|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Most Dangerous Individual To Ever Live | |||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Buz, If you and Andya want to duke it out in a new thread, I have no problem with that. My problem was in bringing it into other threads you participate in.
AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Buz, If you and Andya want to duke it out in a new thread, I have no problem with that. My problem was in bringing it into other threads you participate in. Asgara, this's one sided censorship on your part. Ever since I've been posting here in town people have made negative comments about Jesus and Christianity in many threads with impunity. Now you're trying to tell me I'm not allowed to post negative statements about Islam when the occasion arises in any given thread. Here we have 9/11; we have thousands of our troops in Islamic nations fighting a war with Muslims; we are at war with militant Islamic fundamentalists; the daily news headlines pertain to Islam and I'm being restricted from saying negative things about Islam which I believe to be true. Is that unfair censorship on your part, or what? Now the topic of this thread is about people we believe to be most dangerous. I've chosen two. Why am I not allowed now to give reasons why I believe these men are most dangerous and how can I effectively make my point without giving my reasons to make that point?? I don't have the time not the will to involve myself with a new thread. I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to make my point here where the point pertains to. Please clarify before I proceed. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
While I agree that if you name Muhammed as a dangerous man and give points toward that end, it ought to fit within this thread.
I think the issue Asgara is getting at is your mentioning debates within other threads which were NOT concluded, and so shifting the debate from there to here. You could just as easily go back to the other thread and continue arguing there. I don't even think that would diminish any point you make in this thread. You can just say who you think is dangerous and then point to that thread saying go there for the ongoing discussion.
quote: Heheh. Buz, Iraq has Xians as well as muslims. Saddam's right hand man Tariq Aziz is Xian. Thus we fought a war with Xians too (if you are including Iraq). That was about despotism not fundamentalism. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
quote: I think we should continue this at that thread. In case you're waiting, I already replied there re:your jihad article link, and here's what I got to say if you missed it the first time around: http://EvC Forum: Fundamental Biblical Christianity and Fundamental Islam Fundamentally 180% Opposites -->EvC Forum: Fundamental Biblical Christianity and Fundamental Islam Fundamentally 180% Opposites
ANDYA SEZ:
I've just finished reading it. While I do not always agree with the author, I can agree with his point that Jihad, in terms of striving (violence included) is encouraged, against aggressors. Not on offensive. Anyone who promotes aggressive non-defensive jihad violates the Qur'an verse that stated that violence is only permitted against those who attack Muslims. And terrorist attacks to noncombatants, because they kill without reason, is in violation of the Qur'an verse that stated that killing is only lawful if for a cause, like criminal punishment or aggression against Muslims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
I think we should continue this at that thread. In case you're waiting, I already replied there re:your jihad article link, and here's what I got to say if you missed it the first time around: Yah, to keep the peace I guess it would be ok, but I need to make the point here that both Jesus and Mohammed prophesied eventual world dominance by their religions. The difference is how their followers were to achieve it. Jesus taught by word and example to evangelize without violence. Mohammed taught by word and example by violence and to FIGHT FOR THE CAUSE OF ALLAH. Did you count the number of times in the link that this phrase was used, most of them without reference to defensive action? This is what gave this man and his religion such a bloody history. I believe I needed to make this point in this thread in order to make my point. The shedding of blood percipitated by the doctrine of Jesus effected mostly the shedding of the blood of his own followers by those who rejected his clear instructions to love and do no violence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
quote:Not if you're the one doing the manipulating. Why is it always so obvious that if Jesus's words are the ones being used to justify atrocities, the fault lies with the people who misuse his philosophy? The same doesn't seem to apply to Darwin or Marx, who get the blame for the heinous acts perpetrated by those who claim their influence. The same people who quote me Darwin's petty 18th century prejudices never mention that Jesus said "I come not to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34). The Prince of Peace actually did say, "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one," (Luke 22:36), but it's Darwin that gets blamed for all the judgmental language.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
Did you bother to read the verses surrounding the verse? Or did you see it from an Anti-Christian web page or the like? (BTW, I am not at all suggesting that you do not own and/or read the Bible.)
The earth is flat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
I'm not asserting that Jesus advocated war or violence. I don't have to place the quotes in their proper context. I'm only making the point that Jesus's words can be misinterpreted just as egregiously as the work of Darwin or Marx. Tell me why Jesus should be exempt from the blame that believers place on Darwin for the way his work has been bastardized by racists. Either that or admit that Darwin can't be blamed for what the Nazis did.
regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
Ok, I agree, now seeing your intention I understand. Yes Jesus is not exempt from misinterpretation, same goes for Darwin.
Also if I were to say He was exempt from the idiocies of misinterpretation, my only support would exist in my opinion of His being God. So support truely doesn't exist at all. The earth is flat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
Also, Darwin cannot be blamed for the Nazis actions, if his words were construed in that manner it is not him to blame.
The earth is flat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Iraq has Xians as well as muslims. Saddam's right hand man Tariq Aziz is Xian. Thus we fought a war with Xians too (if you are including Iraq). That was about despotism not fundamentalism. No we fought no war with Christians in Iraq. That they were under an Islamic regime subject to Islamic rule does not mean we were fighting them. That's nonsense. Saddam likely need his closest man to be a Christian because he knew he could be fully trusted. (There, that oughta stir a rise!) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
I answer at the Fundie vs Fundie thread, here
EvC Forum: Fundamental Biblical Christianity and Fundamental Islam Fundamentally 180% Opposites
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Intelligitimate Inactive Member |
Nietzsche's Overman is not to be construed in evolutionary terms. It is an existentialist concept. Try actually reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Apostle.
Nazism has very little to do with Nietzsche and much more to do with capitalism and Christianity. Capitalism is the creator of racism, and Christianity is and always has been the basis of anti-Semitism for the past 2,000 years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Apostle Inactive Member |
This is by no means a sure thing, and is certainly open for debate. Set aside the opinions presented as facts, and we can discuss this if you wish.
Apostle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Um, buz, Iraq was pretty much a secular military dictaorship, not a religious Islamic regime. Saddam Hussein was a military dictator, not an Ayatollah or a cleric. Now, the Taliban in Afghanistan, THAT was an fundamentalist Islamic regime. Not a fundamentalist regime, but still a fairly barbaric and oppressive Islamic regime would be Saudi Arabia. Bush was giving foreign aid to the Taliban right up to Sept 11, and he hosted members of the Taliban as honored guests in Texas when he was govorner. We all know how incredibly close the Bush family and the Saudi family are, too, them both being oil families. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-12-2004 10:28 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024