Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

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


Message 1 of 182 (75136)
12-25-2003 5:41 PM


Fundamentalist Christian organizations are the ones who ship thousands of boxes of blankets, clothes, food and other goods for relief worldwide to the oppressed and persecuted.
Fundamentalist Islamic organizations are the ones who kill, kill, kill themselves and the largest number of innocent victims for selfish reasons to enjoy wine, women and song in the afterlife and the advancemet of their tyranny around the globe.
Yet so many Christophobics in this town insist that all religious fundamentalists are of the same stripe. This's nuts!
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-25-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 12-25-2003 8:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 32 by Prozacman, posted 02-01-2004 4:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 182 (75137)
12-25-2003 5:57 PM


I intended to indicate degrees rather than per centage in my title, but I see "%" doesn't serve as a very good substitute. I was trying to keep the title from being any longer than it already is. My appologies. I guess most will get the message.

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 182 (75141)
12-25-2003 7:12 PM


The following exchange took place in the Holmes UN thread which inspired this thread so as to not allow that thread to wander off topic:
Holmes:
Perhaps a more rational approach is to look at it for what it is. While you are correct that Islamic Fundamentalists launched a horrific attack on the US, it was a group of Islamic Fundamentalists. And we should not suddenly become caught in the same mindtrap they are.
Nosyned:
But the fundamentalists are caught in the same mindtrap. There is little difference between fundamentalists of any strip.
Buz:
How many Christian fundies are blowing themselves up, killing all they can with them in the name of Christian Biblical fundamentalism? When are you ever going to get real and over your Christophobic bent?? This is an outright blatant falsehood, and you well know it in your heart, Ned.
Nosyned:
Excuse me, falsehood? Did I say Christian fundies were blowing themselves up?
Ned, you were clearly addressing a statement by Holmes who was addressing the violence of Islam which I had originally alluded to when you declared all fundamentalists were of the same stripe. You're a classic spinster when it comes to wriggling out of your own falacies -- so much so that a separate thread is needed to untangle what you've spun up.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 12-25-2003 9:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 182 (75192)
12-26-2003 10:17 AM


Note to all in response to all of the above:
1. The statements in my opening post are in reference to BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS and MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISTS. Christian fundamentalists are those Christians who follow the Biblical fundamentals set forth by Christ and his apostles in the New Testament as well as the examples practiced in the lives of these people.
2. The statements in my opening post are also in reference to Muslim fundamentalists who follow the Muslim fundamentals set forth by Muhammed and his apostles in the Quran as well as the examples practiced in the lives of these people.
3. The responses so far in refutation of my statements are not addressing the statements I've made, but rather have alluded to those people in the past who have deviated from the FUNDAMENTALS set forth in the New Testament by Jesus and his desciples/apostles. These are not Christian fundamentalists.
4. The word "fundamentalist" means one who believes and follows the basic foundational literal fundamentals/foundational basics of (in this case) one's religion/book. You might say "one who goes by the book and example of the author/originator of the religion/book."
5. Jesus and his apostles and desciples never killed or persecuted anyone and when Peter cut off the ear of the man among the band who came to arrest Jesus, Jesus restored the ear immediately, rebuking Peter.
On the other hand, Mohammed and his desciples/apostles killed, enslaved and persecuted thousands and taught that this was rightious practice and those who did so would be rewarded by the Muslim god, Allah for doing so.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-26-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Silent H, posted 12-26-2003 12:19 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 14 by sidelined, posted 12-26-2003 2:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 15 by Rrhain, posted 12-26-2003 2:46 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 182 (80720)
01-25-2004 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Silent H
12-26-2003 12:19 PM


You are not being fair. You are setting the definitions so that your argument is correct even though those definitions are not true on the ground.
How so? Jesus established the fundamentals for Christianity. Where in his teachings or by his example is it fundadmentally ok to kill, harm or persecute anyone?
There are plenty of fundamentalist Xians, who say they are fundamentalist Xians, who kill others in the name of God and God's laws.
Talk is cheap. How do they qualify as being fundamental to the teaching and example of Jesus by killing others.
You yourself berate homosexuals and muslims rather than withholding judgement and turning the other cheek (some pretty major teachings). It is pretty obvious you are even advocating violence against both groups from the state, in the name of your traditions.
Jesus who physically harmed no one and taught others to do likewise, also denounced many evil and false things vocally. Jesus would not condone homosexuality which the Levitical law clearly condemns, though he never ever advocated the Levitical punishment which was designated the specific nation in a specific timeframe, for any sin. This was evidenced by his treatment of the woman caught in adultery.
Does that mean you are not a fundamentalist Xian because there are some Xians who accept homosexuality and don't want to war on muslims?
1. No Christian or Biblical fundamentalist accepts homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. It's just not one of the fundamentals of the Bible. Prove me wrong by documentation, please.
2. The fundamentals of Christianity does not call on physical warfare on any false doctrine. It does call for refutation of such and admonishment to abstain from that which is contrary to Biblical truth via preaching and vocal persuasion.
On the flipside there are plenty of fundamentalist muslims that do not like violence at all. They feel that (other than when attacked first) there are no messages in the Koran which compel one to violent action.
Only ones who most fundamentally mimic the practices of Mohammed himself and who know what he taught about warfare and resistance against infidels and heretics are the real fundies of Islam. These are the most devout, willing to give up their lives for the faith and for alleged personal eternal reward as taught by Mohammed and his close desciples of his day. Unlike Jesus, he practiced and advocated much violence.
Just like fundamentalist Xians, there are very violent fundamentalist denominations of Islam.
1. False! There are no Christian fundies, true fundies, or denominations of such who are violent to others.
2. Why is it that murderous suicide bombers are so officially honored by nearly all under the flag of the PLO if we're only talking certain denominations here?
Why do muslims not get to divorce themselves from the violent examples of Islam as you conveniently have done so for yourself?
Because the fundamentals taught and practiced by Mohammed, their prophet are so contrary to those taught and practiced by Jesus, our prophet/saviour/lord.
Yet Mohammed was being persecuted in a time of war, which is unlike Jesus and so he has a very different life. Yes, he does not teach to turn the other cheek like Jesus, but he sets down some pretty strong rules of engagement. Interestingly enough these rules would condemn suicide bombings, especially of innocents. You do know this right?
His life, teachings and actions speak louder than your words. Likely, judging from these, he would not condemn either 9/11 or the bombings. Why? Because these have to do with the soverignty of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. He would fight anyone deterring occupation of Jerusalem. He taught that Islam must dominate the planet and this type of warfare is stregically crucial to fulfillment of that ultimate purpose of His sect.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Silent H, posted 12-26-2003 12:19 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Angeldust, posted 01-27-2004 9:24 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 27 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-27-2004 10:50 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 30 by Silent H, posted 01-31-2004 9:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 182 (81335)
01-28-2004 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Andya Primanda
01-27-2004 10:50 PM


Our creed states that the main guidelines for virtuous living is the Qur'an, the Message of God, not the life of the prophet. Even his actions are to be judged against the verses of Qur'an. I have told you repeatedly that any violence done by Muslims in Muhammad's time is self-defense. Check your history sources.
Andya, It has been documented by quoting verses of the Quran that the offensive actions of the man, Mohammed and the call to offensive action in his book, the Quran coincide. It has also been documented that the actions of Mohammed have usually been offensive and not defensive. How do you think he reduced the number of gods worshipped at Mecca from well over 250 to his one god, Allah during his lifetime and banned the rest by means of the sword?

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-27-2004 10:50 PM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-30-2004 1:13 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 182 (82125)
02-02-2004 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Andya Primanda
01-30-2004 1:13 AM


I'll let the Qur'an refute you
2:190 You may fight in the cause of GOD those who fight you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressor.
Andya, your above quote must be read in the light of the following verses, also quotes of Mohammed in the Quran:
Fight and slay the pagans (i.e. infidels) wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.
And these words as to people who resist Islam
Their punishment is....execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from the opposite sides, or exile from the land.
Also, both contemporary scholars of Islam like Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti in his book, "Jurisprudence in Muhammad's Biography and Saudi scholar, Dr. Muhammad al-Amin attribute the following quotation as coming from the prophet Mohammed.
I was commanded to fight the people until they believe in God and his message...."
The following earlier scholars of Egypt and Saudi Arabia also agree to the above:
1. The Sahib of alBukhari, part I p 13
2. The Sahib of Muslim, part I p 267 (The Interpretation of the Nawawi)
3. The Comentary of Ibn Kathir, p 336
4. The Muhalla (the Sweetened), Vol 4 p. 317
5. "The Ordinances of the Qur'an" by al-Shafi'i, p 51, part II (on the authority of Bbu Huraira).
6. Mishkat of al-Masabih, par 1, p. 9.
" Almost all major Islamic references have quoted this statement because it is one of the most famous sayings of Muhammad which he followed and which he commanded his followers to implement."
The above info is from the book, "Behind the Veil" By Abd El Schafi, an excellent source if reliable information on Islam, especially since everything in this book is derived from Islamic sources. The book is full of quotes from both contemporary and ancient Islamic scholars and leaders.
I'll try and get to a response on the rest of your post soon.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-30-2004 1:13 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2004 12:51 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 82 by Andya Primanda, posted 02-05-2004 4:55 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 182 (82154)
02-02-2004 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
02-02-2004 12:51 PM


Paul, is it that you like to keep me busy addressing yada or is it that you just do not comprehend?
Did you bother to note the following in my post? What better sources than Islamic sources for documentation on Islamic doctrine and the prophet? What more can I add, except to suggest you get the book and read for yourself. These are only a partial page of the documentation of stuff from Islamic scholars and leaders themselves as to what the religion and the prophet have practiced and taught over the centuries in this truly informative book.
Buz post #34
........an excellent source if reliable information on Islam, especially since everything in this book is derived from Islamic sources. The book is full of quotes from both contemporary and ancient Islamic scholars and leaders.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2004 12:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2004 2:39 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 38 by Silent H, posted 02-02-2004 4:54 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 182 (82230)
02-02-2004 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by PaulK
02-02-2004 2:39 PM


What little I can find about this book does not inspire confidence.
.......And the little you've found is what specifically?
Isn't author, work, and in some cases, page number enough to indicate the book uses authentic Islamic source for it's criteria? The whole book of over 300 pages is documented in this manner.
Did you, for example, do a google on "Sahib of al-Bukhari" to find that he wrote this early cononical work on the sayings of the prophet Muhammed? Must I do your research for you, or are you just going to biasingly spout off these denunciations of my sources?
Maybe Andyea would have some comment about my sources, as to their credibility??
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 02-02-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2004 2:39 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2004 6:24 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 182 (82237)
02-02-2004 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Silent H
02-02-2004 4:54 PM


Holmes, I have never denied that there are not many peaceful Muslims, have I? My point has been always that the closer one gets to the prophet and his book, the more militant they get, hasn't it? Thus the leadership in so many Islamic nations being totalitarian and supportive of violence against unbelievers, infidels and heretics who wish to convert out of Islam. Nor have I ever denied that there isn't violence in the Bible, have I? My point has always been that nowhere in the Bible are Christians taught to be violent, to kill or persecute anyone.
That Jesus will come at a time of the "wrath of God" changes nothing for the here and now, now, does it? This in no way allows for Christians to persecute anyone during this, the church age, does it? You're desperate for rebut stuff so you stoop to these spin jobs. Please get real and I will be more responsive to your posts. Otherwise Holmes, responding to much of what you say becomes a waste of time and thread bandwidth.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Silent H, posted 02-02-2004 4:54 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 02-02-2004 7:23 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 182 (82291)
02-02-2004 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by PaulK
02-02-2004 6:24 PM


I see while I was editing in additional comment to my short post you were responding so I'll bring my edit forward for your response.
So, so far, the only research you've done on the book is where it's sold and you debunk it on that. Come no, Paul, how would I be treated by a bunch of you people if I debunked a work of evolution science on the basis of who sold the book? Aren't you willing to do the fair thing and just admit you know nothing about the book except what I've documented and that there's nothing in what I've shown to indicate any unfair tactics by the author?
Buz quote: [qs]Isn't author, work, and in some cases, page number enough to indicate the book uses authentic Islamic source for it's criteria? The whole book of over 300 pages is documented in this manner.
Did you, for example, do a google on "Sahib of al-Bukhari" to find that he wrote this early cononical work on the sayings of the prophet Muhammed? Must I do your research for you, or are you just going to biasingly spout off these denunciations of my sources?
Maybe Andyea would have some comment about my sources, as to their credibility??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2004 6:24 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2004 8:05 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 182 (82296)
02-02-2004 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Silent H
02-02-2004 7:23 PM


And what you ignore is that the same can be said about Xians. As Xians and Jews get closer to their prophets and their books they get more militant.
HOLMES, THEY (CHRISTIANS) DO NOT AND YOU KNOW IT. THE CLOSER A CHRISTIAN GETS TO JESUS, WHO TAUGHT HIS FOLLOWERS TO HARM NOBODY, BUT TO DO GOOD EVEN TO THEIR ENEMIES, THE MORE NON-VI0LENT THEY ARE. THE VIOLENT ONES WERE NOT THE FUNDIES, BUT THOSE LIBERAL ONES WHO DISOBEYED THE GOLDEN RULE AND THE COMMANDMENTS OF JESUS. My apologies for raising my cybervoice, but you just don't want to admit the truth of what I have been saying over and over and over and over and over and over etc, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 02-02-2004 7:23 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 02-02-2004 8:15 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 182 (82302)
02-02-2004 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Silent H
02-02-2004 7:23 PM


Nowhere in the BIBLE? The entire OT, Paul's statements supporting levitical law, and Revelations. Plenty of Xians use all of these to support their claims to violence.
Paul never ever taught the Christians to disobey the commandments of Jesus to love their enemies and to do violence to nobody. Please document otherwise if you think you can or that he himself taught them to persecute their enemies or anyone else. This's just another one of your usual spin jobs, Holmes. Get over it and debate fairly or go and harass somebody else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 02-02-2004 7:23 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 02-02-2004 8:18 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 182 (82405)
02-02-2004 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
02-02-2004 8:05 PM


You were the one who said that it was reliable. Based on no research at all.
1. I have the book; all three hundred plus pages of it full of quotes from Islamic scholars, leaders and clerics.
2. I have already posted to you an example of how easy it is to research on Google as to the credibility of the sources the book uses, citing a very early scholar who was close enough to the prophet to quote his sayings and having them cannonized for official Islamic doctrine. I am fully capable of producing a whole lot more if that's what it takes.
3. On the ohter hand all you've managed to do is complain about my credible documented input, all the while producing nothing to back up your allegations that they are inadequate.
I only point out that the book is obscure, hostile to its subject and promoted only by people either likely to be biased or most definitely biased. With no indication that the author has any significant credentials. And it was recommended by you - that's grounds for suspicion in itself.
Obscure in whose eyes? How do you know it's hostile to it's subject having not read it? Same for showing bias? How more fair and objective could he be, using only Islamic sources so as not to exercise undue bias? Credentials? Such as what? Aren't the credentials of his sources what counts? No comment on the last one, except to remind you how many times I'm admonished to read certain evo stuff in order to be considered by certain people to be fit to participate in certain debates.
And lets get this straight - it is YOUR job to do the research to back up YOUR claims. You didn't do it. And now you're telling me that you won't do it because it's somehow MY job ?
Uh uh. you challenged the credibility of the book. Put up or shut up. I've done my part and followed forum rules thoroughly with my credible documentation. If I, detested creo buz, acted like your acting in debate, admin or mods would be on my case big time in a hurry, I kid you not!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2004 8:05 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 02-03-2004 3:17 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 182 (82408)
02-02-2004 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
02-02-2004 8:15 PM


You're free to call those people non-Christians, I suppose. The problem is that they call themselves Christians.
Talk is cheap. The important thing is do they follow the example and commandments of their lord and saviour and his apostles? Until they do they're not considered fundamentalist Christians, but liberal in how seriously they take their supposed lord/master, Jesus.
You need to analyze why they feel comfortable doing that, because until you do, we're free to counter that the people you're talking about aren't really Muslims.
They're comfortable in their violence because they disregard what Jesus and the apostles taught and make their own rules to suit their own desires. He's not their lord. God is not considered the "holy father" of Roman Catholics. The pope is the one addressed as such. The priests are their local spiritual "fathers." The cardinals, bishops and popes of the dark ages made the rules to kill, persecute and torture, not Jesus or the apostles.
After all, didn't Jesus braid a whip out of rope and drive the moneychangers from the temple? That hardly sounds non-violent, and it's just the sort of justification an abortion bomber could use...
He was no wimpy long haired feminstic looking softie as so many artists portray him. He was manly, tough and rugged, having lived in the countryside and wilderness most of his adult life and was showing them he was lord of the temple of God. I'm sure nobody died or went home disabled or maimed after having been driven out. They were clearly in violation of temple rules as set forth by Jewish law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 02-02-2004 8:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 02-02-2004 11:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 52 by Silent H, posted 02-03-2004 12:54 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