[quote]Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I want to see a self-proclaimed agnostic or atheist come into power in the USA. And I mean REAL power, not just some obscure senator.
But it won’t happen.
I’ve vote for a Pro-life and free market atheist over some leftwing, pro-choice, planned parenthood supporting, welfare statist, gun grabbing supposed Catholic/Christian, every single time. And–hold onto your hats folks–I’d vote for a Muslim of the same variety, over the new-agey, nanny government loving, leftist Christian, too.
[/quote]
That was more a commentary on your country as a whole rather than at you personally. It’s sad that so many of your politicians have to pay lip service to Christianity to even get to a reasonable level of power.
[quote]orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
They’re all fucking ridiculous. There are probably more deaths committed in the name of Christianity than those in any others.
Not this stupid shit again…Do you forget your prominent athiest pals like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc. No one, by a large margin has killed more people that athiests…I mean it’s not even close.
Yup, and that is all you have, even though you know how weak an argument it is.
Can you name any atheist heads of state that were not tyrants?
And 300 million dead bodies and counting is quite the statement
, or is that not enough for you?
How is point out the fact that atheists leaders are the most violent and muderous of all weak argument? Are you saying that’s not true, did I miss a body or two? Did the holocaust not happen either or are you just trying some kind of Jedi mind-trick?
Whether Hitler was an atheist is debatable, I am not going to look up every Scandinavian head of state of the last 5 decades and whatever those tyrants were is irrelevant as long as they did not kill in the name of it. Just because a mass murder has a random attribute does not mean it caused his murders.
Find someone who explicitly killed in the name of atheism and you have a point.
Do they not teach history in Austria? I thought we already went over this. Lenin and Stalin both killed religious people because they were religious and not atheist. Shit don’t take my work for it, it is a matter of historical fact that most people who skim history know. Look it up for yourself. That’s just two, Mao did it to the Buddhists…Seriously, just look it up.
Lenin did not persecute religions because he thought it would die out as a result of the soon to be built socialist paradise and even Stalin only went after the churches, not the religious people per se.
Soon after Staling the Russian orthodox church was used as part of a broader effort to inspire Russian Sowjet nationalism.
So, when and where did they have their crusade against religions?
They had an inquisition but that only means that their ideology very religion like in and of itself.[/quote]
Ok, fine…Here ya go:
“The Soviet Union was an atheist state, in which religion was largely discouraged and heavily persecuted”
“The regime’s efforts to eradicate religion in the Soviet Union, however, varied over the years with respect to particular religions and have been affected by higher state interests.”
“During the first five years of Soviet power, the Bolsheviks executed 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and over 1,200 Russian Orthodox priests. Many others were imprisoned or exiled. Believers were harassed and persecuted. Most seminaries were closed, and publication of most religious material was prohibited. By 1941 only 500 churches remained open out of about 54,000 in existence prior to World War I”
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If the Godless can kill and oppress for the sake of communism and state atheism, they can kill for anything. Why is this even controversial?
Because they did not kill in the name of their godlessness even if they could have “killed for anything”.
They can certainely, and did, target the religious.
And social democrats, and Jews, and Ukranians, and intellectuals…
Jews? Because of…religion?
actually Lenin spoke out against the czarist secret police murdering jews, and the overall anitsemitism.
[/quote]
Disappointed he couldn’t do it himself? Please source. I have not heard this…Of course blood looks all the same when it flows like a river.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If the Godless can kill and oppress for the sake of communism and state atheism, they can kill for anything. Why is this even controversial?
Because they did not kill in the name of their godlessness even if they could have “killed for anything”.
They can certainely, and did, target the religious.
And social democrats, and Jews, and Ukranians, and intellectuals…
Jews? Because of…religion?[/quote]
In the final analysis yes, because anti-semitism owes a lot to christian anti-judaism.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I want to see a self-proclaimed agnostic or atheist come into power in the USA. And I mean REAL power, not just some obscure senator.
But it won’t happen.
I’ve vote for a Pro-life and free market atheist over some leftwing, pro-choice, planned parenthood supporting, welfare statist, gun grabbing supposed Catholic/Christian, every single time. And–hold onto your hats folks–I’d vote for a Muslim of the same variety, over the new-agey, nanny government loving, leftist Christian, too.
That was more a commentary on your country as a whole rather than at you personally. It’s sad that so many of your politicians have to pay lip service to Christianity to even get to a reasonable level of power.[/quote]
So do your politicians, see Pelosi and Obama on quotes on religion.
[quote]pat wrote:
Aggro wrote:
Why would Islam need to prove it anymore than any other religion?
It wouldn’t if it didn’t murder thouasands in it’s name as a holy act of God and profess further killings of all non-believers who don’t convert. If they did not aggressively persue the death of Westerners and Jews they would not be required to prove anything. But they do act out and want everybody to accept them, but will not except anybody. That’s why.
[/quote]
There is really nothing wrong with the Muslim religion. The Sunni Muslims are actually pretty peaceful and tolerant. The problem is the Wahhabi Islam. This group of Muslims seems to take the Koran and preaching of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab to extremes and believe they are right and all other religions, even the other Muslims that don?t believe as they do, are wrong and should be cleansed.
Now I am not saying they are the only Muslims that are doing the attacking. It would be foolish to think this, but I will point out that Osama B is a Wahhabi. Nuff said on that
So in a whole the Muslim religion is peaceful. I have been around a very large number of Muslims in my time and the only ones that seemed to give us problems consistently were the Wahhabi. The other Muslims would point them out to us so we would know.
So before you condemn all of Islam and Muslims take a look at this.
Me personally, I question any religion that you think you need to kill for or that states it is the only one or the only way.
[quote]JamFly wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
JamFly wrote:
Not only did you say that but you never did explain why the parallel Protestant/Catholics situation in Scotland doesn’t produce any bombings/shootings or high level violence?
You’ve never been to an old firm match I take it.
I said bombings, shootings or high level violence, not stabbings and punch up’s :o)[/quote]
I have seen some pretty high level violence at footy matches.
[quote]pat wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I want to see a self-proclaimed agnostic or atheist come into power in the USA. And I mean REAL power, not just some obscure senator.
But it won’t happen.
I’ve vote for a Pro-life and free market atheist over some leftwing, pro-choice, planned parenthood supporting, welfare statist, gun grabbing supposed Catholic/Christian, every single time. And–hold onto your hats folks–I’d vote for a Muslim of the same variety, over the new-agey, nanny government loving, leftist Christian, too.
That was more a commentary on your country as a whole rather than at you personally. It’s sad that so many of your politicians have to pay lip service to Christianity to even get to a reasonable level of power.
So do your politicians, see Pelosi and Obama on quotes on religion.[/quote]
I’m talking about US politicians, not just republicans.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
No idea about the quality of the translations, but
[i]Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who takes them for friends is one of them. Lo! Allah guids not these wrongdoing people. (Quran Surah 5:51)
And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can overcome. Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all you can by armed force…(Quran; Surah 8:59-60a)
…slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare to ambush them. But if they repent and establish [Islamic] worship…their way is free. Lo! Allah is forgiving and Merciful. (Quran; Surah 9:5)[/i]
[/quote]
Here’s the problem. You don’t translate the Quran. The Quran is written in one language and I think we all know what that language is. So unless you speak or read Arabic, you can’t actually go to the Quran and must rely on a foreign interpretation. I’ve studied Islam for quite sometime under some impressive an leaing scholars. If you don’t believe me, that’s fine. But, from what I have learned, Christians and Jews are referred to as “people of the book”. It is actually a grave sin to harm a person of the book.
Most of the argument here about Islam seems to be ad hominem. We are dealing with people claiming to do as Islam demands, looking at their actions, and putting those actions on Islam, whether or not they actually have any correlation with Islam’s teachings. If I call myself a vegetarian but eat meat everyday (in the name of PETA, nonetheless) are you gonna say, “Vegetarians need to prove themselves!”? Or is it more likely that I just suck? Maybe it’s a stretch to call that ad hominem, but perhaps you get my point.
EDIT: I do understand that either way, vegetarians need to prove themselves. Buncha Sallys.
Here’s the problem. You don’t translate the Quran. [/quote]
I see a huge contradiction here. It seems you can only translate it when it suits your purpose as has been shown on many theads on this forum.
If the quote is negative or can be used to insite violence, you can not translate it correctly.
When the quote is positive, (ie if you kill one person, you kill all humanity, ect), and can put Islam in a postive light, it seems it’s ok to translate it.
Well, if you can not translate the verses into another language, how about using English to explain exactly what those verses mean.
How does the meaning change? What are they actually saying? Do you feel a Muslim could read those words and be inspired to commit violence against Jews and Christians, or is the translation all wrong?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
In a similar vein, and as I think GK said earlier, does that mean that Iranians and the millions of other Muslims who don’t read Arabic don’t “truly” understand the Quran? [/quote]
Depends. Nobody but God “truly” knows what the Quranic message is. But there is some sort of consensus that the murdochesque op-ed author doesn’t “truly” understand the Quran if he was out to hurt innocents.
Some Iranians do. Others don’t. It’s got more to do with common sense than anything else in my opinion.
No. Converting to Islam is about recognizing that there is One God, and that Mohammed was one of His prophets.
For the rest, it doesn’t really matter. You’ll find people who master Arabic arguing both sides of virtually every other point.
[quote]Please don’t tell me that you’ve “been studying” Arabic. I am, by any standard, fluent in Japanese, but that does NOT mean that I can appreciate written nuance, etc, like a native can, especially when we’re talking about something as esoteric as religious teaching.
Sounds to me like, unless you’re a native speaker, you’re as “unenlightened” as the rest of us. [/quote]
Donovan seems to have actually gone through the trouble of studying Arabic, ask around, done research and mingled with Muslims.
Compared to somebody who gets his/her info from PRCalDude, Sifu, Spencer, Murdoch and is willing to assume the worst about 1.2 billion people, he is enlightened.
It may not be the case, but you come off as more interested in attacking Islam, slinging mud and putting Muslims on the defensive than genuinely learning about the religion.
Get a Quran, read it a few times and go to your local mosque if you have any questions. Read an exegesis or two (the more, the better). If you still think Islam is about what you think it is, so be it. You would have gave it a fair shot. But, at least, you would get a broader picture instead of your current limited knowledge.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
pat wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I want to see a self-proclaimed agnostic or atheist come into power in the USA. And I mean REAL power, not just some obscure senator.
But it won’t happen.
I’ve vote for a Pro-life and free market atheist over some leftwing, pro-choice, planned parenthood supporting, welfare statist, gun grabbing supposed Catholic/Christian, every single time. And–hold onto your hats folks–I’d vote for a Muslim of the same variety, over the new-agey, nanny government loving, leftist Christian, too.
That was more a commentary on your country as a whole rather than at you personally. It’s sad that so many of your politicians have to pay lip service to Christianity to even get to a reasonable level of power.
So do your politicians, see Pelosi and Obama on quotes on religion.
I’m talking about US politicians, not just republicans.[/quote]
That’s right, New Zealand…You sound so American. Beautiful place New Zealand. God’s country. If I ever had to move, New Zealand is high on my list, so is Australia, not sure what’s going to become of Europe.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
What I’m doing here is searching for something that will hopefully give me some hope about your “religion of peace.”
[/quote]
I guess the hope comes from the fact that pretty much everything that you list has also been done by people of other faiths (religious and non-religious.) We survived that and we will survive this.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
What I’m doing here is searching for something that will hopefully give me some hope about your “religion of peace.”
I guess the hope comes from the fact that pretty much everything that you list has also been done by people of other faiths (religious and non-religious.) We survived that and we will survive this.[/quote]
