CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Islam...

[hog slayer]

Hi hog slayer.

I don't think that I can understand your point exactly. Would you further elaborate ?

Many here are under the impression that the terrorists of late are not the hard core by the book Muslims. They are misguided. My stance remains that the Quran displays a violent Muhammad's and preaches a violent message to non believers. In my mind, no matter how you follow it, if you claim Islam and the Quran you cannot be trusted around non believers

So my question to you is:
For those who can be peaceful Muslims because of how they" interpret" the Quran: they have a religion that SOUNDS like it commands it followers to violence regarding non believers

On the other hand, ISIS, the new age term x radical Muslim ' believes they are commanded to violence on non believers.

Assuming they are both using the same book (most likely NOT in ancient Arabic) what's the difference between their religions?

1 that COMMANDS violence OR
2 that just SOUNDS that way

 

[hog slayer]

What's wrong with this ?

I would imagine pulling photos from the web would not turn out pretty should it become more popular in this thread. I may need you read the guidelines on that.

 

[PaulKersey]

I disagree with the bolded point, in particular. According to most Christians (and my own understanding of the bible), faith in Jesus alone is the price of salvation. If Stalin had accepted Jesus as his savior on his death bed, Stalin would be allowed to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. On the other hand, a dying three year-old in India is damned to an eternity in hell due to their "sins", simply because they have never had an opportunity to hear the "good news". By biblical logic Timothy McVeigh is enjoying heaven while the many Jewish cops and firemen that responded and died in 9/11 are suffering an eternity in hell.

A Christian can commit literally any Earthly evil they choose...as long as they believe in Jesus their salvation is secure.

Paul,
Just a few quick thoughts. To the best of my knowledge, McVeigh never claimed to be a biblical Christian. He apparently dabbled with religion, but I have seen no credible testimony of his personal belief in Christ, though he is often paraded out as "Exhibit A" by those attacking Christianity. Regarding the Jewish firefighters, in my view you are elevating the value of human selfless works (the valor of the firefighter) while minimizing the horrific sin of rejecting the sacrifice of God Incarnate - Jesus Christ. It seems that many unbelievers just brush aside the implications of rejecting the blood of Christ. I obviously recognize that they don't believe in any Christian teachings but to not pause at least momentarily and consider the fact that you are potentially rejecting God's only redemptive plan for mankind is the height of foolish behavior.

Regarding the person in a remote part of the world who has never heard the Gospel, I subscribe to Dr. William Lane Craig's position on Molinism - the middle knowledge of God. Put simply, God knows all possibilities and eventualities. The location/time/place that you are born is no mistake - God knows how you would respond to any situation.

 

[BugI02]

I disagree with the bolded point, in particular. According to most Christians (and my own understanding of the bible), faith in Jesus alone is the price of salvation. If Stalin had accepted Jesus as his savior on his death bed, Stalin would be allowed to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. On the other hand, a dying three year-old in India is damned to an eternity in hell due to their "sins", simply because they have never had an opportunity to hear the "good news". By biblical logic Timothy McVeigh is enjoying heaven while the many Jewish cops and firemen that responded and died in 9/11 are suffering an eternity in hell.

A Christian can commit literally any Earthly evil they choose...as long as they believe in Jesus their salvation is secure.

Paul, within the limits of your understanding, you are correct. What those who cite this apparent conundrum give little credence to is that you must sincerely repent and accept Jesus into your heart as your savior. You would be judged by Him who knows your every dark thought and deeply buried sin; you could not fool Him nor deceive Him, and if you did not truly repent and believe you would be cast down. Do you truly believe that any who have spent a lifetime concerned only about their own earthly wants and schemes, who existed only to satisfy there baser needs, would truly repent and ask forgiveness/salvation. Straight is the gate, and narrow the way

 

[foszoe]

I disagree with the bolded point, in particular. According to most Christians (and my own understanding of the bible), faith in Jesus alone is the price of salvation. If Stalin had accepted Jesus as his savior on his death bed, Stalin would be allowed to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. On the other hand, a dying three year-old in India is damned to an eternity in hell due to their "sins", simply because they have never had an opportunity to hear the "good news". By biblical logic Timothy McVeigh is enjoying heaven while the many Jewish cops and firemen that responded and died in 9/11 are suffering an eternity in hell.

A Christian can commit literally any Earthly evil they choose...as long as they believe in Jesus their salvation is secure.

This characterization of Christianity is wrong. It may be the view of several American Protestant groups but that is not most Christians. Since this is an Islamic tbread ill leave it at that.

 

[hog slayer]

Bringing this back on track with surah 33! Oh yeah!

In the Name of Allah, The Most Gracious, Most Merciful
1. O Prophet (Muhammad )! Keep your duty to Allah, and obey not the disbelievers and the hypocrites (i.e., do not follow their advices). Verily! Allah is all knowing and wise.

Muhammad can have more wives than anyone else. Sounds fishy to me

50. O Prophet (Muhammad )! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses - whom Allah has given to you, and the daughters of your 'Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your 'Ammah (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khal (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your Khalah (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her; a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers. Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and those (captives or slaves) whom their right hands possess, - in order that there should be no difficulty on you. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

His adopted son had a pretty wife as well, it seems. So, may as well marry her, too. I mean, Allah already told me I'd get to have sex with her, too

37. And (remember) when you said to him (Zaid bin Harithah; the freed-slave of the Prophet ) on whom Allah has bestowed Grace (by guiding him to Islam) and you (O Muhammad too) have done favour (by manumitting him) "Keep your wife to yourself, and fear Allah." But you did hide in yourself (i.e. what Allah has already made known to you that He will give her to you in marriage) that which Allah will make manifest, you did fear the people (i.e., Muhammad married the divorced wife of his manumitted slave) whereas Allah had a better right that you should fear Him. So when Zaid had accomplished his desire from her (i.e. divorced her), We gave her to you in marriage, so that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the believers in respect of (the marriage of) the wives of their adopted sons when the latter have no desire to keep them (i.e. they have divorced them). And Allah's Command must be fulfilled.

Of course, since mating with your adoptive sons wife was illegal, just a couple verses before, in 33, Allah abolished adoption. Gee, what to do with all those children now?

vs 53

Allah sticks up for the bullied messenger. How dare you think it's ok to sit around the dinner table and talk with Muhammad!

53. O you who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses, except when leave is given to you for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation. But when you are invited, enter, and when you have taken your meal, disperse, without sitting for a talk. Verily, such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet, and he is shy of (asking) you (to go), but Allah is not shy of (telling you) the truth. And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen, that is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not (right) for you that you should annoy Allah's Messenger, nor that you should ever marry his wives after him (his death). Verily! With Allah that shall be an enormity.

You bet, folks. This is what the fuss is all about.

 

[Lelliott8]

It feels like we're just shadow-boxing. Is anyone able to mount a cogent defense for Islam and the 14 centuries of mayhem it has inflicted on millions of people?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

It feels like we're just shadow-boxing. Is anyone able to mount a cogent defense for Islam and the 14 centuries of mayhem it has inflicted on millions of people?

I see a lot of responses to you and Hog Slayer, and then you both keep repeating "No one has defending our claims!"

Something fishy there.

 

[hog slayer]

I see a lot of responses to you and Hog Slayer, and then you both keep repeating "No one has defending our claims!"

Something fishy there.

Maybe you could point to an intelligible defense. I certainly have missed it

 

[hog slayer]

Maybe this will jog your memory.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4PNEdH0PxAw

I'm sorry... what were you saying?

 

[ATM]

It feels like we're just shadow-boxing. Is anyone able to mount a cogent defense for Islam and the 14 centuries of mayhem it has inflicted on millions of people?

I'm not shadow-boxing. I play for blood.

I see a lot of responses to you and Hog Slayer, and then you both keep repeating "No one has defending our claims!"

Something fishy there.

Why do you choose to ignore me? Where are your responses to me? Did they just vanish like a fart in the wind?

 

[Lelliott8]

I see a lot of responses to you and Hog Slayer, and then you both keep repeating "No one has defending our claims!"

Something fishy there.

I've responded when quoted directly, mostly because my statements have been misread or mischaracterized. No one has touched my main argument. I won't be dragged into arguing the infinite minutia contained within the Islamic doctrine. Honestly, we all know what it says by now, no one here can claim ignorance.

The difference is what we do now that the glamers are lifted. Some refuse to acknowledge the monster in its true form, while others point and laugh at this absurd thing laying before them. The worst thing you could do, knowing full-well the true nature of this evil, is to pat the backs of those under this spell while the monster engulfs them.

 

[ATM]

What page was it that ATM joined in?

I really hadn't paid any attention to this thread until GPIA7R bumped it up from 2 years of inactivity for some unknown reason.

I responded to the most recent post at the time with this:

An argument can be made for anything.

How was I to know all this was going to happen?

 

[Kutnupe14]

It feels like we're just shadow-boxing. Is anyone able to mount a cogent defense for Islam and the 14 centuries of mayhem it has inflicted on millions of people?

No, it's not possible. Just as it's impossible to mount a defense of the mayhem inflicted on millions of people by Christianity in the past 14 cen... wait, I don't need that much time... past 5 centuries?

 

[ATM]

No, it's not possible. Just as it's impossible to mount a defense of the mayhem inflicted on millions of people by Christianity in the past 14 cen... wait, I don't need that much time... past 5 centuries?

The deceived inflict mayhem. Defense mounted. Not impossible.

 

[hog slayer]

No, it's not possible. Just as it's impossible to mount a defense of the mayhem inflicted on millions of people by Christianity in the past 14 cen... wait, I don't need that much time... past 5 centuries?

That's what you brought? You put something down and it was that? It's like you heard there were men signing their name at the tun tavern and you thought you'd go see. Well, you did see. And Sam Nichols was there, too. So you drank a beer and stayed long enough to tell all the girls "yeah, I was at the tun tavern that day." But they all knew you were full of cowardice because all the other men did something. And you, well, didn't.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's what you brought? You put something down and it was that? It's like you heard there were men signing their name at the tun tavern and you thought you'd go see. Well, you did see. And Sam Nichols was there, too. So you drank a beer and stayed long enough to tell all the girls "yeah, I was at the tun tavern that day." But they all knew you were full of cowardice because all the other men did something. And you, well, didn't.

I simply put up a comparison to the standard the poster did. If the same argument can be used against "plug in your major religion" then the original premise is weakened. Meaning that one needs not speak in such generalizations, and specifically cite the instances theyre speaking of. Unless one believes that in the past 14 Centuries, Christianity hasn't been just as oppressive as Islam.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

That's what you brought? You put something down and it was that? It's like you heard there were men signing their name at the tun tavern and you thought you'd go see. Well, you did see. And Sam Nichols was there, too. So you drank a beer and stayed long enough to tell all the girls "yeah, I was at the tun tavern that day." But they all knew you were full of cowardice because all the other men did something. And you, well, didn't.

See... this is what I'm saying (and not only about you, but most people in this thread.) This isn't a conversational post. This is a confrontational post.

 

[Kutnupe14]

See... this is what I'm saying (and not only about you, but most people in this thread.) This isn't a conversational post. This is a confrontational post.

Meh, I'm an easy target.

 

[ATM]

Meh, I'm an easy target.

What does that mean? I consider everything I can see to be an easy target with a decent rifle and good fundamentals.