Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fundamental Biblical Christianity and Fundamental Islam Fundamentally 180% Opposites
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 182 (85267)
02-11-2004 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Asgara
02-11-2004 12:11 AM


It's the same Constitution we've had for eons and before we've allowed the radical unelected judges to create new laws by manipulating it via their unprecedented interpretations of it, the laws in place worked just fine under it. The laws are being changed, Asgara. Admit it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Asgara, posted 02-11-2004 12:11 AM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Asgara, posted 02-11-2004 12:28 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 122 of 182 (85273)
02-11-2004 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Buzsaw
02-11-2004 12:18 AM


If you are for NOT changing laws, I'm happy to see you are from NY. NY, like WI, does NOT have any laws on the books denying same-sex marriage. In the states that DO have statutes "redefining" marriage, these statutes are mainly from the 1990s.
It's the same Constitution we've had for eons and before we've allowed the radical unelected judges to create new laws by manipulating it via their unprecedented interpretations of it, the laws in place worked just fine under it. The laws are being changed, Asgara. Admit it.
I never said the laws weren't being changed...I said it was YOUR side that has been doing or attempting the changing.
But this is off topic, so I will quit.

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2004 12:18 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 182 (85275)
02-11-2004 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Silent H
02-10-2004 4:05 PM


Andya, tell "TheNabi" if he wants to dialog with buzsaw, sign up and we'll talk back and forth. Too much gets lost in this third person stuff of picking and choosing which of each to use for whatever purpose and for whatever advantage. I've got more than I can handle with what little time I have to post right here without signing up to another forum. If you want to address some important specific points in the link I posted, when I get time I'll try to respond but keep it as specific and brief as possible. It's you with whom I'm dialoging with, not Nabi.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Silent H, posted 02-10-2004 4:05 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 124 of 182 (85285)
02-11-2004 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Buzsaw
02-11-2004 12:12 AM


All I did was answer each of the points you brought up. It's unfair to then be told I can only deal with three of your arguments.
But here are 5 substantial points (if you can only handle three do 2,3,5), and a bonus question if you are feeling perky:
1) Abraham and Moses are a PART of Xianity, even if they were not Xian. If this was not the case then we would not have to be dealing with XIAN fundies declaring the ten commandments were the basis for our laws. The actions and teachings of these men and the laws laid down by God through these men are deemed as relevant as X's teachings and DO advocate violence.
2) You claim that Xians who advocate violence or use the teachings/practices of people other than Christ are not true Xians (as you are). Yet you claim you are part of some vast Xian movement. Please give me facts about your denomination, as well as its major leaders, and demographics. I have never heard of ANY evangelical group that makes NO reference to teachings other than X (as per example above), and have not advocated violence against any of the following: homosexuals, Muslims, pagans, atheists, jews, and sometimes other Xian denominations (usually using lev or Rev X).
3) You say I am an apologist for militant Islam. Yet I was for the Afghanistan War, and I would have been for military pressure or war on Pakistan (rather than Iraq). I hate militant Islam and was complaining about its growth and abuses LONG before 9-11 (just not at EvC). The Taliban and Al-Queda in particular made me sick. My only defense has been for the Muslims who exist for Islam, as you claim existed for Xianity during the great reign of the RC. That is the one's that stick by their true word of God, which is peaceful and found only in the Quran. If that existed for Xians in the past why is it not possible for Islam now? Because militants say so?
4) Palestinians are comprised of Xians and Muslims and they are both seeking a way out of problems from Israel. Your comment about brutality against Xians in Lebanon is simply a dodge of the fact that Palestinians ARE made up of Xians and Muslims who coexist just fine. As it happens (if you want to bring up violence) one of the worst massacres in the MidEast was by foreign Xians against Palestinian Muslims (egged on by Sharon). And as far as Palestinians not having Israel on their Maps, you show me one map in US schools which shows Native American nations as independent countries within the US border.
5) You seemed to suggest (by refering to Israel) that the solution of the Islamic "problem" was that all Muslims must be kept from having independent nations, forced to convert, or killed... those left alive put in relative ghettos. I hope I got this wrong. Please detail more accurately what you think the world must do with all Muslims in order to solve the issue that they pose.
6) Bonus question: Are you admitting that for pagans and atheists and homosexuals there will be no difference between what Xians or Muslims have in store for them if they manage to form their righteous kingdom on earth?
[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-11-2004]

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2004 12:12 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by ThingsChange, posted 02-11-2004 1:58 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 131 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2004 8:11 PM Silent H has replied

  
ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 125 of 182 (85294)
02-11-2004 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Silent H
02-11-2004 1:21 AM


Holmes writes:
I have never heard of ANY evangelical group that ...... have not advocated violence against any of the following: homosexuals, Muslims, pagans, atheists, jews, and sometimes other Xian denominations
In my close and frequent dealings with Christians (the born again kind), I have never heard anyone advocating violence against any group. I have found Christians to be upstanding citizens and the kind of people you can trust and count on when you need help. We should be thankful they are Americans. (I am not a Christian)
Please detail more accurately what you think the world must do with all Muslims in order to solve the issue that they pose
I think we should teach them about evolution, and confront their Creationist leanings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Silent H, posted 02-11-2004 1:21 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Silent H, posted 02-11-2004 11:07 AM ThingsChange has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 126 of 182 (85368)
02-11-2004 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by ThingsChange
02-11-2004 1:58 AM


quote:
I have never heard anyone advocating violence against any group.
I'm sorry, you have never heard of Pat Robertson, of Jerry Falwell, of the 700 Club (even sans Robertson), of Jack VanImpe, of anti-abortion fanatics, of Timothy McVeigh, of Waco, of the Idaho American Nazi movement, of...
While many pretend as Buz do, saying "we're sheepies" (which frankly is one of the most creepy things I have ever seen an old man write), most do not act as sheep. When agitated by something like homosexuality, they start quoting Moses, and Paul, and Revelations and say we must make laws to ensure violence will be done against them.
Make no mistake making laws against something is the same thing as advocating violence against that thing... it legitimates the violence. It legitimates disenfranchisement.
And certainly when discussing the end times which MOST evangelicals preach is nigh, violence against all nonXians becomes tolerated. It is that or lose the kingdom of God. As Jerry Falwell said on 60 minutes, even the Jews who they are treating as brothers for the moment (in order to start the fight against Islam), must convert or die when the time comes, and he knows only 1/3 will do that.
I am certainly NOT saying that all Xians must be this way. I am sure there may be some nice evangelicals even (though I would still wonder how they can be true evnagelicals and renounce the apocalypse).
But these are NOT the majority of any of the evangelical movements.
The point Buz was making in this thread is that Islam must be violent if it is to be true Islam and that True Xians reject ALL violence. Not only do I find this statement hypocritical, I find it thoroughly FALSE if those "nice Xians" are evangelicals.
I spent many years watching the evangelical movement up close, and from the inside. As I said, I have NO idea what massive group (millions and millions by Buz's count) you are talking about.
Hell I can, and have, listened to the local evangelical radio station, or read its new manifesto the "left behind" series, and find violence quite quickly.
Unless you have an example of an evangelical ministry you want to quote to me to prove me wrong? I asked for stats from Buz, now I am asking you. The only TRULY NONVIOLENT Xian organization I know of that numbers anything significant, are the Amish and they are not evangelicals.
quote:
I think we should teach them about evolution, and confront their Creationist leanings.
???? As a Muslim on this board has already pointed out, there is nothing in Islam which mandates Creationism and rejects evolution. They are free to pursue scientific inquiry and that's one of the reasons Islam stayed ahead of Xians in science for some time.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by ThingsChange, posted 02-11-2004 1:58 AM ThingsChange has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by ThingsChange, posted 02-11-2004 11:32 AM Silent H has replied

  
ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 127 of 182 (85374)
02-11-2004 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Silent H
02-11-2004 11:07 AM


Holmes writes:
Make no mistake making laws against something is the same thing as advocating violence against that thing... it legitimates the violence. It legitimates disenfranchisement.
That logic connection escapes me. How can a law legitimize violence? All laws? Is this why we have road rage?
Unless you have an example of an evangelical ministry you want to quote to me to prove me wrong?
I am surprised to hear an evolutionist apply a typical creationist ploy of proving a negative. It sounds like you are the one with the extraordinary claim that has the burden of proof. Maybe you can start with the number of murders caused by each group.
I don't watch the religious talk shows, but I am sure I would have heard negatives from the liberal media if they were advocating violence. And, there is NO hint of advocating violence among the Christians I know. Of course, there will always be radicals in any group, but just as it is not right to condemn all Muslims as violence advocates, the same applies to Christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Silent H, posted 02-11-2004 11:07 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Silent H, posted 02-11-2004 12:19 PM ThingsChange has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 128 of 182 (85382)
02-11-2004 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by ThingsChange
02-11-2004 11:32 AM


quote:
That logic connection escapes me. How can a law legitimize violence?
No this does not regard all laws, though beneath them all lies the threat of force. I am particularly discussing proscriptive laws. This is to say, laws AGAINST or BANNING certain conduct.
Laws AGAINST behavior, are the challenging of individuals that commit such acts with legitimate violence from the state. For example, if I beat some "fag" outside a night club right now it would be against the law... my violent reaction to that conduct would be met with violence from the state to prevent me from doing again in the future.
However, I could channel that bigotry into a legal campaign against the behavior of homosexuals and convince enough of my fellow men to "do something" about them. Then I wouldn't have to go about beating up "fags", I could call a cop and have them arrested and put into prison... with the threat that if they do not comply, then they will be beaten for being a homosexual.
Proscriptive Laws, in societies where violence is a legitimate form of force by the police, are how a society legitimates violence. I am not saying such things are unnecessary, only noting that one cannot appeal to being anti-violence and at the same time claim that laws must be made against persons.
You will note that the Amish do understand this and do not make such laws. Their method of punishment is completely nonviolent.
quote:
I am surprised to hear an evolutionist apply a typical creationist ploy of proving a negative.
How was I asking you to prove a negative? All I was asking you to do was prove me wrong, which involved positive evidence.
Buz's claim was that NO TRUE XIAN uses anything but NT material for justification for action, and thus NO VIOLENCE is ever excused or promoted. He also said that he belongs to some large, popular evangelical organization (many millions).
Now I am saying I have quite a bit of experience with most of the major evangelical organizations. Their leaders (and I provided a list of some) quote OT for justification of violence against certain groups... and violence is ALWAYS allowed in defense.
All you (or Buz) have to do is show me an evangelical group that has millions of followers, and whose leaders profess that the OT is not fair game for rationalizing action, and that violence is never allowed under any circumstance. If there is even one group that is as large and popular as you both claim, how is this a hard task?
quote:
Maybe you can start with the number of murders caused by each group.
Are you seriously telling me you never heard of gay bashings, racially motivated murders, Timothy McVeigh, Waco, abortion clinic shootings and bombings?
quote:
I don't watch the religious talk shows, but I am sure I would have heard negatives from the liberal media if they were advocating violence.
Do you not remember the evangelicals using 9-11 as a reason that the nation needs to crack down on homosexuals, pagans, atheists, etc etc? If not, then you are not listening to media at all. It was all over the place.
As it was in my post I specifically pointed an example out to you. On 60 minutes, Jerry Falwell himself outlined how evangelical groups were supporting Israeli Jews in order to get the final apocalypse to begin, and at that time Jews would have to choose Christ or die (and that 2/3 would end up being killed).
I WISH I was making this up.
As it stands they are ALL for persecution of gays under force of law. You show me one that advocates rights for gays. Or how about one that advocates we not use force to deal with terrorism.
Pat Robertson went on a "prayer offensive" last year to pray that liberal Supreme Court justices might be converted from their ways or be killed by God (pointing out ailments that some suffered from and people could pray to make worse). He also suggested that someone could toss a dirty bomb into the the Department of State so that Colin Powell and "liberal" State Officials would be killed.
How have you not heard about this stuff?
quote:
there will always be radicals in any group, but just as it is not right to condemn all Muslims as violence advocates, the same applies to Christians.
That's my line. If this is your position then why are YOU attacking ME, instead of BUZ?
I never said all Xians were anything, or must be anything. My argument was that there are good individuals in Xianity and in Islam. BUZ was the one saying that Islam tended toward violence, and eventually any TRUE MUSLIM would have to be militant because the TRUE ISLAM is the practice of Mohammed and NOT the WORD OF GOD.
However, in evangelical groups (the major ones), the leaders do quote from more than just JC and co, and they do legitimate the use of violence. In fact, if your Xian friends were for the Afghanistan War or the Iraq War or the War on Terror, then they do advocate the use of violence of some kind. Most Xians are not "sheepies" even if they are genuinely nice, rational, and usually peaceful people.
[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-11-2004]

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by ThingsChange, posted 02-11-2004 11:32 AM ThingsChange has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by ThingsChange, posted 02-11-2004 4:15 PM Silent H has replied

  
ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 129 of 182 (85431)
02-11-2004 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Silent H
02-11-2004 12:19 PM


a Christian is needed to argue their case here
Holmes writes:
That's my line. If this is your position then why are YOU attacking ME, instead of BUZ?
Yes, we agree on many things, especially evolution. I've gotten value out of a number of your posts.
I guess I should let Buz and the other Christians fend for themselves (are they even listening?), but I feel compelled to dispel some myths about them. It's not just you. I see a number of evolutionists express opinions about Christians that I think are incorrect... based on my 30 yrs of experience with them. When I was younger, I had similar attitudes, feelings and opinions as you guys, though. That changed over the years, as I learned to appreciate their value to American society. I used to debate these things with my Christian friends (about 20 of them from 3 different churches) until it became clear neither of us would change the other's "open" mind. Maybe that's why I express the futility of arguing with them in some of my posts.
However, I could channel that bigotry into a legal campaign against the behavior of homosexuals and convince enough of my fellow men to "do something" about them. Then I wouldn't have to go about beating up "fags", I could call a cop and have them arrested and put into prison... with the threat that if they do not comply, then they will be beaten for being a homosexual.
I know of no instance where Christians I know promote bigotry or violence, either against homosexuals or any other group. Christians believe homosexual behavior is sinful, but there is no punishment other than God's. I think you and others are mistaking the protection of man/woman marriage and the desire not to have overt behavior in your face as something mean and hateful. Sorry, but I don't interpret their statements the way you do.
All you (or Buz) have to do is show me an evangelical group that has millions of followers, and whose leaders profess that the OT is not fair game for rationalizing action, and that violence is never allowed under any circumstance.
Now I am saying I have quite a bit of experience with most of the major evangelical organizations. Their leaders (and I provided a list of some) quote OT for justification of violence against certain groups
Granted, I don't follow what the leaders say, but I think I would have heard in the news about the Pope saying something like you describe. Christians (fundamentalists) follow the NT for "laws", not the OT.
Are you seriously telling me you never heard of gay bashings, racially motivated murders, Timothy McVeigh, Waco, abortion clinic shootings and bombings?
C'mon! These are not condoned by Christian leaders or Christians, except a few radicals. The Waco group could hardly be called anything but a small irrelavent cult, and the violent event was government against citizens.
Do you not remember the evangelicals using 9-11 as a reason that the nation needs to crack down on homosexuals, pagans, atheists, etc etc? If not, then you are not listening to media at all. It was all over the place.
No! And I listen to the media.
I haven't heard about Pat Robertson, but I don't doubt what you say there. I think I do remember something about Jerry Falwell, but isn't he insignificant nowadays? In my older years the non-important stuff just doesn't get retained (no offense to Jerry supporters, but he's not on my radar).
if your Xian friends were for the Afghanistan War or the Iraq War or the War on Terror, then they do advocate the use of violence of some kind
I consider the "attack or not" issue a political one, not religious. Hey, I'm not a Christian and I favored an attack! (I don't want to pursue a thread on that topic)
Oh, well. Peace. I am ready to debate the Creationists, now! You can have the last word (from me, anyway!).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Silent H, posted 02-11-2004 12:19 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Silent H, posted 02-11-2004 7:21 PM ThingsChange has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 130 of 182 (85504)
02-11-2004 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by ThingsChange
02-11-2004 4:15 PM


I just want to set some things straight:
1) I grew up with a strong exposure to Xianity (though thankfully not Creo). I lived in a Xian dominated town (you couldn't even by liquor in the town). I went to a Xian affiliated university, then (despite having officially left Xianity behind) followed the evangelical movement as it grew through the 80's and 90's. I saw seriously disturbing and hateful messages come out of them and so they held my curiousity.
Heheh... I was even watching when Pat Robertson scared the hell out of his cohosts by saying the US should chop up the families of terrorists in retribution.
I am now watching the ID movement work in conjunction with the evangelicals.
Thus while I do not claim to be an expert on Xianity, I have a solid working knowledge of its theology/teachings/practices from the inside and am no amateur "Xian-basher" who just likes to say bad things. When I say something critical it is from points of knowledge.
That said, I think there are many many good Xians. Heck, on the EvC forum one of the people I most admire as a poster is Truthlover. That guy is great and he is totally Xian (apparently leaving in a sort of Xian commune separate from society).
But as a movement, the evangelicals are something to worry about as they gain power... that is if you are not a Xian (and not their brand of Xian). It is a political movement just the same (in intent if not methods) as the Islamic Taliban.
2) "Christians believe homosexual behavior is sinful, but there is no punishment other than God's. I think you and others are mistaking the protection of man/woman marriage and the desire not to have overt behavior in your face as something mean and hateful."
I was not referring to the disenfranchisement of homosexuals with regard to marriage. I find it odd that you have not seen the support of evangelical groups for the murderers of gays, or the calling for laws to outlaw homosexual behavior.
Last year in specific, laws against homosexual behavior were judged unconstitutional, much to the dismay of evangelical groups. This is one of the things that prompted Pat Robertson to launch his "Prayer Offensive" against the Supreme Court. The case itself was not about public displays which might be offensive to anyone. It was whether in the privacy of their own home, homosexuals can have sex the way they want.
To defend this kind of law, and say they need to be on the books (which evangelical groups do say all the time), is to advocate state violence against a sexual miority.
3) "No! And I listen to the media."
I have no idea what you listened to post 9-11, and managed to miss that evangelical groups blamed it on pagans, homosexuals, and atheists having weakened our nation's protection from God. It was all over the place.
And no Jerry Falwell is not a nobody. He is a buddy of the Bush's. If you doubt what I say I'd suggest contacting 60 minutes and getting the transcript of their segment on the evangelical movements presence in Israeli policy, the Bush administration, and the coming of the end times.
This was not a liberal hatchet job taking things out of context. Falwell and others of his ilk were BOASTING of their influence in policy and what the end goals are.
Like I said, I WISH I was making this stuff up.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ThingsChange, posted 02-11-2004 4:15 PM ThingsChange has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 182 (85526)
02-11-2004 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Silent H
02-11-2004 1:21 AM


1) Abraham and Moses are a PART of Xianity, even if they were not Xian. If this was not the case then we would not have to be dealing with XIAN fundies declaring the ten commandments were the basis for our laws. The actions and teachings of these men and the laws laid down by God through these men are deemed as relevant as X's teachings and DO advocate violence.
That we Christians quote and apply the Ten Commandments does not make Moses and Abraham Christian. It makes us wise enough to recognize the value of those commandments for all ages.
Loving God, treating others as we would be treated ourselves, no theft, no murder, no covet of other's goods, spouses, etc, resting a day out of the week, no cursing, involking ours or other's god, acting like humans rather than rabbits in sexual practice, etc. To us, and to any culture, those are noble things to recognize and those are the things that blesses any culture.
2) You claim that Xians who advocate violence or use the teachings/practices of people other than Christ are not true Xians (as you are). Yet you claim you are part of some vast Xian movement. Please give me facts about your denomination, as well as its major leaders, and demographics. I have never heard of ANY evangelical group that makes NO reference to teachings other than X (as per example above), and have not advocated violence against any of the following: homosexuals, Muslims, pagans, atheists, jews, and sometimes other Xian denominations (usually using lev or Rev X).
Holmes, can you say/spell evangelical?? Can you say/spell fundamental?? Can you say/spell Biblical?? Now, in case you've missed this in all the posts I've stated as to whom I'm talking, put these three words together and go figure. This is just more of your spin. You know full well how big the fundamentalist Biblical evangelical movement is in America and the world. You also know full well that we do not advocate violence. Please stop lying and spinning about us in your mean spirited crusade to falsely implicate us to violence. The only violence we are associated with is the violence done to our people by communists, Muslims and others. And don't forget that it was our kind that were being burned at the inquisition stakes by the bishops and popes of Vatican City during the dark ages.
3) You say I am an apologist for militant Islam. Yet I was for the Afghanistan War, and I would have been for military pressure or war on Pakistan (rather than Iraq). I hate militant Islam and was complaining about its growth and abuses LONG before 9-11 (just not at EvC). The Taliban and Al-Queda in particular made me sick. My only defense has been for the Muslims who exist for Islam, as you claim existed for Xianity during the great reign of the RC. That is the one's that stick by their true word of God, which is peaceful and found only in the Quran. If that existed for Xians in the past why is it not possible for Islam now? Because militants say so?
You're spinning my comments. My comments were to the effect that those militants were following the teachings of Mohammed and his desciples as well as what they practiced.
Item 4 total nonsense. No comment.
5) You seemed to suggest (by refering to Israel) that the solution of the Islamic "problem" was that all Muslims must be kept from having independent nations, forced to convert, or killed...
Sick reasoning. The Muslims have nearly all the huge Middle East. Itty bitty Israel has a spec of real estate in comparison. If the Muslims were a bit benevolent, there's billions of sq miles over there to care for their own without insisting itty bitty Israel coughs up a place for them.
6) Bonus question: Are you admitting that for pagans and atheists and homosexuals there will be no difference between what Xians or Muslims have in store for them if they manage to form their righteous kingdom on earth?
Holmes, the future will take care of itself. Our policy for the here and now and for that matter, ever since the first century as Biblical evangelical fundamentalist Christians is to follow the teaching of Jesus and the apostles FOR US -- NOT FOR OT PEOPLE OR FOR A NEW AGE PEOPLE, BUT FOR US. We do not persecute or kill. Spin and lie about us, as you are bent on doing, but I'm really weary of repeating over and over the facts, so if you don't get responses to your falacies, don't whine about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Silent H, posted 02-11-2004 1:21 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Silent H, posted 02-11-2004 9:55 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 182 (85532)
02-11-2004 8:18 PM


ThingsChange, Christian or not, you make good sense and are a refreshing fair and balanced voice of reason in a wilderness of nonsense. Thanks for coming aboard.

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Silent H, posted 02-11-2004 9:56 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 133 of 182 (85577)
02-11-2004 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Buzsaw
02-11-2004 8:11 PM


The 4 most important questions are starred (*)...
quote:
That we Christians quote and apply the Ten Commandments does not make Moses and Abraham Christian. It makes us wise enough to recognize the value of those commandments for all ages.
I said they were not Xian, but like you just stated above are part of Xian teachings and practice. There is extensive violence in the OT, done by these very men by command of God. Some Xians (in particular what is popularly refered to as evangelical Xianity) use this for justification for persecution and violence.
quote:
Now, in case you've missed this in all the posts I've stated as to whom I'm talking, put these three words together and go figure. You're spinning my comments. My comments were to the effect that those militants were following the teachings of Mohammed and his desciples as well as what they practiced.
There is no question that militants give as their reasoning, convoluted arguments so that a couple passages of the Quran can be "put in context" with texts written by men, and somehow trump all the other passages which are the WORD OF GOD against proactive violence and intolerance. This makes them mistaken, no matter how widespread and powerful their organizations might be.
You failed to answer my question.
*Why can't peaceful Muslims today who believe only in the Quran be viewed as similar to the Xians of the past, persecuted by the dominating RC church? *
*If they can be, why are they not considered by you to be the true fundamentalists, since you consider true fundamentalist Xianity to be those that reject violence and appeals to commands from other than Jesus?*
[quote]Sick reasoning. The Muslims have nearly all the huge Middle East.{/quote
You also dodged the question here. I asked you to give a more detailed explanation of what YOU feel the world should do with Muslims worldwide.
Your original answer was do what Israel has done, which suggests ghetto, disenfranchisement, and extermination. I assume you did not mean that and so I would like a better breakdown.
*Could you please give a brief detailed overview of what you think should be done with Muslims worldwide?*
BTW, if allowing Jews to create a religious nation state is not such a big issue, why don't WE just cut them some land? We certainly have more than arabs of the middle east have. It wouldn't piss off nearly as many people (not even me) and they'd be in a lot better defensive position.
quote:
Holmes, the future will take care of itself.
If I am not supposed to accept that from Muslims, why am I supposed to accept that from you? Why can't you answer my questions straight? You say you have given me the facts already but you have yet to answer my very direct questions.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2004 8:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2004 12:07 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 134 of 182 (85578)
02-11-2004 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Buzsaw
02-11-2004 8:18 PM


Buz you do note that Thingschange essentially backs up my argument with regard to Islam, right?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2004 8:18 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2004 11:39 PM Silent H has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 182 (85615)
02-11-2004 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Silent H
02-11-2004 9:56 PM


At least ThingsChange doesn't suffer as you and so many others here do with chronic Christophobia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Silent H, posted 02-11-2004 9:56 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Silent H, posted 02-12-2004 1:05 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024