DeletedUser
Moderator hat on: I moved these posts to a different thread because it was derailing the other discussion. This action, of moving these posts, is not open for public debate. Discuss the topic at hand.
- Status
DeletedUser
please please go into more detail on how it is truly, truly relevant.
DeletedUser8675
I love atheists and their even cuter tinier blinders.
Back on topic, yes the Quran was the one being attacked.. but then you posted bible verses that were violent too, so they jumped onto that to start defending that. You gave them an opportunity and they took it.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Actually, no, I did not. Excuse me, but this community is not an amoebic entity. Other posters presented scriptures from the Bible indicating violence, not I.
Now, if you really want me to completely ignore the blatant misrepresentation of the Qur'an by spider, and instead focus on correct representation of the Bible, I can do that, but I really don't think you would be happy to see what I would present. Frankly, I'm not interested in pointing any of it out. I would far prefer spider stand up and admit he didn't know what he was talking about, didn't care to verify what it was he presented, when he copied those incorrectly translated Qur'an scriptures out of some hate-based website.
You know, the hard part for me is that I am repeatedly seeing people make these outlandish statements, claims, etc, and then when they're clearly corrected, instead of being adult enough to say, "you were right, I was wrong," they continue on with the same argument despite their premise being soundly debunked.
Catholic Church: "The world is flat, therefore boats will fall off the edge of the Earth."
Scholar: "No, the world is not flat, and here's the evidence to support my claim"
Catholic Church: "Don't go too far or you'll fall of the edge of the Earth!"
The purple, in the above example, represents Spider's initial post, with the incorrectly presented Qur'an passages, followed by my firmly debunking/disputing it. Yet despite this, even without the premise of the misrepresented Qur'an passages, Spider continues with the same allegations.Scholar: "No, the world is not flat, and here's the evidence to support my claim"
Catholic Church: "Don't go too far or you'll fall of the edge of the Earth!"
This is what I don't understand, and have a hard time respecting... just accept when you're wrong. Don't be an Archie Bunker. It's not healthy, it's not being honest (with yourself, or anyone else).
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser8675
You were right I was wrong, happy? LOL
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Here's how it goes: Basically EVERY religion will have some violent quotes within it's 'holy texts'. Does that mean that it's followers actually listen, and do what they're instructed to do? No.
I also find it funny that when people do what they're holy books tell them to do, therefore essentially being good Christians/Muslims/Whatever; that they're criticized by people, even of their own religion.
So does this mean that ALL holy books are invalid now, and you shall not follow them? Cause nowadays, religions seem to be picking and choosing what they don't and do want to follow. :unsure:
I also find it funny that when people do what they're holy books tell them to do, therefore essentially being good Christians/Muslims/Whatever; that they're criticized by people, even of their own religion.
So does this mean that ALL holy books are invalid now, and you shall not follow them? Cause nowadays, religions seem to be picking and choosing what they don't and do want to follow. :unsure:
DeletedUser
the problem is that hundreds of millions of muslims DO pratice and do EAXCTLY what those violent quotes say to do and the rest of the "moderate muslims" dont even speak out agiasnt there actions
DeletedUser22575
How about providing your source where you got these numbers of "hundreds of millions" at.
And if you can't do that..how about if you go tune your tin hat to a different channel for a bit.
DeletedUser
You don't hear/see of "moderate Muslims" denouncing extremists? I believe they've been doing so ever since they've had to defend themselves since 9/11.
True, I'll agree on that. Millions of muslims do practice Sharia Law to the word or their holy law, which some see as ridiculous, and barbaric.. But however, compared to other religions; Islam is young in a sense. I can definitely say that Christians were doing the same exact acts 200-300+ years ago.
Islam is roughly 1400-1500 years old.
Christianity is roughly 2000 years old.
Judaism is reported to be 3000+ years old.
(Note, Christianity + Judaism is a realllyyyy long time.)
But then again, most of these Muslims doing such acts are in the places they're families have lived forever. The longer a society is isolated, the more they think that their way is correct. If you gave communities which deny Western ways, who practiced Islam a bunch of technology and exposed them to other sides of the world; their view on their religion changes.
I'm just saying, the Muslims that do practice such acts mostly live in isolated parts of the world, and reject western ways. I'm making a huge assumption here, but I haven't heard/seen many people denouncing Islam in a HUGE way. Christianity had Martin Luther, had to deal with Science playing a big role in the world, and Christianity was wide spread. Christianity had to essentially battle for their views, which in turn changed some of their views.
Islam at least to me, hasn't have to deal with such things, due to isolated populations, and nobody speaking out. Islam however is encountering these changes in the present-day, people are slandering their religion, and just like religions before them, they'll change their ways.
DeletedUser
iran population , 72 million mostly radical islamic
lebanon 4 million mostly radical
afganistan pop 32 million at last 1/4 radical
lybia population 7 million mostly radical
Pakistan pop 172 million mostly radicall
and theres huge populatiosn in every other country int eh world even in completely neutral countries like sweaden with an estimate nearly 700,000 radical muslims
but even if my estimates are off by even 50% theres still a hunrded MILLION or more of the roughly 1 billion estimated mulsims int eh world
so anywhere from 10-20% or more of all the muslims int eh world are radicalized ...but im sure you and others will find a way to rationalize it all away
DeletedUser22575
Actually in the 1400's the city of Cordoba in Spain had one of the largest universities including a medical school that was world reknown at the time with scholars coming from all around the world at the time.
Cordoba became much more "backwards" after the Muslims were driven out of Spain and it became a Catholic country again.
DeletedUser
Was that pertaining to me saying that Muslims are fairly isolated?
I knew the fact that Muslims opposing the Crusades traveled heavily would come up, and that some countries had Muslim influences after that; but... Look at a map, or statistics of Muslim population around the world, most of it will be in Northeastern Africa/Middle East. Mostly areas without a focus on western ideas.
Christianity however, settled/founded a whole new nation, ran the Crusades; and is currently much more widespread than Islam.
DeletedUser22575
Well, first off, as of 2009 the pretty accurate count of Muslims world wide was 1.66 billion, not 1 billion.
Second off, just because we consider those countries to be radical, and just because that those in charge of the country might happen to be radical or extremist does not mean the either the average citizen is or the majority of the country is either violent or extremists.
Third off, to put this in a perspective you might be able to understand.. your claiming that the entire population of a country is extremist is no different than claiming the United States is an extremist Christian country because we have a small minority of Christian extremists who bomb abortion clinics and kill Doctors who do abortions.
No difference at all, would be in fact the same claim you just tried to make here and just as much of a lunatic claim.
http://www.islamicpopulation.com/
DeletedUser
jsut one small correction here Christianity didnt runt eh crusades CATHOLISISM did and there just ONE branch os christianity and oh yeah it was all under the orders of a PAGAN king who adopted catholisism to prevent uprising agianst his rule but eh whats a few MINOR details
DeletedUser22575
The first Crusade in fact actually had very little to do with religion. What it had to do with more than anything was land.
France had numerous families of the nobility with second, third, and fourth sons, and no land for them to inherit. They were busy fighting with each other to the point the royalty of France and the Pope were afraid it might lead to a massive civil war. Also at the time there was a tremendous over population problem.
Going to a non Christian country and conquering it under the guise of regaining the Holy Land solved that problem nicely.
Additionally the Peoples Crusade, where around one million commoners left Europe and marched to the Holy Land with no provisions "trusting in God" to supply for them solved the population problem quite nicely.
And God did "provide for them" in fact. They stole everything that wasn't nailed down as they traveled. In fact the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire couldn't ship them across the straights fast enough after they tried to rob his palace, rape his daughter, and even stole the lead roofs from the churches.
And the Crusades managed to quite nicely ignore that former Catholic country quite close...Spain. But then again that land was already claimed by the former Spanish nobility.
My comment about the University in Cordoba was in reference to Christians having to deal with Science. In fact at the time the Muslims were the most advanced Science and Medicine wise in Spain.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
A large branch of Christianity they are. Also with the logic you've shown in this thread and another, if one part of the religion is responsible; the whole is? Correct?
Didn't the Crusades begin with the Byzantines trying to battle the Turks? Then some Pope supported this idea, called upon all Christians to fight, and the Crusades began. Seems like Catholicism was responsible, but that's just me..
I'm also sure that Christianity and Muslims battled a lot pre-Crusades...
DeletedUser22575
A large branch of Christianity they are. Also with the logic you've shown in this thread and another, if one part of the religion is responsible; the whole is? Correct?
Didn't the Crusades begin with the Byzantines trying to battle the Turks? Then some Pope supported this idea, called upon all Christians to fight, and the Crusades began. Seems like Catholicism was responsible, but that's just me..
I'm also sure that Christianity and Muslims battled a lot pre-Crusades...
Actually the Muslims conquered Spain in the 700's long before the Crusades.
http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/0075_popup9.htm
And if the Franks had lost this battle chances were not only France but most of Europe would have ended up as Muslim countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours
DeletedUser
Then we agree? I said that Muslims had fought with Christians a lot pre-crusades.
Probably, your point?
DeletedUser
someone else already answered your crusade question before u asked it and notice in my post i stated clearly that even if the population numbers were cut in HALF and only the half the pop of generaly radical countries like iran and others it would still be 10% or MORE and thats not even counting the unknowable percentage or radicals in all the non muslim countries
DeletedUser
At the time of the crusades it was pretty mich the only branch.
Exception ofcourse the orthodox church.
Can't really recall when the great schisma occured right now, but that is relevant as well.
But ah well, what's a few minor details?
How about the small detail where the Pope ordered a crusade to ensure his own legacy?
- Status