Memorable Conversions

Originally posted by whodey
Now back to the topic at hand, is having an ideology that essentially condones, if not mandate, the execution of people who convert out of Islam a bad thing?

Of course it's a "bad thing". Don't be a complete oaf and read what I post.

Originally posted by whodey
Once again, I am not condemning anyone here, I'm merely pointing to people who do assume the role of judge, jury, and executioner.

Well, you ought to be condemning mass murdering Muslim extremists and terrorists. I have no qualms about condemning them at all. Why on earth would you "not be condemning anyone here"?

Originally posted by whodey
A red herring? The entire topic of conversation is about religion mandating the murder of innocent people.

If it is God's revealed will ~ and the non-believers are not "innocent" ~ then you're only being squeamish about it because you are - according to those supposedly doing "God's will" - a non-believer yourself.

1 inch = 2.54 cm

Originally posted by whodey
What comparable theology gives Christians the right to murder?

Why does the theology have to be "comparable"? The two religions are different. Like I said, if you're wrong about your religion and about theirs, your personal liking for Christianity is neither here or there.

Originally posted by FMF
Well, you ought to be condemning mass murdering Muslim extremists and terrorists. I have no qualms about condemning them at all. Why on earth would you "not be condemning anyone here"?

Why not condemn Mohammad for suggesting that someone should be killed for converting from Islam?

If no one does this then the followers of Mohammad will continue their murdering spree

Originally posted by whodey
Why not condemn Mohammad for suggesting that someone should be killed for converting from Islam?

If no one does this then the followers of Mohammad will continue their murdering spree

Of course I condemn any suggestion, exhortation or incitement that anyone should be murdered or executed because of their religious beliefs - whether it was made 3,000, 1,400, 500 years ago or yesterday. However, I think it's more important to condemn people's actual murderous actions and other immoral behaviour.

I don't care what elaborate, superstitious excuses they give or whether they try to cite the supposed wishes of a supernatural being. My Muslim neighbours certainly do not believe that someone should be killed for converting from Islam and they therefore don't commit any morally condemnable acts based on such a demented premise. Morality pertains to people's actions and interactions.

I support the right of people to hold whatever religious beliefs they want. If they believe that Muhammad was revealing the will of God when he said someone should be killed for converting from Islam, so be it. Of course I condemn such a pronouncement, but so what? What does it achieve? If people who subscribe to that notion conspire or plan or attempt to do so, or turn these beliefs into action - including murder - then that is what we should condemn, prevent, punish, resist, eradicate.

If you think there is some theological argument that you can make - in which you go around condemning Muhammad (and suggesting I do so) in places like this chess web site - and this will somehow cause those of his followers who kill people for converting from Islam to discontinue their murdering spree - then good luck with that.

You have said twice on this thread that you do not want to condemn anyone ~ "I condemn no one, including Muslims" and "I am not condemning anyone here" ~ and I think you are very mistaken to take this stance.

Originally posted by FMF
Of course I condemn any suggestion, exhortation or incitement that anyone should be murdered or executed because of their religious beliefs - whether it was made 3,000, 1,400, 500 years ago or yesterday. However, I think it's more important to condemn people's actual murderous actions and other immoral behaviour.

I don't care what elaborate, superstitious ex ...[text shortened]... " and "I am not condemning anyone here" ~ and I think you are very mistaken to take this stance.

Mohammad sponsored murder through his theology, Jesus did not.

Today, people either follow the one or the other or neither.

Originally posted by whodey
Mohammad sponsored murder through his theology, Jesus did not.

Today, people either follow the one or the other or neither.

How many times do I have to say the same obvious thing? If Islam is right and Christianity is wrong, your preference, your squeamishness, your pontifications ~ they all amount to nothing. You are a superstitious religionist who thinks God has communicated with you. The tiny minority of Muslims who take it upon themselves to "execute" (a.k.a. murder) people for apostasy - or blasphemy or whatever - are superstitious religionists who think God has communicated with them.

Thank you whodey for not murdering people. If you want to credit Jesus for your not murdering people, then good for you. I welcome the fact you don't call for killings on behalf of your God figure.

If ISIS et al. want to credit Muhammad for their killing people, then whatever; resist them, beat them on the battlefield, wipe them out if necessary, or hunt them down, capture them, stop them, prosecute them, imprison them.

You claim God has communicated with you, They claim God has communicated with them. I don't believe He has communicated with you ~ neither with you nor them. So I don't care what you or they claim about God ~ because I have no reason to believe either of you ~ I think we should, instead, simply condemn the behaviour of religionists and deal with it as best we can.

Originally posted by FMF
How many times do I have to say the same obvious thing? If Islam is right and Christianity is wrong, your preference, your squeamishness, your pontifications ~ they all amount to nothing. You are a superstitious religionist who thinks God has communicated with you. The tiny minority of Muslims who take it upon themselves to "execute" (a.k.a. murder) people for a ...[text shortened]... e should, instead, simply condemn the behaviour of religionists and deal with it as best we can.

I guess the difference is, you are free to disagree with me as a Christian.

However, if you are Muslim that is not the case.

Originally posted by whodey
I guess the difference is, you are free to disagree with me as a Christian.

However, if you are Muslim that is not the case.

And what does this have to do with what we have been talking about?

Originally posted by FMF
And what does this have to do with what we have been talking about?

No one is right about everything. No one.

Why then should they be allowed to kill others for disagreeing?

Mohammad condones it, Christ does not.

Originally posted by whodey
No one is right about everything. No one.

Why then should they be allowed to kill others for disagreeing?

Mohammad condones it, Christ does not.

But I don’t think anyone should "be allowed to kill others for disagreeing". Haven't you read any of my posts?

Originally posted by FMF
But I don’t think anyone should "be allowed to kill others for disagreeing". Haven't you read any of my posts?

Would you then say that a religion that endorses that is evil?

Originally posted by whodey
Would you then say that a religion that endorses that is evil?

No. I would say that anyone who acts upon their superstitions or religious beliefs in a grossly immoral way ~ from restriction of basic human rights at one end of the scale, to atrocities such as murder ~ is "evil".

I believe it is actions that are "evil" and not ideas or beliefs that are not acted upon. Like I said, you claim God has communicated with you, These murderers claim God has communicated with them. I don't believe He has communicated with either of you.

So I don't accept any supposedly religious justifications for heinous acts. I will look at your and their ~ or, for that matter, any religionist's ~ actions to see what I believe is morally sound or morally unsound - or "evil", as you put it. I don't support there being such a thing as "thoughtcrimes".