[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If it looks like a duck…
…but wheezes like a vacuum cleaner that’s caught a sock, it might just be HH.
Check if it’s yellow.
[/quote]
If its a sock with white stains, we know what Pookie’s been doing at his computer again — (looking at my avatar and wishing).
HH
[quote]pookie wrote:
Satan wrote:
3. When in another?s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
In your lair? Lair? What the fuck?
That’s it, no more playing Dungeons & Dragons for you.
[/quote]
Uh, oh. The defrocked priest doesn’t like that word. Is that why you were defrocked, someone was in your ‘lair’ and you got caught?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
pookie wrote:
Satan wrote:
3. When in another?s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
In your lair? Lair? What the fuck?
That’s it, no more playing Dungeons & Dragons for you.
Uh, oh. The defrocked priest doesn’t like that word. Is that why you were defrocked, someone was in your ‘lair’ and you got caught?
[/quote]
You sound angry again. Bad air day?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
(looking at my avatar and wishing).[/quote]
Which one is you in the avatar? Is it the wide-mouthed guy getting kicked in the nuts, or the guy kicking backwards as he starts to run away?
My money’s on the run away guy.
Has anyone noticed a big problem? Allah is said to be god. Jesus was a prophet.
Following Allah, or Jahweh, or whoever, is going to be flawed, as he hasn’t lived on this earth or seen the struggles we encounter.
Yeshua Bin Joseph, on the other hand, was a moral philosopher who has had no equal in human civilisation. Following the Gospel of Thomas is about the most intelligent insight that a man or woman could ever get.
I’m so glad InCorporeSano could speak on this. I really am surprised how little training and education on relevant subjects is respected here on a website. Resjudica arguing with an RE teacher. Pride, man
It was a hoax.
Reason won. Again.
Stupid fucks lost. Again.
Don’t give them a rematch in this thread guys.
Let them start a new thread.
[quote]InCorporeSano wrote:
I teach religious studies at a private Episcopal high school and I’m offering an Intro to Islam course this fall even though I myself am not a Muslim.
Nowhere in the Qur’an are believers instructed to kill non-believers. This sense of jihad as a purely physical, violent war is a perversion of Islam. The word in Arabic means “to exert utmost effort, to strive, struggle”. Muslim scholars identify several different types of jihad-- and, to be fair, one of them is violent-- but it is called for only when Muslims are prohibited from freely practicing their faith. I believe the US fought a little war over religious freedom itself some time ago. [/quote]
I don’t know professor “smiting of necks” sounds like it would be fatal.
The Qur’an calls for the death of infidels in many passages. Might want to prepare a little more before class starts.
If your teaching young minds keep the bias at home and give them facts. Smiting may be a metaphor but you could also read the Hadith’s and see how it was applied.
Qur?an:47:4 ?When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah?s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.?
It’s war… what are they supposed to do? Break out the tea and crumpets?
If you want to talk about violence in books, the bible explicitely talks about killing children, in vengeance.
Psalm 137:
8. O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, how blessed will be the one who repays you with the recompense with which you have repaid us.
Do I take away from this that Christians are commanded to smash the skull of their enemies’ children against rocks in vengeance? Of course not! But by the logic of many here, apparently that is what we should be believing.
Are you guys completely devoid of common sense?
[quote]Z-Man wrote:
It’s war… what are they supposed to do? Break out the tea and crumpets?
If you want to talk about violence in books, the bible explicitely talks about killing children, in vengeance.
Psalm 137:
8. O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, how blessed will be the one who repays you with the recompense with which you have repaid us.
Do I take away from this that Christians are commanded to smash the skull of their enemies’ children against rocks in vengeance? Of course not! But by the logic of many here, apparently that is what we should be believing.
Are you guys completely devoid of common sense?[/quote]
I’m not going to comment on the Quran (I don’t know enough about it) but if you think this passage is speaking of literal children I suggest you not condemn others for their lack of common sense.
I would recommend reading “Longitudes and Attitudes: Exploring the World After September 11” by Thomas L. Friedman. He has a lot of good insight to some of the thinking represented in this topic.
Labelling Islam as a violent religion is a bit like calling Christianity violent for the Crusades. And that analogy is more relevant than you think.
[quote]Z-Man wrote:
It’s war… what are they supposed to do? Break out the tea and crumpets?
If you want to talk about violence in books, the bible explicitely talks about killing children, in vengeance.
Psalm 137:
8. O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, how blessed will be the one who repays you with the recompense with which you have repaid us.
Do I take away from this that Christians are commanded to smash the skull of their enemies’ children against rocks in vengeance? Of course not! But by the logic of many here, apparently that is what we should be believing.
Are you guys completely devoid of common sense?[/quote]
Well yes. Love thy enemy as thyself.
In all seriousness it’s not a comparison who has the most violent texts. It’s about a practical comparison in the present day.
Most religions understand that many of the passages in the bible or torah are metaphorical. If a Christian cited passages in the bible to justify why he killed “nonbelievers” he would be vigorously criticized by the established leaders of those religions.
Charities would not be established to help him continue his struggle against other faiths. He would not expect a welcome from his maker if he killed in the name off his God for idealogical reasons. That’s just common sense.
From a realistic standpoint ancient customs are still being taught, by Muslim clerics, in the present day as being acceptable in modern times. Not in the US or Canada but in the Middle East and parts of Europe. I respect other religions customs…up to the point where they have a justification to kill me because of my faith or beliefs.
I was answering the posters comment that the Qur’an does not call for the killing of infidels when it most certainly does.
[quote]Z-Man wrote:
I also have Sikh, Hindu and Bhuddist friends, and we get along just fine. I elect to leave my explosive belt at home when I go to visit them, and they elect not to burn my house down or slash me with their kirpans…[/quote]
Doubled over giggling my ass off!!!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If its a sock with white stains, we know what Pookie’s been doing at his computer again — (looking at my avatar and wishing).
HH[/quote]
It is not paint you dufus.
[quote]veruvius wrote:
I would recommend reading “Longitudes and Attitudes: Exploring the World After September 11” by Thomas L. Friedman. He has a lot of good insight to some of the thinking represented in this topic.
Labelling Islam as a violent religion is a bit like calling Christianity violent for the Crusades. And that analogy is more relevant than you think.[/quote]
Thomas Friedman is about as removed from reality as Soros.
They are both billionaires and don’t have a clue about real life. At least Soros made the money at his hedge fund with Friedman married into it just like John Kerry.
[quote]scotty144 wrote:
Z-Man wrote:
I also have Sikh, Hindu and Bhuddist friends, and we get along just fine. I elect to leave my explosive belt at home when I go to visit them, and they elect not to burn my house down or slash me with their kirpans…
Doubled over giggling my ass off!!![/quote]
Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists don’t hijack planes and fly them into buildings, detonate cars at bustops, blow themselves up in subway stations or attempt to impose their religion on the world.
At worst, a Buddhist may set himself on fire in protest at injustice and Hindus avoid taking any life. There’s a huge difference.
[quote]coolexec wrote:
Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists don’t hijack planes and fly them into buildings, detonate cars at bustops, blow themselves up in subway stations or attempt to impose their religion on the world.
At worst, a Buddhist may set himself on fire in protest at injustice and Hindus avoid taking any life. There’s a huge difference.[/quote]
Air India 182
never mind.
[quote]Z-Man wrote:
coolexec wrote:
Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists don’t hijack planes and fly them into buildings, detonate cars at bustops, blow themselves up in subway stations or attempt to impose their religion on the world.
At worst, a Buddhist may set himself on fire in protest at injustice and Hindus avoid taking any life. There’s a huge difference.
Air India 182
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/airindia/
[/quote]
Sikh seperatists had a political agenda, centred on domestic Indian issues. They had no global ambitions.
Also, a single aircraft destroyed TWENTY ONE YEARS AGO pales into insignificance (obviously not for the families who lost loved ones) compared with the terror regularly perpetrated and perpetually planned by islamo-fascists.
[quote]coolexec wrote:
Sikh seperatists had a political agenda, centred on domestic Indian issues. They had no global ambitions.
[/quote]
Oh, ok, that makes it ok then. I understand.
[quote]
Also, a single aircraft destroyed TWENTY ONE YEARS AGO pales into insignificance (obviously not for the families who lost loved ones) compared with the terror regularly perpetrated and perpetually planned by islamo-fascists.[/quote]
And you say Hindu’s don’t kill anyone, what about the Amritsar massacre?
Who do you refer to as Islamo-Fascists anyway? You seem to not understand there are 1 Billion (with a B, that is 9 zero’s) Muslims in the world, of which a very very small amount are terrorists, or sympathize with terrorists. What you want to do is gtroup all Muslims together. You are a Bigot. Doesn’t matter what color you are, because you choose to hate a billion people because of their religion, it qualifies you as such.
Nobody has denied that some Muslims are terrorists, most are not, and not only do they not agree with the terrorist’s actions, but condemn them. This idea is however beyond your understanding.
[quote]Z-Man wrote:
coolexec wrote:
Sikh seperatists had a political agenda, centred on domestic Indian issues. They had no global ambitions.
Oh, ok, that makes it ok then. I understand.
Also, a single aircraft destroyed TWENTY ONE YEARS AGO pales into insignificance (obviously not for the families who lost loved ones) compared with the terror regularly perpetrated and perpetually planned by islamo-fascists.
And you say Hindu’s don’t kill anyone, what about the Amritsar massacre?
Who do you refer to as Islamo-Fascists anyway? You seem to not understand there are 1 Billion (with a B, that is 9 zero’s) Muslims in the world, of which a very very small amount are terrorists, or sympathize with terrorists. What you want to do is gtroup all Muslims together. You are a Bigot. Doesn’t matter what color you are, because you choose to hate a billion people because of their religion, it qualifies you as such.
Nobody has denied that some Muslims are terrorists, most are not, and not only do they not agree with the terrorist’s actions, but condemn them. This idea is however beyond your understanding.[/quote]
He can’t help himself. Bush mentioned Islamo-Fascists. It’s the longest word he can handle. Now all his supporters are shocked and in awe, and they just have to repeat this word over and over again.