[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
CB. It’s not just the middle east PRCal’s talking about. Pakistan is full of islamic extremists, yet they are not in the middle east.
and thailand, india, the phillipines, chechnya, the balkans, russia (pretty cold), Britain (pretty cold there), the United States, Canada, Nigeria, Somalia, Indonesia … [/quote]
I’m sorry, I thought this thread was discussing the issues between Palestine and Israel. But I guess you want to use it as a soap box for your standard Islam = Bad, Christianity = Good posts.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
and partitioning the country probably didn’t help.[/quote]
So a 2 state solution did not work in India, obviously a 2 state solution will not work in Israel/Palestine when one side in both situations is in a state of perpetual war against the other, much like the Ottoman Empire was in a state of perpetual war against the rest of Europe.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude because there was plenty of violence in the Middle East before Islam (just read the old testemant for proof of this.) On a very simplified level there are problems in the Middle East because it is hot and there isn’t much water.
This creates an environment where nasty little aggressive religions can take hold.
You seem to see it the other way round though and I just don’t understand why. I guess it may have to do with the fact that you believe in a religion yourself.
Mind you, some of the viewpoints that you espouse don’t seem to line up with the peace and love message of Christianity. Surely you should be advising Israel to turn the other cheek and love their enemy, not supporting them going in with all guns blazing.
I think you’re confused about Christian theology. [/quote]
OK, set me straight. Where does Jesus recommend violently attacking people? I’m sure you were the one contrasting Jesus the man of peace against Mohamed the war mongerer. So which is it?
By the way, the references that you make to the passages in Islamic scripture describing young boys as servants and dusky maidens sound like pretty good descriptions of artistic representations of the Christian and Jewish descriptions of Putti, Serafim and Cherubim.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
and partitioning the country probably didn’t help.
So a 2 state solution did not work in India, obviously a 2 state solution will not work in Israel/Palestine when one side in both situations is in a state of perpetual war against the other, much like the Ottoman Empire was in a state of perpetual war against the rest of Europe.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude because there was plenty of violence in the Middle East before Islam (just read the old testemant for proof of this.) On a very simplified level there are problems in the Middle East because it is hot and there isn’t much water.
This creates an environment where nasty little aggressive religions can take hold.
You seem to see it the other way round though and I just don’t understand why. I guess it may have to do with the fact that you believe in a religion yourself.
Mind you, some of the viewpoints that you espouse don’t seem to line up with the peace and love message of Christianity. Surely you should be advising Israel to turn the other cheek and love their enemy, not supporting them going in with all guns blazing.
I think you’re confused about Christian theology.
OK, set me straight. Where does Jesus recommend violently attacking people? I’m sure you were the one contrasting Jesus the man of peace against Mohamed the war mongerer. So which is it?
[/quote]
Have you ever read Romans 13? The Bible distinguishes two spheres of government: civil and sacred (the church - to whom Jesus was speaking).
Most of your comprehension problems stem from your presupposition that “all religions are bad,” regardless of what they actually claim. It doesn’t appear that you’ve actually bothered to crack open a Bible, because most of the time (as was the case with your “But Leviticus!” argument), the New Testament doesn’t teach what you think it teaches. That’s the problem with trying to read snippets of it from Dawkinsesque websites.
The Protestant tradition and the Roman Catholics have always maintained a just war theory based on natural law, Romans 13, and 2 Peter, etc. Individual Christians must not return insult for insult (as Jesus said, “Turn the other cheek,”) but no ruler could be considered “just” if he just let his people get slaughtered or captured and then marched off to death camps, would he?
Jesus had a specifically sacred - not civil - mission.
[quote]
By the way, the references that you make to the passages in Islamic scripture describing young boys as servants and dusky maidens sound like pretty good descriptions of artistic representations of the Christian and Jewish descriptions of Putti, Serafim and Cherubim.[/quote]
Except for the explicit sexual references. Once you read more about the sexual habits of the prophet of Islam, it becomes next to impossible to draw the inane moral equivalences that you do.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude because there was plenty of violence in the Middle East before Islam (just read the old testemant for proof of this.) On a very simplified level there are problems in the Middle East because it is hot and there isn’t much water.
This creates an environment where nasty little aggressive religions can take hold.
You seem to see it the other way round though and I just don’t understand why. I guess it may have to do with the fact that you believe in a religion yourself.
Mind you, some of the viewpoints that you espouse don’t seem to line up with the peace and love message of Christianity. Surely you should be advising Israel to turn the other cheek and love their enemy, not supporting them going in with all guns blazing.
I think you’re confused about Christian theology.
OK, set me straight. Where does Jesus recommend violently attacking people? I’m sure you were the one contrasting Jesus the man of peace against Mohamed the war mongerer. So which is it?
Have you ever read Romans 13? The Bible distinguishes two spheres of government: civil and sacred (the church - to whom Jesus was speaking).
Most of your comprehension problems stem from your presupposition that “all religions are bad,” regardless of what they actually claim. It doesn’t appear that you’ve actually bothered to crack open a Bible, because most of the time (as was the case with your “But Leviticus!” argument), the New Testament doesn’t teach what you think it teaches. That’s the problem with trying to read snippets of it from Dawkinsesque websites.
The Protestant tradition and the Roman Catholics have always maintained a just war theory based on natural law, Romans 13, and 2 Peter, etc. Individual Christians must not return insult for insult (as Jesus said, “Turn the other cheek,”) but no ruler could be considered “just” if he just let his people get slaughtered or captured and then marched off to death camps, would he?
Jesus had a specifically sacred - not civil - mission.
[/quote]
Yes I have read Romans 13 and Peter 2 and neither have any mention of warfare or violence. All they are saying is that in addition to following the commandments and being nice to each other people should obey the authorities and pay their taxes. It even explicitly states that Slaves should be good little slaves and do as their masters tell them.
How do you reconcile this with the 2nd Amendment by the way?
[quote]
By the way, the references that you make to the passages in Islamic scripture describing young boys as servants and dusky maidens sound like pretty good descriptions of artistic representations of the Christian and Jewish descriptions of Putti, Serafim and Cherubim.
Except for the explicit sexual references. Once you read more about the sexual habits of the prophet of Islam, it becomes next to impossible to draw the inane moral equivalences that you do.[/quote]
Ok, lets have some references to these explicit sexual references that are so shocking. Are they more shocking than the total asexuality espoused in the Christian gospels?
Are any of them not easily explained away by bad translations and Christian propeganda?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude because there was plenty of violence in the Middle East before Islam (just read the old testemant for proof of this.) On a very simplified level there are problems in the Middle East because it is hot and there isn’t much water.
This creates an environment where nasty little aggressive religions can take hold.
You seem to see it the other way round though and I just don’t understand why. I guess it may have to do with the fact that you believe in a religion yourself.
Mind you, some of the viewpoints that you espouse don’t seem to line up with the peace and love message of Christianity. Surely you should be advising Israel to turn the other cheek and love their enemy, not supporting them going in with all guns blazing.
I think you’re confused about Christian theology.
OK, set me straight. Where does Jesus recommend violently attacking people? I’m sure you were the one contrasting Jesus the man of peace against Mohamed the war mongerer. So which is it?
Have you ever read Romans 13? The Bible distinguishes two spheres of government: civil and sacred (the church - to whom Jesus was speaking).
Most of your comprehension problems stem from your presupposition that “all religions are bad,” regardless of what they actually claim. It doesn’t appear that you’ve actually bothered to crack open a Bible, because most of the time (as was the case with your “But Leviticus!” argument), the New Testament doesn’t teach what you think it teaches. That’s the problem with trying to read snippets of it from Dawkinsesque websites.
The Protestant tradition and the Roman Catholics have always maintained a just war theory based on natural law, Romans 13, and 2 Peter, etc. Individual Christians must not return insult for insult (as Jesus said, “Turn the other cheek,”) but no ruler could be considered “just” if he just let his people get slaughtered or captured and then marched off to death camps, would he?
Jesus had a specifically sacred - not civil - mission.
Yes I have read Romans 13 and Peter 2 and neither have any mention of warfare or violence.
[/quote]
You can’t find any hint of violence mentioned in Romans 13? Let’s see if anyone else can:
Swords? Terror? Wrath? Punishment?
How to I reconcile the right to keep and bear arms with Romans 13 and 2 Peter? Neither speaks to the issue of self defense.
“But Christianity!” How many more caricatures of Scripture will I need to deal with today from you? Re: Muhammad, I’m tired of compensating for your intellectual laziness which, at this point, is about on the level of George W. Bush. Use a Google search and see what you can turn up. I’ve never encountered someone who needed as much hand-holding as you.
[quote]
Are any of them not easily explained away by bad translations and Christian propeganda?[/quote]
LOL. Were any of the Qur’anic citations I put up earlier from Christian translations? I mean, I linked to the USC Muslim Student ASsociations’ own material earlier. Do you think they’re in the habit of advancing Christian propaganda?
Well, off to do something more productive, like talk to cement.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude because there was plenty of violence in the Middle East before Islam (just read the old testemant for proof of this.) On a very simplified level there are problems in the Middle East because it is hot and there isn’t much water.
This creates an environment where nasty little aggressive religions can take hold.
You seem to see it the other way round though and I just don’t understand why. I guess it may have to do with the fact that you believe in a religion yourself.
Mind you, some of the viewpoints that you espouse don’t seem to line up with the peace and love message of Christianity. Surely you should be advising Israel to turn the other cheek and love their enemy, not supporting them going in with all guns blazing.
I think you’re confused about Christian theology.
OK, set me straight. Where does Jesus recommend violently attacking people? I’m sure you were the one contrasting Jesus the man of peace against Mohamed the war mongerer. So which is it?
Have you ever read Romans 13? The Bible distinguishes two spheres of government: civil and sacred (the church - to whom Jesus was speaking).
Most of your comprehension problems stem from your presupposition that “all religions are bad,” regardless of what they actually claim. It doesn’t appear that you’ve actually bothered to crack open a Bible, because most of the time (as was the case with your “But Leviticus!” argument), the New Testament doesn’t teach what you think it teaches. That’s the problem with trying to read snippets of it from Dawkinsesque websites.
The Protestant tradition and the Roman Catholics have always maintained a just war theory based on natural law, Romans 13, and 2 Peter, etc. Individual Christians must not return insult for insult (as Jesus said, “Turn the other cheek,”) but no ruler could be considered “just” if he just let his people get slaughtered or captured and then marched off to death camps, would he?
Jesus had a specifically sacred - not civil - mission.
Yes I have read Romans 13 and Peter 2 and neither have any mention of warfare or violence.
You can’t find any hint of violence mentioned in Romans 13? Let’s see if anyone else can:
3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
Swords? Terror? Wrath? Punishment?
[/quote]
It’s basically saying that the government can punish you for not paying taxes and if you are a slave then your master can punish you for being disobedient. Still no reference to what is going on in Israel and Palestine. Nice try, shame that some people actually read the text instead of just believing your interpretation.
Neither does the second amendment. It is talking about being able to take arms against your government which is contradiction to Romans 13 and Peter 2.
This is a total cop out, put up or shut up (as you have previously said.
A quick google search using the search term ‘Mohamed immoral sexual practices’ brings up nothing more than one Egyptian Coptic Christian’s denouncement of Islam without any actual direct reference to Islamic writing.
No but they were questionable translations that are then quoted all over Christian propeganda sites which I guess is where you get them from.
[quote]
Well, off to do something more productive, like talk to cement. [/quote]
Even the cement will clearly see through your badly argued badly researched bullshit.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Looking back, what has Israel gained from it.
Or do you think it’s to early to draw conclusions?[/quote]
Gained? Nothing…but it MAINTAINED the fact that if you fuck with them they will retaliate with unbridled force, unlike other nations I know of who would rather try to reason with terror and extremists.
The Israeli public are not blood-thirsty zionists, but thanks to the media it will appear so.
Yes I have to agree with you on this, the media in Europe particularly the BBC are criminal in their reporting of this and other political/religious stories. One column had the title “Israel Addicted to Violence”.
The America media’s not much better. I don’t think I saw a single headline that acknowledges that Israel RETALIATED after ongoing rocket and mortor fire. Sometimes it’s buried in a throw-away line in the text.
The media here just focuses on the fact that the Arab death toll is higher. Numerous profiles of suffering civilians in Gaza.
[/quote]
But wait, I thought we were all Jewish controlled and part of the big plot?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Looking back, what has Israel gained from it.
1,330 dead Palestinians. 5,300 wounded. A good deal of which are kids and women.
Over 50,800 Gaza residents displaced. 4,000 homes destroyed.
Yisrael Beiteinu becoming the third largest party.[/quote]
Lixy I doubt you give a single shit about the ordinary Palistinians and their suffering no-one in the Muslim/Arab world does except to use them as a propaganda lever per you post above.
I still cannot understand why these muslim clerics and muslim leaders who call for volunteer suicide bombers don’t actually offer themselves as suicide bombers since the rewards are so great and since they are such strong believers? I would love an answer on this Lixy but I won’t hold my breath.
Didn’t happen to me since the summer of 2006 and the shelling of the Gaza beach goers.
On the other hand, it is a radicalized and hate-filled population that breeds like bunnies. So, if it was up to me, they won’t be allowed in my country.
I don’t see the propaganda in my post above.
Wreckless inquired about what Israel achieved by waging this war, and I listed a few points. Do you not think destroying houses and killing Palestinians could be deemed a “victory” in the eyes of Zionists?
What are you? 12?
Why wasn’t Tony Blair not at heading the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Why does the pope wear expensive garments? As a toddler, why did your parents drink alcohol while telling you not to do it?
And since your initial question about Israel has been addressed, let me ask you: Did Hamas have a choice?
I still cannot understand why these muslim clerics and muslim leaders who call for volunteer suicide bombers don’t actually offer themselves as suicide bombers since the rewards are so great and since they are such strong believers?
What are you? 12?
Why wasn’t Tony Blair not at heading the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Why does the pope wear expensive garments? As a toddler, why did your parents drink alcohol while telling you not to do it?
And since your initial question about Israel has been addressed, let me ask you: Did Hamas have a choice?[/quote]
You are comparing a religious cause to a secular one, among your bizarre and irrelevant comparisons above you mentioned the Pope, the 1st Pope St. Peter gave his life for his religion and was martyred, St. Paul and several of the 12 apostles also were martyred and Christ himself died for his religion… I would say those are some pretty strong examples to illustrate the point I was making and which you chose to twist.
I don’t see a queue of wealthy Sauds queuing up for their free issue suicide belt? You will however find plenty radicalised pesants being offered up as volunteers. The hypocrisy of Islam is beyond parody.
In truth I was initially sympathetic towards the Palestinians situation and do believe that the Isralis have taken liberties in the past. My sympathy soon dried up when they elected a bunch of terrorists to be their leaders. So yes the Palestinians had a choice, they chose terrorists they also suffered the inevitable consequences of that choice. Do you openly support Hamas?
[quote]JamFly wrote:
You are comparing a religious cause to a secular one, among your bizarre and irrelevant comparisons above you mentioned the Pope, the 1st Pope St. Peter gave his life for his religion and was martyred, St. Paul and several of the 12 apostles also were martyred and Christ himself died for his religion… I would say those are some pretty strong examples to illustrate the point I was making and which you chose to twist. [/quote]
The point being what exactly?
Neither do I.
Stop the presses! Poor people are more likely to be mercenaries than rich ones.
Where, in the Quran, does it say that “wealthy Sauds” should offer up “pesants”[sic] as volunteers? Or that the latter should blindly obey the former?
Putting the blame for the consequences of the Zionist enterprise on Islam is idiotic.
Who gives a rat’s rear where your “sympathy” lies?
And do use the “terrorist” label with caution. The United Kingdom itself doesn’t consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization. The only ones in the world who do are: Israel (duh!), the United States (double-duh!), Japan, Canada and the EU.
That wasn’t my question.
But if you insist on tackling it from this perspective, what were their alternatives? Surely you must realize that, 40 years after UNSC resolution 242, the Palestinians aren’t better off. The settlements have expanded. Walls of shame were built that make life almost impossible for the ones on the “wrong side”. The refugees are still wandering around.
I support the Palestinians’ right to resist the occupation.
I remember seeing in the news a few years ago of a reporter intervewing a local cleric/mullah and asking him why don’t you go yourself?No,no,no he say’s.I just keep sending my sons,he had fourteen and six were already banging those virgins they talk about.The guy was living in relative luxery with multiple wive’s etc.
Don’t forget about money being a factor.As long as his poeple are pissed at the infidel they won’t notice they live in an armpit of a village that he is supposed to manage for them.He can do what he wants and not take the blame.The dude was surrounded by food and women and his village was starving.