Why Muslims Behead People (second attempt)

[DukeLeto]

Emprworm, I cannot claim to be a religious scholor here, but I thought the New Testament was in addition to the Old Testament?  Isn't most of the creation stuff in the Old Testament?  Or were certain parts of the Old Testament "ported" to the New Testament?  If so, isn't a bit strange to follow only certain parts of the Old Testament?

[SurlyPIG]

again, i see you all have the irresistable urge to change every single religious topic into an anti-christian rant.

is this the limitation of teenage minds?  What is it about Christianity that has you all so chained?  I can start a thread about:

Buddhism

Sikhism

Shintoism

Taoism

Janism

Judaism

Bah'ai

Islam

Hinduism

Animism

Zoroastrianism

Confusicanism

and inevitably..(usually within 5 posts) some disgruntled teenager will change it into an anti-christian rant.

a very odd psychological dysfunction, probably worth a bit of academic study.

"the inability of today's youth to discuss the rich history of the world's religion without injecting anti-Christian intolerance into the discussion"  - this is quite a profound theory.  one that you people in here prove over and over again.

It testifies to one's narrow mind. 

now, back to Islam......can you actually keep it on the topic of Islam?  (doubtful, but indulge me)

I predict that within 5 posts (unless the thread hits the dungeon) that the thread will be back to anti-christian ranting.

Don't even try that escapist hogwash with me.  You made this thread about Christianity (rather, your condescending Christian superiority) in the very first post:

AFter all, Muhammad, the Muslim leader, beheaded a large amount of people.  (contrast with Jesus, the Christian leader who killed no one).

If you can contrast, I can compare.  Either it's fair game, or you're a hypocrit.

[emprworm]

you still are not able to talk about a non-christian religious subject.

either way, you all are not capable of it.

[DukeLeto]

So...even though you brought it up, it's all our fault for not ignoring it...or something...?

Your paper-thin logic never fails to amaze me.

[danielsh]

No, Gunwounds, you didn't. You didn't even begin to. There as a reason that I said 26 to 32, because the FULL passage is this:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.  Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Now, since you are well aware of my interest in gay rights, I have a feeling that you didn't accidentally miss the bit that makes this about homosexuality rather than just everyone. You could have found a more subtle way to baselessly discredit me.

Emprworm: umm... No. All I can say is No. I don't "hate Christianity with a passion," though the religion does frustrate me a lot. But how I feel about the religion doesn't have anything to do with how I feel about its practitioners, most of whom are in the mainstream and don't believe in every little tenant of the religion. And congratulations on ignoring the rest of my last paragraph, wherein I connected the statements about Christianity to this discussion. But like Gunwounds, you made a valiant effort. I give you a gold star.

[Wolf]

That's what the Soviets did when ya worked hard. Good work? Gold star.

*Did Mohammed really behead people? I find that shocking.

[emprworm]

now that the christophobes have converted this into an anti-christian rant....

problem with your bigotry and irrational lopsided christophobic bias dan is this (every one of these points you have ignored despite that i have on numerous occasions brought them up in other threads...and i predict will continue to ignore because of your inability to respond to them)

POINT A:

[SurlyPIG]

Romans 1:26-32

you still are not able to talk about a non-christian religious subject.

either way, you all are not capable of it.

If you wish to maintain that, then you should own up to the fact that the same statement applies to you otherwise you're a total hypocrit.  Again, you brought Christianity into the topic in the very first post.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

[emprworm]

i would like to see Dan and Ace admit point C, which I really enjoyed writing.

[lowzeewee]

Muslims are very strict and serious in their religion...

About Point C:

If the law enforcement in Rome is as bad as that in let's say...Iraq, and people can get guns easier, you will have an unruly society and the homosexual atheist in Rome might still be as unsafe as the one in Mecca...

Also to add, the Muslim law is very strict against sexual practices, homosexuality and adultery which they consider unclean acts...the bible also condems homosexuality...

[GUNWOUNDS]

Muslims are very strict and serious in their religion...

About Point C:

If the law enforcement in Rome is as bad as that in let's say...Iraq, and people can get guns easier, you will have an unruly society and the homosexual atheist in Rome might still be as unsafe as the one in Mecca...

Also to add, the Muslim law is very strict against sexual practices, homosexuality and adultery which they consider unclean acts...the bible also condems homosexuality...

it has nothing to do with condemning the acts... we all know the acts are condemned by both books...

THE POINT is that there is no messiah in Islam .. therefore you would be totally justified in stoning a homosexual or a prostitute....

[emprworm]

it has nothing to do with condemning the acts... we all know the acts are condemned by both books...

THE POINT is that there is no messiah in Islam .. therefore you would be totally justified in stoning a homosexual or a prostitute....

[Dante]

POINT C:

[GUNWOUNDS]

You can only topple one ridiculous theocracy at a time.

which isnt the point of this thread.....

the point of the thread is to

[Dante]

The two are pretty much the same, or there wouldn't have been any crusades etc. The only difference is that one of them has been diluted due to being in the same place as political reform, while the other hasn't.

He put forward a point, I responded. That's what the thread's about.

again, I must emphasize point C.  Point C is undeniable.  Point C is beautiful.  Point C is that which all anti-Christians must come to admit (though it goes against every xtian-hating bone in their body).

Point C is like a Michaelangelo painting.  It is a masterpiece. 

Quite modest, aren't we?

[GUNWOUNDS]

The two are pretty much the same, or there wouldn't have been any crusades etc. The only difference is that one of them has been diluted due to being in the same place as political reform, while the other hasn't.

if by diluted you mean christianity had a messiah bring salvation from death..... while islam didnt

and if by political reform you are referring to Jesus fulfilling the Mosaic law....  while islam didnt

then you would be correct.

[Dante]

By diluted I mean Old Testament being reformed and rewritten to New, and gradually both being sanitised and reduced.

By political reform I mean political systems becoming steadily more democratic.

[GUNWOUNDS]

By diluted I mean Old Testament being reformed and rewritten to New, and gradually both being sanitised and reduced.

By political reform I mean political systems becoming steadily more democratic.

1.) The Old Testament hasnt changed one bit.... and the New Testament upholds the same morals as the Old Testament.... (condemns homosexuality, murder, greed, lust, etc)

The only thing that has changed is that the New Testament states that you dont have to be hopelessly lost in sin and be stoned to death.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

I think that christians are much more flexible within their religion than the muslims. you have to be flexible since the times change, also the jews does that. and as pointed out previously muslims still live in the middle ages.

another fact is the Jesus sat an example of love for all followers, Muhammed on the other hand sat an example of war and killing. this is what Islam is a warreligion. they think that their God is so meighty, but which religion is the leading one on earth, Christianity. It is this which is the right religion. why not christianise the whole of Iraq, now that we have it in our hands.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I think that christians are much more flexible within their religion than the muslims. you have to be flexible since the times change, also the jews does that. and as pointed out previously muslims still live in the middle ages.

another fact is the Jesus sat an example of love for all followers, Muhammed on the other hand sat an example of war and killing. this is what Islam is a warreligion. they think that their God is so meighty, but which religion is the leading one on earth, Christianity. It is this which is the right religion. why not christianise the whole of Iraq, now that we have it in our hands.

sounds good.... except that the people of Iraq shouldnt be forced to convert to anything they dont want to .... they should be *told* about Christ and why they *should* follow him but *not* forced to follow to him.

[nemafakei]

"To implicate Christianity, you have the burden of proof of demonstrating the actual teachings of JESUS that endorse violence....and not simply demonstrating a murderer who claims with his mouth to be a Christian, or references to Judaism, mosaic law, apolistic narrative, etc."

Hm.

'To implicate Islam, you have the burden of proof of demonstrating the actual teachings of ALLAH that endorse violence... and not simply demonstrating a murderer who claims with his mouth to be a Muslim, or references to Christianity, Judaism, etc.'

I say Allah rather than Mohammed because Mohammed never claimed to be one and the same as Allah, but a prophet, just like all those before him. But Mohammed will do, to be honest.

Which af course totally invalidates point A, C, and probably D as well, even if you're don't take the Allah use of the above.

[danielsh]

Nema makes an excellent point. If I had to respond to each of yours, Emprworm, I would say this:

A - Okay, fair enough on the theocracy point. But is there really such a thing as "organized Islam"? I don't claim to be a scholar of Islam, but I was not aware that it had a centralized hierarchy. And congratulations, Christianity is more progressive than radical Islam. What are you hoping to accomplish with that?

B - See Nema's post.

C - Mmhm... again, what are you trying to prove? I was simply trying to contrast two holy books with quirky passages to prove that we should not judge the practitioners of a certain religion for the religion itself.

D - Correlation does not equal causation. That is, if the radical Christian Right (not to imply that all Christians are on the Right, or that all the Right is composed of Christians, or that the rest of the Right can't believe this too, etc etc) had its way, Lawrence v. Texas would never have been decided for the plaintiff and anti-sodomy laws would still be Constitutional in the USA. Point being that the legality of Atheism and homosexuality no more come from Christianity than did the First Amendment.

E - See Nema's point. And lay off the personal attacks. They're getting tiresome.

I am not trying to attack all Christians or even all of Christianity---as I said, the practice of Christianity sometimes bothers me, but it has its good and bad elements, neither of which are its practitioners' responsibility. But I apply that same logic to Islam and reach the same conclusions.

Edit: Added "did" to "[..] Christianity than the First Amendment." That was a silly typo.

[SurlyPIG]

It's a pretty sad cause to fight for when the best argument is "Hey at least we don't behead and oppress you 'n' stuff."  I wonder if pro-segregation political parties said something like "Hey at least you're not enslaved anymore," during the civil rights movement.

[Wolf]

I think that Point A is probably well-made and is, in fact, a good point. It seems as if Dan's tone implies that we should discount the progressive nature of Christianity, "What are you hoping to accomplish with that?". What, so, progressiveness is not something we should count as good or ill?

With Point D, it also seems as if Dan implies that, with the "legality" of atheism [and homosexuality, but discounted from this point] coming from the First Amendment, religious views are somehow less legally justified. I feel that this point needs to be corrected if wrong, and made clear if not, since it was the intent of the First Amdendment to promote freedom of religion for all people to believe in. It is not secularism or atheism that is promoted by banning the legal establishment of religion, not at all. It is the freedom of all faiths, including the lack of faith, that is allowed by such a law. If we begin to think that one certain belief is more justified than others because of the language of the First Amendment, then we have already invalidated its purpose -- the purpose of free and unrestricted worship, and, further, we have violated a freedom of individuals to worship freely. How can one worship freely when his government's laws have been interpreted as philosophical support for other beliefs than his own? Ref; Rockwell's four freedoms, and the fact that if you can worship freely in a church without harassment, you are more blessed than 3 billion individuals on this planet.