emprworm

Mohammad was one of the greatest military conquerers in world history, on par with Ceasar, Kahn, and Alexander. His armies swept accross the entire arabian penninsula. Islam was born out of spread by force. Thats how it began. Islam preaches peace...but remember its peace is only for the converted. There is no peace for the infidel. And one could easily argue that even for Muslim women, there is no peace. Widespread oppression of women is found throughout the Arab world. Muslims who are non-violent and who stand up and oppose Islamic violence are a new breed of Muslim. Muslims who are non-violent, but who do not oppose violence, and who instead quietly see people like Bin Laden as a "lost sheep" are confirming the violent core of Islam. Bin Laden is actually much more like Mohammad than the Muslim who stands up against violence. Remember that many non-violent Muslims are also complicit against those who are violent. They don't stand up and condemn it. Only a very few Muslims actually stand up and condemn other Muslims. Finally, in regards to being no proof that Mohammad killed anyone, surely you have to be kidding! That is completely irrelevant. Charles Manson never killed anyone, and as far as I know, Hitler never directly killed anyone either. Mohammad killed through giving the orders, making him fully a killer and even more responsible for every death that occurred under his conquests than those who actually did it. Whereas Christians who kill represent an offshoot to the core of Christianity (Jesus killed no one, and condemned killing) And Buddhists who kill represent an offshoot to the core of Buddhism (Siddhartha Guatama was non violent) Islam is the oppositte. Muslims who are peaceful and who stand up against the spread of Islam by force represent an offshoot to the core of Islam

huh? and how is that group modeling the life of Jesus again? however when Muslims kill infidels, they model the life of Mohammad, one of the greatest military conquerers who ever lived.

atheists don't have faith in the lack of a God, because that is a negative assumption. you cannot have faith in a negative. but they do have faith that the universe doesn't need a god, which is a positive. there are only three possibilities for the origin of the universe, and all of them require positive faith. additionally, to discount one as "irrational" also requires positive faith. 1. The universe (all that is natural) began to exist, and was caused 2. The universe (all that is natural) began to exist, and caused itself 3. The universe (all that is natural) has always existed there is no forth option. To embrace option #1 requires supernaturalism. atheists summarily dismiss option #1 as irrational while embracing the possibilities of options 2 and 3. this requires positive faith, which they do have.

that is a completely seperate point. genetic defects are NOT in play for the woman with XX chromosomes who is pregnant and calling herself a man. if you want to talk about genetic defects on the 23rd chromosome pair, thats fine. but id really like to talk about people who are genetically healthy, with normal XX or XY chromosomes, males and females, who attempt to cross-gender themselves even though their DNA is fully defined. XY = male XX = female the science is cut and dry. people can try to trick themselves into thinking they are the oppositte gender, but DNA will always say otherwise.

Well thats quite simple. Because Jesus, the founder of Christianity was a non violent man who never comitted a single act of violence. Every Christian that practices violence does so without any ability whatsoever to justify it according to the ultimate role model of all Christians: the life of Jesus. i will agree that there was a time in this world where christianity was dominated by violence and oppression, but it was never the core of christianity. the central core of christianity is christ. it always was. Jesus is christianity, and at its core, it was never violent. people used the non-violent life of Jesus to pursue power and committed violent acts....yet such acts could never be justified by the life of Christ, for no such act was ever modeled or encouraged by him. not the case with Mohammad, who not only killed, but dictated the means of killing and how to kill them. christians who kill do so without any example whatsoever of their ultimate role model (jesus) Mohammadans, on the other hand, will always have the ability to justify acts of violence according to the ultimate role model of all Muslims: the life of Mohammad. because Jesus was utterly non-violent, it was inevitable that Christianity would evolve as a core non-violent institution. it cannot be said of Islam, there will always be a violent core. and indeed, look at any islamic, sharia law ruled country. even in Iran...to blaspheme MOhammad is sentenceable by death. I'm sorry, Nema, but if you blasphemed mohammad in Iran, you would find yourself rapidly and violently punished. thats Islam, in all its glory. i think Van Gogh would agree with me wholeheartedly...if he was still alive

"blah blah blah" Yea, I can do better. And as you can see, over the last 5 years I have matured. I don't respond to people's points with "blah blah blah" and I hope that today, in 2008, we wont do that here since most of the same people are still here. Except I am concerned about the recent deletion of a thread regarding gender identity, a valid topic on this forum....still waiting for a response from Gob about that. Otherwise, I plan on being here a while again, unless gender identity is a forbidden topic, in which case I will be forced to take my leave again.

There is a great irony in the world as I see it. Imagine a great laboratory, the size of a city- filled with supercomputers, electron microscopes, biological stations, a peripheral particle accelerator, laser research, genetic testing. Picture dust-free white floors, and people with lab coats, the blue glow emanating from rows of ultra high-tech equipment. See the scientist wearing opaque goggles as he tests an ultraviolet laser. Imagine a team of biologists in a quarntine station examining the effects of a new cancer treatment. Picture a group of physicists and astronomers analyzing data gathered from a remote satellite. You have an image in your mind yet? I want you to see a picture of the most high-tech setting imaginable, that could actually exist in our 21st century modern world. Now imagine that this high-tech modern world is powered by a bunch of million year old fossils. See the irony? Our advanced society literally runs on a bunch of dead mollusks. Pretty absurd isn't it. I do think its about time that fossil fuels went "bye bye". What we need is more nuclear power. Nuclear fusion generators, I believe, is the future of energy. I'm tired of fossil fuels. Besides, bankrupting the middle east would be a wonderful thing...think of the middle east going bankrupt as a side benefit, with the main benefit being that we no longer will rely on oil

You've heard the news, right? A pregnant man is being blasted all over the web and on newspapers. Cmon, are people really so gullible? I feel like this world is in the parable of the naked king who wasn't wearing clothes, yet everyone "pretended" he had clothes on. I really found it humorous as I was reading and noticing how all the coverage about this person used masculine words such as "him" and "his" when referring to this pregnant individual, I literally laughed at the absurdity of it all. I was reminded of the parable of the naked king whom everyone declared had clothes on, even though it was so obvious he did not. The truth is that there was never a pregnant man; there was only a pregnant woman. Excluding rare cases of genetic defects, men have XY chromosomes and women have XX (for my discussion, I am not addressing the defects of extra chromosomes on the 23rd pair). I hold firmly to the scientific position that, if you have XX chromosomes, you are a woman, you will always be a woman, and neither surgery, nor subjective reasoning, nor "gender reassignment", nor societal redefining will change that fact. If you have XX chromosomes, you are, and will always be, until the moment of death, a female. When you read about a

The criminal justice system...what should its purpose be? 1. To deter 2. To punish 3. To rehabillitate I believe the final answer should include all three philosophical spheres, with more emphasis on punishment and deterrence than rehabillitation. The notion of a prisoner being rehabillitated implies a release back into society. Although releasing a murderer simply because he is no longer a "threat" may satisfy rehabilitation theorists, doing so could weaken deterrence for that behavior, and negate necessary justice for the victims. Therefore, true restoration must exist as an individual entity and not make demands on justice or deterrence. What this means is that if a prisoner is fully rehabillitated while in prison, that does not automatically mean release. I believe we should work to change and rehabillitate criminals inside prisons, even if it means they have to continue to carry out their sentence. Anyway, I was thinkning about justice- death penalty and sentencing and thought this was an interesting topic. Some people feel that the whole purpose is to rehabillitate, and this position really gives no consideration to victims and no consideration for justice.

I knew it was inevitable that when I criticized Islam, someone would invariably bring up Christianity. I'm not posting in this thread to talk about Christianity or defend it, etc. I don't like Islam. I see the religion as birthed in violence, and that violence is inexorably tied to it. I believe Islam is inherently, and at its core, a violent, oppressive religion. I belive that you can no more remove the inherent violence from Islam than you could remove Mohammad. For as long as the violent man named Mohammad is the central figure of Islam, the religion itself will be tied to worldwide acts of violence and oppressive governments. There are dozens of Islamic governments, all of them oppressive, and nearly all of them will sentence you to death for speaking out against Islam. This is the 21st century folks, and its time this 8th century religion grew up and stopped stoning women, and executing people that protest Mohammadism. People in this forum can go ahead and defend Islam, thats fine. I will fight against it. It is my pesonal Jihad.

You are showing weakness, Edric. In fact, that is the strongest point of all, and the only point that you have to respond with "blah blah blah". I certainly hope such a response would not be offered in any kind of live debate. If you had any idea how utterly revered Mohammad is, in both his moral character, his authority on morality, his authority on spirituality, and his example upon which Muslims should imitate, you would not be responding with "blah blah blah". Mohammad killed people in the name of Allah. Are you therefore surprised that murder is an acceptable method of dealing with infidels? Are you surprised that nearly every Arab country has blaspheme laws that include the death penalty for people who insult Islam? Where do you think such laws come from? The example of Mohammad himself. Christians have killed in the name of Jesus, but, unfortunately for them, they cannot cite an example where Jesus did such a thing. Mohammad, on the other hand, did kill. Muslims who kill infidels can and do have a historical link to Mohammad's life upon which they can draw confidence that they are being good, obedient Muslims. That historical fact is why Islam will be forever rooted in bloodshed, and it cannot be seperated. You spoke of Jesus' celibacy as a moral example. It is. And Jesus also blessed marriages, so Christianity has within it, both celibacy and marriage as blessed and acceptable moral paths. And indeed, to this day all priests in the Catholic church take oaths of celibacy. Where do you think the custom of celibacy for priests comes from? Exactly. Thanks for making my point, Edric. Interesting how, when a religious founder practices a moral path how so many follwers do the same! So yes, while not all Christians are celibate, celibacy itself is not shunned within Christianity since Jesus practiced it. Jesus both practiced celibacy and blessed marriage. Therefore, both are practiced and accepted. Mohammad both practiced violence and murder, and blessed being at "peace". So, of course, both are practiced and accepted. Do Muslims marry preteen girls in the middle east? YEs. Do Muslims have multiple wives? Yes. Do Muslims kill in the name of Allah like Mohammad did? Yes, yes, of course they do! Not all of them of course. But Islam itself does allow for killing infidels, in fact it goes so far as to describe the appropriate methods of killing them. This doesn't mean ALL muslims kill people, duh! (just like not ALL Christians are celibate)....BUT it does demonstrate that the Moral Authority of Mohammad in regards to women and violence. Mohammad, the ultimate role model for Muslims...murdered people to spread the faith. Has any other founder of religion in history killed as many people as Mohammad? I don't recall Siddarta Guatama killing anyone, for example. Edric, do you need proof that violence is practiced in the name of Allah today, in the 21st century by Muslims both outside Islamic countries and within them, including their own goverments? Are you under the belief that you can walk into an Islamic country under Sharia law and say "Muhammad is a false prophet" and have no fear of imprisonment or execution? The fruit of Islam, and what it spawns in a government.....is all too apparant. 40 lashes for naming teddy bears Mohammad? Stoning women? Putting atheists on trial for the death penalty for questioning Mohammad the wrong way? Self-detonation? Hijacking? Where does this violent nature come from? Do you have another source? I believe it comes from Mohammad himself. If I'm right, then you will never be able to seperate violence from Islam unless you can seperate Mohammad from Islam. "blah blah blah" simply demonstrates your inability to accept this pivotal and critical distinction between Mohammad and his followers accepting violence as an acceptable means to propogate their faith. Since you summarily blew off the most critical of all my points with "blah blah blah", I need not respond to anything else you said.

"I'm pretty sure Bush is a Christian and has used his political influence against abortions, gay marriage, and stem cell research and to invade Muslim countries. So to say that Christians do not impose their beliefs or morality upon others is silly." LMAO. Thats so identical to a muslim dictator giving people 40 lashes for blaspheming mohammad. Thats just the same thing as someone killinng in the name of Jesus....as the person is beheaded you here "Jesus Ackbar!" Uh huh....its the same thing! Maybe Joseph Stalin killed 30 million in the name of Atheism! That makes atheism much worse, no? What a silly argument. Bush is irrelevant, no one is killed in the name of Jesus. Here's a challenge for you. Take your silly argument, go to Saudi Arabia, and say Mohammad was a false prophet. Oh how fast you will be thrown in prison or killed....legally! I live in the US...under Bush, and I have the freedom to say anything I want, even if its anti-Jesus. I wont get beheaded, and if I did, it would be illegal. What a silly argument. Cmon guys, you are better than this.

Unless you are Islamic culture. In 1400 years, it has changed very little. Interesting that its western people who don't know what "culture" is when it comes to their own. Ironically, they can easily identify it in others, just not in themselves. That is because western socialized leftism has deemed that their own culture is insignificant, and its role is to lift up all other cultures. We don't see East Indians moving to Canada sacrificing their culture, they keep it, and preserve it. We don't see Native Americans sacrificing their culture because they live amongst the white man, they keep it. We don't see immigrating Albanians tossing aside their culture, they keep it. All of these minority groups not only have a culture, they know their culture, and the western country hosting them recognizes their culture. So while someone who lives in France says "What is culture?" The French government has already formally recognized an Arab culture. You want to be culture-neutral and that is the problem. All these western people who want "culture-neutral" at the same time are "culture-propogating". They deny their own culture, while recognizing everyone else's distinct culture. The 8th century Arab culture demands Sharia law. They are demanding it in Canada, Britain, and France. Will you give it to them? Islam is a threat to the western world. The religion spawns violence and oppression. I am still looking for the fruits of Islam that have benefited human growth.

Just to be clear on my position: I view Islam as a whole to be, at its core, an oppressive and violent religion. I do not see all Muslims as violent, (though women throughout the middle east are oppressed) The "animals" are not all Muslims, but are specifically those who are leaders (such as Imams) who propogate a form of Islam that demands fatwas against cartoonists. Additionally, the "animals" are the homicide bombers who kill for Allah, and in the name of Allah. They are less than animals to me, because I don't want to insult the animal kingdom. My hair stylist is a Muslim and I love talking to him so I completely agree that plenty of Muslims are good people. The fact that many of these good Muslims are complacent and do not speak out against the extremists is disturbing, but that doesn't make them sub-human to me. The subhuman ones, in my view, are those who teach violence towards infidels, and those who carry it out (note: it is not necessarily the case that one who teaches violence IS violent. Manson never killed anyone, but he is just as vile, if not more so, than those who actually did. Therefore, I classify "animals" as those who teach violence in the name of Allah, and those who carry it out. The rest of the Muslim world to me is simply deceived, they are certainly not subhuman). And thanks for the welcome, though I anticipate it will be short lived, haha. If the xenophobia tag doesn't get tossed on me soon, I'm sure it will be something else. I'm here to fight against Islam....its what I call the "unholy Jihad". I stand against Islam and its oppression of Women. Of course there are other things too, but thats the big one.

Because Christianity evolved into a civil institution. There are no longer any countries on earth with imposed Christianity, or people living under Christian dictators that demand obedience to the Pope. Islam still is very much in the 8th century. Its time you stopped using 1000 year old arguments as a present critique on christianity- especially when you compare it to present day wide-spread Islamic depravity.