark 15: 37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. 38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. Have you read the book of Romans, which clearly outlines the significance of the gospel and why God has set up His creation in such a way? Pirating_Ninja said: I don't know why anyone thinks they can prove a religion as being one of peace. By that same logic the people behind the crusades, inquisition, etc. should have all been tried as heretics and similarly been put to death. By that logic the people that put to death those behind the crusades, inquisition, etc. should be tried and put to death, and that looks more like a cycle of violence to me, so I'm not quite sure what the point you're trying to make is. What scripture suggests that those behind the crusades, inquisition, etc. should be put to death? It certainly isn't 1 Peter Chapter 2. I think a different question would be more interesting: Does the fact that America has the death penalty mean that Christianity isn't peaceful? |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Chiki said: Thebigofan said: This thread is garbage. All I see is cherry-picking of verses in the Quran by people who aren't Muslims. Newsflash: People who aren't Muslims can read and criticize the Quran. Newsflash: If Islam is so peaceful, you could prove it. If people are cherry-picking, prove it. I'm not presenting these verses just to prove I'm right. I'm presenting them because there's a possibility I'm wrong. Yet how will I know if you won't explain it to me? |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
Caelidesu said: A7MAD111 said: Weren't you claiming "holy war" when it mentioned the word war in this sentence c). this also applies during war. If a prisoner is captured by the enemy and perhaps asked how many soldiers are with his army, he can lie about the number in order to protect his own fighters. " Adjective noun is a type of noun. A big table is a kind of table. A green apple is a kind of apple. A holy war is a kind of war. A7MAD111 said: If a prisoner is captured by the enemy and perhaps asked how many soldiers are with his army, he can lie about the number in order to protect his own fighters. Such as calling troops 'refugees' and saying that most Muslims are peaceful. Thanks for being so clear about it. Again , there was no mention of the word holy , I gave a site to explain the view of Islam in regard to lying . Yet , you come up with holy war. Now you go into making refugees warriors ? Of course , why should I bother explaining anything ? You will just come up with an absurd bs argument that fits your bias . |
A7MAD111 said: Caelidesu said: Adjective noun is a type of noun. A big table is a kind of table. A green apple is a kind of apple. A holy war is a kind of war. Again , there was no mention of the word holy , I gave a site to explain the view of Islam in regard to lying . Yet , you come up with holy war. Now I go into making warriors refugees ! It wasn't me that committed the murder your honour. You say he was killed with a 'gun'. Well I only had a 'machine gun' so I must be innocent! A 'dog' pooped on your front lawn? Well I was only out walking my 'brown dog' so it couldn't have been me! Obviously when someone says 'war', they don't mean 'holy war'. There's no way someone would think that a 'holy war' is a type of 'war'! No wonder they keep it obscured in a specific language. It's too blatantly easy to see through otherwise. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| Screw what they say, look at what they do. |
| SCARY MONSTER |
Caelidesu said: This is actually funny. So you are saying that this isn't true, and that by using this passage:Pirating_Ninja said: Have you ever actually read deuteronomy? I've done one better, I've read it in full in the context of its surrounding books! That's why I can say with confidence that not ignoring the 61 books that followed it will clear up any misconceptions you might have regarding the idea that: Pirating_Ninja said: the holy text that Christianity must abide by, and that which Muslims must abide by, are both similar. Have you read through Judges, Kings, and Chronicles? You'll see what it means for a nation to follow God's laws, and what inevitably happens after that. Do you know the symbolic importance of the 'tabernacle'? Do you understand the following verses? Mark 15: 37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. 38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. Have you read the book of Romans, which clearly outlines the significance of the gospel and why God has set up His creation in such a way? Pirating_Ninja said: I don't know why anyone thinks they can prove a religion as being one of peace. By that same logic the people behind the crusades, inquisition, etc. should have all been tried as heretics and similarly been put to death. By that logic the people that put to death those behind the crusades, inquisition, etc. should be tried and put to death, and that looks more like a cycle of violence to me, so I'm not quite sure what the point you're trying to make is. What scripture suggests that those behind the crusades, inquisition, etc. should be put to death? It certainly isn't 1 Peter Chapter 2. I think a different question would be more interesting: Does the fact that America has the death penalty mean that Christianity isn't peaceful? "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18) and only this passage, I come to a false conclusion? --------------------------------------- Now, since I have bounced that around, can I ask you, have you read the entirety of the Quran in Arabic? If your answer is anything but "yes", then why is it not hypocritical for you to take single quotes, based on one interpretation (of which there are many) and assume it is the truth behind the intent of the words? Why do you so easily accept that the phrases within the bible rely on context, yet at the same time so easily believe quotes of another holy document taken out of context? My initial point still stands, I can grab out of context quotes, and you can too. Where does that get us? You fault Islamic ideology based off of quotes taken out of context or interpreted in a very specific way, and assume them to be not only true, but indicative of why Muslims are currently doing it, and why Islam is not a religion of "peace". However, when using quotes such as Luke 19:27, in which Jesus says "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.", is that not similar to your previous claim on killing non-believers? Why is it that you will defend this quote as "out of context" but not any stemming from the Quran. The greater question I have though, is why must I defend Islam? I hate religion in general, so why is it that I must defend a religion that I am miles further away from than Christians? In summation, you are biased. Rationalizing that bias doesn't make it any less true, nor harmful. All it does is create a "us vs. them" mentality, and too be quite honest, I am sure that many of Islamic faith here the same crap about Christianity, which probably doesn't create a whole lotta love for the West. |
|
Pirating_Ninja said: Now, since I have bounced that around, can I ask you, have you read the entirety of the Quran in Arabic? If your answer is anything but "yes", then why is it not hypocritical for you to take single quotes, based on one interpretation (of which there are many) and assume it is the truth behind the intent of the words? I do the reverse. I start with their intent and actions as believers and work backwards to find out the doctrinal cause. Pirating_Ninja said: However, when using quotes such as Luke 19:27, in which Jesus says "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.", is that not similar to your previous claim on killing non-believers? Why is it that you will defend this quote as "out of context" but not any stemming from the Quran. Because that's blatantly talking about the second coming. It's immediately prefaced by a parable about the kingdom of heaven. Pirating_Ninja said: The greater question I have though, is why must I defend Islam? I hate religion in general, so why is it that I must defend a religion that I am miles further away from than Christians? You are a useful idiot as far as they're concerned. Pirating_Ninja said: In summation, you are biased. Rationalizing that bias doesn't make it any less true, nor harmful. All it does is create a "us vs. them" mentality, and too be quite honest, I am sure that many of Islamic faith here the same crap about Christianity, which probably doesn't create a whole lotta love for the West. The us vs. them mentality between Christians and Muslims was created by Mohammed. It'll never go away as long as there are both Christians and Muslims left alive. The most harmful thing for civilisation itself is people that are willing to denote equal worth to entirely disparate ideas merely because they've deigned to label them under the same 'umbrella' term. You can call poison food, but it'll still kill you. You can label all foods as poison, but you'll start eating something soon enough if you don't want to starve. Pirating_Ninja said: Why do you so easily accept that the phrases within the bible rely on context, yet at the same time so easily believe quotes of another holy document taken out of context? Why are you so quick to assume that a religion's most devout fanatics are the ones taking verses the furthest out of context? Christian extremists fly out to other countries and spread the gospel while performing good deeds. Why aren't they taking your out of context verses seriously with their actions? Muslim extremists fly out to other countries to kill as many unbelievers as they can. Why are they taking the supposed 'out of context' verses seriously with their actions? |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| Caelidesu has went full retard real quick, it seems. Caelidesu said: Christian extremists fly out to other countries and spread the gospel while performing good deeds. Why aren't they taking your out of context verses seriously with their actions? Muslim extremists fly out to other countries to kill as many unbelievers as they can. Why are they taking the supposed 'out of context' verses seriously with their actions? This is a blatant lie. Extremist christians are just as likely terrorists as extremist muslims. Conversion trips to Africa or other countries do no good; and in some cases are harmful. For example the "ethnic cleansing of muslims" in Africa. |
CondemneDio said: This is a blatant lie. Extremist christians are just as likely terrorists as extremist muslims. Thats a blatant lie. |
 |
Pacifica_Ocean said: CondemneDio said: This is a blatant lie. Extremist christians are just as likely terrorists as extremist muslims. Thats a blatant lie. How so? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_(film) Also: the Irelands catholics and protestants. There's some food for thought. |
CondemneDioNov 16, 2015 5:13 AM
| I have mates here who are Muslim and they are some of the nicest people I have met. I'm not one to discriminate an entire religion just because of a few extremists. Some terrorists groups only use religion as an excuse for their wrongdoings, and while some may be truly doing it for the sake of Allah, I believe that the true followers of Islam are those who are not participating in these acts of terrorism because if I could recall, there was a verse in the Qur'an which said "an act against an innocent a person is considered as an attack against all humanity". Not the exact words but I'm just saying what I could recall. |
 |
CondemneDio said: Pacifica_Ocean said: Thats a blatant lie. How so? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism Oh come on. Compare and contrast. The difference is laughably huge. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Caelidesu said: CondemneDio said: How so? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism Oh come on. Compare and contrast. The difference is laughably huge. Comparisons are meaningless when we're talking about killing people. Amounts do not matter, the reason really does not matter; it's all condemnable. |
Caelidesu said: CondemneDio said: How so? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism Oh come on. Compare and contrast. The difference is laughably huge. Not to mention in most Christian communities or anywhere with Christians you can do things against the religion and nobody will chop off your hands or murder you for it. Christianity HAS integrated into modern society unlike some other religions...not to mention Christianity doesn't denounce the whole of the western world. Hes right the comparison trying to be made is laughably different. Just how many Christian motivated suicide bombings were there in the past year? now how many Islamic ones were there and how many are dead because of it? CondemneDio said: Comparisons are meaningless when we're talking about killing people. Bullshit you would say that its an easy way to hold your argument. So one guy killing one person is the same as the holocaust kay. Do you hear about all those Christian terrorists in the news recently? no? me neither, weird. |
SpooksNov 16, 2015 5:57 AM
|
Pacifica_Ocean said: Caelidesu said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism Oh come on. Compare and contrast. The difference is laughably huge. Not to mention in most Christian communities or anywhere with Christians you can do things against the religion and nobody will chop off your hands or murder you for it. Christianity HAS integrated into modern society unlike some other religions...not to mention Christianity doesn't denounce the whole of the western world. Hes right the comparison trying to be made is laughably different. Just how many Christian motivated suicide bombings were there in the past year? now how many Islamic ones were there and how many are dead because of it? Get a room you two. I find it hilarious how you turn away from christian terrorism, pretending like it doesn't exist. A least acknowledge it exists, then we can talk. |
CondemneDio said: Get a room you two. I find it hilarious how you turn away from christian terrorism, pretending like it doesn't exist. A least acknowledge it exists, then we can talk. Except thats not your argument is it: CondemneDio said: xtremist christians are just as likely terrorists as extremist muslims. b-b-b-backpeddling because you're wrong and the numbers don't support you. but I forgot that numbers mean nothing and have no context to you. |
|
Pacifica_Ocean said: CondemneDio said: Get a room you two. I find it hilarious how you turn away from christian terrorism, pretending like it doesn't exist. A least acknowledge it exists, then we can talk. Except thats not your argument is it: CondemneDio said: xtremist christians are just as likely terrorists as extremist muslims. b-b-b-backpeddling because you're wrong and the numbers don't support you. but I forgot that numbers mean nothing and have no context to you. I still stand behind my argument. The likelihood is just as good with each other, acting on it is another thing. You have to also remember, that media does not telly you everything. But yeah, keep fapraying or whatever, you just like to think your religion is the only one in the world. |
CondemneDio said: I still stand behind my argument. The likelihood is just as good with each other, acting on it is another thing. You have to also remember, that media does not telly you everything. Wow you're delusional so you're basing your argument not on facts or number of terror attacks but on personal hypothetical that don't actual exist in any real argument form. "The likelyhood is just as good?" no its not the numbers don't lie. "Acting on is another thing" so you're basing your evidence on your amazing mind reading power to detect when christian extremists "think" about becoming a terrorist but never do counts in your head as equal to real Islamic terror attack numbers. CondemneDio said: But yeah, keep fapraying or whatever, you just like to think your religion is the only one in the world Great argument, well thought out you really show'd me that you were right, your hunch based on thin air was far better than any facts and now I know its because you think that I'm just supporting a religion i like is why im ignoring your wild imagination for facts. Yeah im too clouded by LOGIC, apologies. CondemneDio said: you just like to think your religion is the only one in the world. Your last line doesn't even make sense. If I were denying the existence of all other religions I'd be a Muslim because im accepting that Islamic terrorist attacks are far more likely than christian ones by a wide margin. If I only believed my religion exists (as you believe im a christian apparently) then i would have to say that ONLY christian based terror attacks happen because no other religion would exist. Please do report further ramblings of "well its possible thought crime" vs real crime to someone else. |
SpooksNov 16, 2015 6:14 AM
|
Pacifica_Ocean said: CondemneDio said: I still stand behind my argument. The likelihood is just as good with each other, acting on it is another thing. You have to also remember, that media does not telly you everything. Wow you're delusional so you're basing your argument not on facts or number of terror attacks but on personal hypothetical that don't actual exist in any real argument form. "The likelyhood is just as good?" no its not the numbers don't lie. "Acting on is another thing" so you're basing your evidence on your amazing mind reading power to detect when christian extremists "think" about becoming a terrorist but never do counts in your head as equal to real Islamic terror attack numbers. CondemneDio said: But yeah, keep fapraying or whatever, you just like to think your religion is the only one in the world Great argument, well thought out you really show'd me that you were right, your hunch based on thin air was far better than any facts and now I know its because you think that I'm just supporting a religion i like is why im ignoring your wild imagination for facts. Yeah im too clouded by LOGIC, apologies. Please do report further ramblings of "well its possible thought crime" vs real crime to someone else. >Calls delusional >Believes in a god >Defends christianity >Says uses logic  |
| So turns their loosing argument that Christians are just as likely to create terror attacks as it stands in today's world which might I add turned into Islamic terror attacks are actually equal to Christians "thinking" about doing terror attacks but never actually doing it IE improvable and you can make up any number you want mind reader, into "derp you believe in Godddd" Well done, great strawman.  |
|
Pacifica_Ocean said: So turns their loosing argument that Christians are just as likely to create terror attacks as it stands in today's world into "derp you believe in Godddd" Well done great strawman. Thanks, you did just as bad job as I did :D On to the next thread~ |
More topics from this board
» Fill this thread with the most questionable statement or two you can think of!IAmOdie - Apr 20 |
21 |
by IpreferEcchi
»»
3 seconds ago |
|
» Do you enjoy nature?Kamikaze_404 - 1 hour ago |
4 |
by LightWorker
»»
13 minutes ago |
|
» What do you think about online friendship?Mehwish_999 - Apr 21 |
36 |
by Mehwish_999
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» Are you a slow or fast typier on a computer???DesuMaiden - Apr 19 |
33 |
by ryan77999
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» What do yall collect? ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )bevarnow - Jan 25 |
307 |
by AverageRiceFan
»»
2 hours ago |