Apology to Taoman

In a recent thread by me, "Death to all Muslims",

it was pointed out to me by the administration that this thread
could be viewed as racist and inflammatory.

I have read the reasoning by the administration and do agree with it.

So, therefore, I do apologize to Taoman and to others who may feel
that my personal opinions were over the top.

I am not a fan of any religion, but Islam would rate at the bottom
of my list.

I am sorry if that offends you, but having said that, I am a reasonable
human being and I am not about to roam the country with a machine gun
hunting down those who would profess their allegiance to Allah before
any other God.

Thank you.


Sorry for any offence which may have been taken up.

It takes a big man to apologize.

Please try to educate yourself on the subject a bit more, eh?

You can't just call for the death of a billion people, when it is clearly the extremists who give the whole religion a bad name.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
It takes a big man to apologize.

Please try to educate yourself on the subject a bit more, eh?

You can't just call for the death of a billion people, when it is clearly the extremists who give the whole religion a bad name.

no this is a flawed argument, simply because a minority choose to engage in criminality is not proof that the belief system which led them to commit such acts is responsible. Equally so, citing the fact that many Moslems may be peace loving individuals is not to say that Islam itself is also a peaceful religion.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no this is a flawed argument, simply because a minority choose to engage in criminality is not proof that the belief system which led them to commit such acts is responsible. Equally so, citing the fact that many Moslems may be peace loving individuals is not to say that Islam itself is also a peaceful religion.

I have no qualms about religious freedoms unless a religion is violent/promotes violence in any way.

I believe that at it's heart Islam is a peaceful religion.

Please don't get sucked into the propaganda machine, Robbie. At least the JW's promote strongly a non-violent message to deal with problems, which is one of your religions strongest points.
Dont side with the haters, Rob.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
It takes a big man to apologize.

Please try to educate yourself on the subject a bit more, eh?

You can't just call for the death of a billion people, when it is clearly the extremists who give the whole religion a bad name.

Mind you, I wonder if John had apologized if it were not for the mods.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I have no qualms about religious freedoms unless a religion is violent/promotes violence in any way.

I believe that at it's heart Islam is a peaceful religion.

Please don't get sucked into the propaganda machine, Robbie. At least the JW's promote strongly a non-violent message to deal with problems, which is one of your religions strongest points.
Dont side with the haters, Rob.

the arguments have nothing to do with me, they exist entirely independently. If you think Islam is peaceful then you need to explain Muhammads wars of conquest.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the arguments have noting to do with me, they exist entirely independently. If you think Islam is peaceful then you need to explain Muhammads wars of conquest.

Do your own research, weirdo.

If you don't know that at it's heart Islam is supposed to be a peaceful religion , than I don't think any amount of explanation is going to help from my end.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Do your own research, weirdo.

If you don't know that at it's heart Islam is supposed to be a peaceful religion , than I don't think any amount of explanation is going to help from my end.

no you have said that Islam is peaceful at heart, i am asking you to explain Muhammads wars of conquest if its peaceful at heart. I don't need to research it, i know what i am talking about, its you who needs to explain your statement, for clearly there is evidence that Muhammed did not act peacefully.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no you have said that Islam is peaceful at heart, i am asking you to explain Muhammads wars of conquest if its peaceful at heart. I don't need to research it, i know what i am talking about, its you who needs to explain your statement, for clearly there is evidence that Muhammed did not act peacefully.

No, you are just throwing words about without any intention of getting into the spirit of my point.
I'll probably not respond to your next reply, but you may surprise me

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no you have said that Islam is peaceful at heart, i am asking you to explain Muhammads wars of conquest if its peaceful at heart. I don't need to research it, i know what i am talking about, its you who needs to explain your statement, for clearly there is evidence that Muhammed did not act peacefully.

Just because you know the ins and outs of "debating" around these forums doesn't mean you know anything of value.
Your misunderstanding of Islam clearly shows this.
Let alone all the comparisons that can be made with Christianity.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
No, you are just throwing words about without any intention of getting into the spirit of my point.
I'll probably not respond to your next reply, but you may surprise me

yeah you are correct, no surprises, you have made a point in which the empirical evidence clearly disputes, if Islam is a religion of peace than why did Muhammed engage in wars of conquest, and you will run away from the question, because to answer it truthfully you must acknowledge that either Muhammed did not practice what he preached or Islam is not a religion of peace. But sure, run away, truth has a potency all of its own.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Just because you know the ins and outs of "debating" around these forums doesn't mean you know anything of value.
Your misunderstanding of Islam clearly shows this.
Let alone all the comparisons that can be made with Christianity.

We are not talking of my understanding of Islam, we are not comparing it to Christianity, we are asking you, if Islam is a religion of peace as you have claimed then why did Muhammed engage in wars of conquest. So far you have not provided an answer.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
We are not talking of my understanding of Islam, we are not comparing it to Christianity, we are asking you, if Islam is a religion of peace as you have claimed then why did Muhammed engage in wars of conquest. So far you have not provided an answer.

So you just believe that JC was a total pacifist when he walked the Earth, the way he is portrayed by misguided people like Mel Gibson, (who really affect the overall consensus on the guy)?

That's the beauty of it - there is no way of checking. That's why Mel gets funding. That's why people easily resign to the notion of "being sinners", who will never attain the same level of purification as JC was made out to have attained.

My view is that JC would've been extremely militant given the conditions that faced him. So many uneducated people, so much barbarism, a world that is definately out of touch with reality and true spiritualism.
His overall message could have easily been the same, but his life, and how he survived was not by "divine pacifism", it was by being extremely clever and ready to take a life if it was necessary, and I think it would've been.

He only lived until 33. How come "God's son" has such a short life? Could not the world have benefited from his wisdom and grace for a few more decades, like say Guatam Buddha, whose story is much easier to swallow.
The constant reminder in Buddhism that Prince Sidharta was an ordinary man like any other is the key to Buddhism. To say that JC got through his life and preached his message as succesfully as it is made out is extremely hard to believe, unless of course he was special, someone who had "the big guy" looking out for him,etc.
Guatam's Buddha's life was made possible by being born into an extremely intelligent and tolerant society of the time, Hinduism.

As far as Muhammed is concerned, I can only guess that his "wars of conquest", (which mirror the Christian crusades, as does a lot of other stuff in these two religions), was necessary because that was the best way to live his life in accordance with his divine revelations and ensure the survival of his religion.

I believe that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and some other major religions have survived the ancient world due to their having a kernel of truth in them. After all it is the people that came subsequently after that kept these religions alive. If they had no ("divine" )message then they would not appear to us today in any form, just as history is largely the stories of the rich and powerful . The conquerers and the war tyrants. Caesar, Attila the Hun, Napolean ,etc.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
We are not talking of my understanding of Islam, we are not comparing it to Christianity, we are asking you, if Islam is a religion of peace as you have claimed then why did Muhammed engage in wars of conquest. So far you have not provided an answer.

Because that's what I'm getting here - that you are saying that Muhhumed was a violent prophet and hence Islam is a violent religion.

The Bhagavad Gita , one of the major religious books of Hinduism, is also set to a backdrop of war, where Arjuna constantly questions Krsna as to how he should feel about the taking of other human lives, where the Upanishads,and subsequent religious Hindu books preached peace and tolerance.
I am not a fan of the Gita but it is clear that except for a few extreme idiots, (which you will get in any religion that has over a billion followers), Hinduism constantly teaches tolerance and peace.
And while the Hare's may not have a perfect society, imo it is vastly better than the "Christian" lands they have inhabited (lawfully) , which do not place as much importance on ALL life as the Hare movement has.

All this said, it must be noted that ISKCON (International Society for KRSNA Conciousness ) , was only allowed to exist peacefully side by side with other religions because of the religious tolerance shown by the host countries that have embraced the freedom of religion in law, who are mainly Christian and who's leaders would profess to be mainly Christian.

(Of course I have noted several times how the Hindu society not only tolerated, but made Guatam Buddha one of it's avatars, in due time, a whole 2500 years ago. Way before JC was born into a harsh and brutal society, and way before Crusades, Dark Ages, world wars, and several other setbacks that have set back the potential of true spiritualism to evolve. )

Originally posted by karoly aczel
So you just believe that JC was a total pacifist when he walked the Earth, the way he is portrayed by misguided people like Mel Gibson, (who really affect the overall consensus on the guy)?

That's the beauty of it - there is no way of checking. That's why Mel gets funding. That's why people easily resign to the notion of "being sinners", who will nev ...[text shortened]... . The conquerers and the war tyrants. Caesar, Attila the Hun, Napolean ,etc.

My question has nothing to do with Mel Gibson, films, the crusades or Christians, why you insist on introducing irrelevancies, i cannot say.