Originally posted by whodeyYou shouldn't watch the news so much.
I did not mean to imply that ALL were violent, rather, I am speaking to those who are willing to use violence and/or convert with the sword. After all, we see them on the news every day. Those who are not so inclined are never heard from.
Yes, these idiots' behaviour is ironic, much like the irony of GodHatesFags in a Christian context.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhat concerns me, however, is that those who are the most violent tend to dominate those who are not. They say that Mohammad allows for violence in retaliation for oppression. The parodox, however, is that as they become violent to overcome percieved oppression, they themselves tend to become the very oppressive force that they are attempting to irradicate.
You shouldn't watch the news so much.
Yes, these idiots' behaviour is ironic, much like the irony of GodHatesFags in a Christian context.
This doctrine is contrary to that of Christ who said to turn the other cheek. He as well as his people were oppressed. They were oppressed by the Roman Empire and many looked to Chrsit to take up arms against this oppressive regime. In fact, while on the cross Christ asked his Father to forgive them. Do you think Mohammad would have taken a similar approach?
I guess it all comes down to who you follow and if you take to heart the words of those that you follow or merely look upon their teachings as suggestions rather than commandments.
Originally posted by whodeyHe claimed that you should fight back if attacked. Much like St. Augustine with his "just war". I don't think too many Christian states have followed the turn-the-other-cheek doctrine, do you? Some pacifists said Hitler should not have been resisted--do you agree?
This doctrine is contrary to that of Christ who said to turn the other cheek. He as well as his people were oppressed. They were oppressed by the Roman Empire and many looked to Chrsit to take up arms against this oppressive regime. In fact, while on the cross Christ asked his Father to forgive them. Do you think Mohammad would have taken a similar approach.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes- Moslems are not allowed to depict Mohammed.
I have been told by a muslim friend that muslims do not consider it acceptable to depict Muhammed in any picture and therefore consider any such depiction to be an insult. If the creater of the cartoon knew this then he was certainly showing a lack of respect. All the other newspapers who then followed up by reprinting the cartoon after realising the pote ...[text shortened]... egree that donations that were accompanied by a mention of foreign policy were often rejected.
The are also not allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, and until very recently, read books.
So is one to give us those habits too, in case we insult our Mohammedan neighbour.
Let Moslems have their rules. Let everyone else keep theirs. It's a case of mutual respect- and I don't see much balance here at all.
Originally posted by whodeyI agree wholeheartedly.
I did not mean to imply that ALL were violent, rather, I am speaking to those who are willing to use violence and/or convert with the sword. After all, we see them on the news every day. Those who are not so inclined are never heard from.
Edit: I thought Mohammad converted with the sword? If so, then all who follow him are thus inabled to as well. Tho l high road over that of Mohammad. God has given us free will, who is man to take it from him?
Following the example set by the Moslem prophet would not easily lead to a very moral existence, as is very often plainly evident.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBad comparison.
You shouldn't watch the news so much.
Yes, these idiots' behaviour is ironic, much like the irony of GodHatesFags in a Christian context.
How many Christians in the world? More than 7, per chance.
How many weird, literalist hate-filled loons- less than 7- usually in the U.S.A. That's the only reason you know they exist, anyway.
Why does every argument seeking to detract merit for the Faith use these loops as evidence- if you want to argue that the U.S.A. is a funny place, then work away.
But they are but a drop in the ocean of Christianity.
AND, for the record, just as they would consider me an 'abomination', I would not readily class them as Christians either. They don't want anything to do with Christianity, and Christianity has nothing to do with them.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOf course- there are a few that spring to mind.
Go on, back that one up...I'm sure you have a list of heinous deeds at hand...
We've done all that many times in Debates, anyway.
And you will concede that Moslems themselves do not dispute nearly all the charges, but bizarrely accept them and Mo' as their prophet.
Odd. But true.
What's your interest in this issue anyway, if you don't mind me asking? You're always there or there abouts in these discussions. Are you a Moslem yourself? Moslem extraction? Or just feel a liberal need to make their case in the current climate?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageMy point was that they don't consider Catholics Christians, which is nice, because I can't see any sense/logic or dignity in their ludicrous, inbred outfit.
As an example of irony (which is all that it is) you can't beat it.
This is an easy game: all the killers are not real X (Muslim or Christian). They only claim to be. Bush is not a realChristian' OBL is not a real Muslim. Etc.
And if they don't follow the Gospel, they are not Christians, in my book.
One difference is, they are not heroes to the Christian world, unlike OBL in the Moslem world.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDrag... but it's a whole other debate.
A number of straw men have been set up and shot down ad nauseam, it is true. Still the blanket statements keep on coming...
Do you dispute the charges against Mohammed? You'd be pretty much on your own. It's not a strawman- it's relevant to the religion and how it influences the world-
Islam as a religion of peace simply does not wash, and does not wash from day 1.