Tired of it all and please tell me why Christ is so hated, yet this

[indyskinsfan]

so called prophet is so loved???

Isn't a bank robbed by force, not love.

Then doesn't that make the Islamic prophet a thief?

Ok, so this may be my last post, but it's been thousands of years and the so-called prohet's time has just about run out, since the revelation period for Christ's return as the Son of the Living God is far nearer than the Muslims had ever known. Dream on for your just time is at hand and the real Christ with HIS name written upon his thigh is upon you.

http://www.dayton-fgbmfi.org/luckhoo05.htm

[OrangeSkin]

Not sure I followed your post, Indy, but great link.

[Romo]

why would this be your last post indy??

if what your link says is accurate about the differences between mohammed and christ and you are wondering why people follow someone who preaches hate well it happens all the time. Sadly it seems humans are more easily motivated by fear and hatred then understand and love. So many movements in recent and not-so recent history have been fueled by fear and hate. It can be quite depressing.

[JackC]

If you think Christians never killed in the name of their faith you are missing a good bit of history. Any religion taken to the extremes is always a recipe for disaster.

God Bless America!

[Yomar]

stolen and modified from the Onion

You Will Suffer Humiliation When The God From My Area

Defeats The God From Your Area

As you can see from the calendar, the jihad is coming up this weekend. I'm sure you are as excited for it as I am, as our cultures are rivals and have been for quite some time. Your confidence in your God is high, but rest assured, you will suffer humiliation when the God from my area defeats the God from your area.

On numerous occasions, you have expressed the conviction that your area's God will be victorious. I must admit that every time I hear you make this proclamation, I react with both laughter and disbelief. "Ha!" I say to myself with laughter. "What?!" I say to myself in disbelief. How could you believe that your God could beat my God? It is clear that yours is inferior in every way.

When the jihad begins, the followers of your God will be treated as though they are inconsequential. It will be remarkably easy for my God to be victorious over your God. There are many reasons for this, starting with the inferior physical attributes of the followers representing your God. Strength, speed, and agility are just three of the qualities that the followers of the God from your area lack. The followers representing my area, on the other hand, have these traits in abundance.

I would not be a bit surprised if the followers of the God from your area were sexually attracted to members of their own gender. That is how ineffective they are on the field of battle.

Underscoring your God's inferiority is its choice of prophets. It is ludicrous to believe that your God's prophets inspire either respect or fear. Instead, they appear to have been chosen by someone who is colorblind or, perhaps, bereft of sight altogether. The prophets for my God, on the other hand, are aesthetically pleasing when placed in proximity to one another. They are a superior collection of prophets in every way.

While we are on the subject of aesthetics, let us compare the respective facilities in which our Gods live. While my God's edifice is blessed with architectural splendor and the most modern of amenities, yours is a thoroughly unpleasant place from which to watch a jihad. I know of what I speak, for I once attended a jihad between our respective Gods in your facility. Let's just say the experience left me wishing that my car was inoperable that day due to mechanical problems, rendering it impossible for me to get to your house of worship to attend the jihad.

If you need another reason why the God representing my area is superior, look no further than the followers for the two sides. Not only are the supporters of the God from my region more spirited, but they are also more intelligent and of finer breeding than you and the rest of your ilk. In addition, the female supporters of the God from my area possess more attractive countenances and figures than yours. Some of the women from my side that I have observed could make a living by posing for pictures for major men's magazines. The women who cheer for your God, I'm afraid, are far too unattractive to do so.

One of the more pathetic aspects of the God from your area is the fact that only people in your immediate area possess an affinity for it. By means of contrast, the God from my area inspires loyalty and affection in individuals who live in many other geographic locations.

To illustrate this point, let me tell a brief story: Recently, I was on vacation in a country far away from my own, and I saw many individuals wearing items of clothing that bore the insignia of my God. I approached one such individual and asked him if he originated from my area. He said no, explaining that he simply liked the God from my area and had for many years. Interestingly enough, during this trip, I saw no clothing or other paraphernalia bearing the insignia of your God.

Do you still doubt that the God from your area is inferior to the one from mine? Just look at our Gods' respective histories. In the past, we have defeated you on any number of occasions. Granted, there were times when your God beat my God, but those were lucky flukes.

The Day of Judgment will soon be at hand. And no matter how hard you pray or how many foam accoutrements you wear in support of the God from your area, your God will be defeated. We will win and you will lose. This is your fate.

Prepare for humiliation. It shall be upon you at the designated hour.

[redman]

Originally posted by JackC

Any religion taken to the extremes is always a recipe for disaster.

For once I agree with a statement of yours.

However, I believe Indy's point is that Islam's principle prophet, in contrast to Christianity's principle prophet, seems to predispose his religious followers to violence and extremism.

[JackC]

Originally posted by redman

For once I agree with a statement of yours.

However, I believe Indy's point is that Islam's principle prophet, in contrast to Christianity's principle prophet, seems to predispose his religious followers to violence and extremism.

Saying my prophet is good and than your prophet is evil can be the start of a pretty nasty brew.

[redman]

Originally posted by JackC

Saying my prophet is good and than your prophet is evil can be the start of a pretty nasty brew.

What if the evidence supports that conclusion? Do you duck the issue or do you address it?

[OrangeSkin]

Originally posted by JackC

Saying my prophet is good and than your prophet is evil can be the start of a pretty nasty brew.

Yo, Jack. It's the truth. Even if it does start a pretty nasty brew, the truth must come out eventually.

[Johnny Punani2]

Where's inmate? :laugh: :laugh:

[redman]

I thought this was a good editorial from yesterday's LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-halevi4dec04.story

COMMENTARY

Islam's Outdated Domination Theology

Only when Muslims accept religious pluralism will peace have a chance.

By Yossi Klein Halevi

Yossi Klein Halevi is author of "At the Entrance to the Garden of Eden: A Jew's Search for Hope with Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land" (Harper/Collins, 2001).

December 4 2002

JERUSALEM -- With the globalization of Islamic terrorism and mob violence, it is becoming increasingly absurd to ascribe the threat to a fanatic fringe. Yet between those who dismiss the growing Islamic assault on the West as marginal and those agitating for a war of civilizations, a third way exists: offering Islam the respect it deserves as one of the world's great faiths while insisting that it confront its outmoded theology of domination.

Muslims who note that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance are right, but only in a medieval sense. Muslim law does indeed permit freedom of religion for Jews and Christians, who are cited in the Koran as "peoples of the book." But the prerequisite for Muslim tolerance is Muslim rule. Even Muslim Spain, the medieval world's most inspiring example of religious coexistence, was premised on the primacy of Islamic dominance.

Like Christianity, Islam is a universal faith that envisions the ultimate transformation of the world in its image. But unlike large parts of Christianity in our time, Islam has yet to consider the option of religious pluralism based on the equality of faiths.

For Islam, historical experience reinforces theology. As historian Bernard Lewis notes, Islam is the only monotheistic religion whose founder lived to see the triumph of his faith. Because Islam knew power from its very inception, Muslims came to see dominance as their birthright. In the past, Islam proved capable of magnanimity toward its non-Muslim subjects. But it hasn't proved its capacity for equality. For Islam, only two options exist: to dominate or be dominated.

The Palestinian terrorist war against Israel is the most extreme form of that mind-set. The terrorists' goal isn't ending the occupation of the West Bank and creating a Palestinian state living peacefully beside Israel but the destruction of the Mideast's only Western, non-Muslim state.

For normative Islamic theology, the very existence of a Jewish state in the Muslim heartland -- "Dar al Islam," the House of Islam -- is an offense. Al Qaeda statements against Israel don't refer to its policies as much as its very existence.

Yet Islam, along with other faiths, is capable of adapting to changing circumstance. The Koran, like other scriptures, contains verses that reinforce religious exclusivity but also verses that can be summoned to justify a new Islamic pluralism. Religions grow subtly when their adherents begin emphasizing certain parts of scripture to support their new spiritual insights. That is precisely what happened after the Holocaust to the Catholic Church, which stopped citing the New Testament's anti-Jewish verses and instead began emphasizing those verses affirming God's love for the Jewish people.

Islam's challenge is to balance its vision of itself as a faith that dominates the world with a humility that concedes the need for religious restraint in a world threatened with nuclear destruction.

Humility is a profound trait in Islam. More than most faiths, Islam inculcates in its believers a frank acknowledgment of their own mortality. Muslims live with a constant awareness of human transience.

The dark side of that awareness is the demonic phenomenon of the suicide bombers. But at its best, the Muslim ability to accept death produces spiritual generosity. Palestinian Muslims have repeatedly told me how foolish it is for Arabs and Jews to fight over land when in the end the land will claim both. That acceptance of mortality offers hope for Muslim restraint in addressing the ambition of universal domination.

Those who want us to believe that the anti-Christian riots in Nigeria and the terrorist atrocities aimed at international tourism in Indonesia and Kenya are merely the work of a frustrated fringe are weakening the West's ability to recognize the scope of the threat and to defend itself from a new totalitarian onslaught. But those who label Islam as inherently violent and intolerant are denying its capacity for spiritual growth. And they are abandoning those still-rare but extraordinarily courageous voices within Islam calling for theological modernization.

Winning this war, then, requires a two-pronged approach. First, the West must respond to aggression without sentimentality or self-recrimination. At the same time, we must support those who are struggling to help Islam evolve so that it can become again a crucial shaper of civilization.

[JackC]

Originally posted by OrangeSkin

Yo, Jack. It's the truth. Even if it does start a pretty nasty brew, the truth must come out eventually.

Even if it is true (I'm not saying it is) why does your "truth" have to come out in a way that forces your "truth" on others? This need by some people to share their "truth" is a nasty brew in itself.

Love thy neighbor

[godeatgod]

About that link. Each line of that document states a "fact" about Mohammad, followed by a fact about Christ. The only difference is that "fact" about Christ is backed up by a reference unlike "the facts" about Mohammad. Are we to assume that Mohammad was a bad guy just because a Church website states so?

[redman]

I noted the same thing, skinna, and that is a valid criticism. However, the website isn't wrong in this case, just ill-prepared.

Jack, this statement by you is very telling:

. . . why does your "truth" have to come out in a way that forces your "truth" on others? This need by some people to share their "truth" is a nasty brew in itself.

You don't believe in objective truth, do you? In that case, there's no point for you to argue now is there? Try to deconstruct the world all you want to make it fit your skewed views, but it doesn't mean that you're views are accurate or valid. And BTW I love how you revert to that deconstructionist garbage when you have no facts to assert. :laugh:

[JackC]

Originally posted by redman

I noted the same thing, skinna, and that is a valid criticism. However, the website isn't wrong in this case, just ill-prepared.

Jack, this statement by you is very telling:You don't believe in objective truth, do you? In that case, there's no point for you to argue now is there? Try to deconstruct the world all you want to make it fit your skewed views, but it doesn't mean that you're views are accurate or valid. And BTW I love how you revert to that deconstructionist garbage when you have no facts to assert. :laugh:

There is no "truth" here. The facts are thousands of years old and they conflict. They are also written years and years after may have occurred and in translated to other languages. There are a lot of examples in the Bible where some facts conflict with others so how can it all be the "real" truth. All of this tells me there is no "truth" in the absolute sense. Faith is the word you should be using.

I not the one trying to fit the world anywhere you are. I accept the world for what it is really. A lot of Christians think it's their job to convert the rest of the world because only their faith is the real faith just like the Taliban thinks they need to convert everyone else.

You've presented zero facts to support your position you stated your postion is the "truth"! I guess because you said so.

:laugh:

Even Christmas is really a pagan holiday.

[NavyDave]

Its so simple.

Go overseas and go on a tour of Italia or Espana and the female tourist while giving you a history of the nice cathedrals and Mosques will tell you the history of the Ottoman empire and Mohommeds vision of Europe back in the day.

Or go to the libraries there and read any volume since they really get into history in Europe

And yeah it will show him to be basically a terrorist

[JackC]

Originally posted by NavyDave

Its so simple.

Go overseas and go on a tour of Italia or Espana and the female tourist while giving you a history of the nice cathedrals and Mosques will tell you the history of the Ottoman empire and Mohommeds vision of Europe back in the day.

Or go to the libraries there and read any volume since they really get into history in Europe

And yeah it will show him to be basically a terrorist

I think you really believe the Ottoman's were the most represhive empire in Europe/Middle East history. I guess reading and comprehension are two different topics.

[redman]

Jack, nice try again. You might try being intellectually honest for once.

What's being argued here is not whether you believe in God or Allah, or any of the other matters of faith. What's being argued here is whether one religion advocates violent spread of their doctrine or not. Islamic doctrine certainly does, and that's a fact whether or not you believe in Allah or that Mohammed truly was a prophet. Christianity does not, and that's a fact whether you believe in God or believe that Jesus was God's son and that his death forgives us for our sins.

Now, with that in mind try to come up with a better set of arguments. Good luck.

[JackC]

Originally posted by redman

Jack, nice try again. You might try being intellectually honest for once.

What's being argued here is not whether you believe in God or Allah, or any of the other matters of faith. What's being argued here is whether one religion advocates violent spread of their doctrine or not. Islamic doctrine certainly does, and that's a fact whether or not you believe in Allah or that Mohammed truly was a prophet. Christianity does not, and that's a fact whether you believe in God or believe that Jesus was God's son and that his death forgives us for our sins.

Now, with that in mind try to come up with a better set of arguments. Good luck.

Redman,

The doctorine may or may not say to violently spread religion in regards to Christians but they have certainly attempted to do that very thing in history. There are countless examples and for you to ignore is not being honest either.

[redman]

That's what I'm talking about.

You're arguing history. I'm arguing about what is happening right now.

If you want to talk about history, start your own thread.

[JackC]

God please help me to open the eyes of these foolish blind people on this board!

Hope it works!

[luckydevil]

Jack is right about this, and I usually disagree with what he has to say

[redman]

It's funny how arrogant you are in arguing the irrelevant, Jack.

Do you realize that I agree with you that Christians have done evil things, and have even done evil things in God's name? You can tick off many things in that regard: the Crusades; the Inquisition; the Spanish missionaries; and on and on.

That's a collateral issue because the Bible didn't and doesn't authorize those things; the point of this thread is that the Koran does.

Get it? Are you with us? Are you finally catching up?

Or do you want to go and argue some other topic in this thread now?

[JackC]

The point is at the times the Christians pointed to places in the bible to justify their actions. Words can be twisted in either book.

[redman]

Originally posted by JackC

The point is at the times the Christians pointed to places in the bible to justify their actions. Words can be twisted in either book.

You qualified what you said with "at times". Good, we're making progress.

You're right, "at times" mainstream Christians have done that very things. They don't now. But now is one of those times when mainstream Islam is doing that very thing. Hence the thread. Welcome aboard.