The Most Dangerous Individual To Ever Live

Well, how about Eve? Had she not listened to the serpent, hopefully Adam wouldn't have eaten with her. And we don't know if she told Adam where she got the fruit. At any rate had they kept their hands off the tree, there'd be nobody hurt ever.Seriously, I guess I'd have to say both the prophets/messiah Jesus and Mohammed was/are responsible for inciting more bloodshed than any other persons and I don't believe I'm insulting or offending my lord and saviour, Jesus for saying so.1. Jesus, the Prince of Peace once said that he came not to bring peace, but a sword. Then he went on to explain that his gospel would be a catalyst to divide family members and others because of it being exclusive and cause of offence. He became the first victim and warned/prophesied that his followers would be hated by the world because of his exclusive gospel.2. Jesus is called the Prince of Peace because
a. Neither he nor his true desciples and converts were to kill or harm anyone physically because of what they believed or did. That is not to say they were not allowed to protect themselves, for he did tell his desciples before he died that it was ok to carry a sword. This was to protect from robbers and wild beasts, I would assume, for they traveled much on beast of burden or on foot.
b. The Biblical prophecies declare that the messiah would usher in a millenium of peace in which the "swords would be turned into plowsheres."3. Mohammed, the other inciter of bloodshed, on the other hand personally oversaw the shedding of blood for the propagation of his religion in order that Islam would become the exclusive religion at Mecca and eventually worldwide. His very close relatives and desciples all were very brutal and forced those who wanted out of Islam to remain or die. Then, of course the world is getting a look at fundamentalistic Islam via Jihad and terror as taught in the Quran, the Sunnas and the Hadiths.

You make my point, LM, loud and clear. Falwell and his kind, preach the offensive gospel of Jesus, whose gospel causes offense. You depict the hatred that Jesus spoke of for Christians and Christianity, even the Falwell kind which preaches no violence at all, which helps the needy, unwed mothers and the poor, and which preaches the gospel of peace. You hate Christianity for what it teaches, like don't bed down other than one's own wife, honor and love the god, Jehovah, the god of those awful Ten Commandments, and so forth. When people who hate Christians find themselves where there's no protecting Constitution, they kill, kill, kill those hated Christians as did the communists of last century. Thus, Jesus came to bring a sword via his gospel of peace.

1. Which is better, LM, the kisses of an enemy, or the wounds of a friend? Compassion for non-Christians means warning them of the consequences of their sin and showing them how to avoid those disastrous consequences. At least that is compassionate in the eyes of a devout Christian. Non-compassion would be to say nothing and leave the "lost" be "lost" wouldn't it?2. Falwell had the judgement of Sodom and Gomorrah as well as the scriptures in mind when he made his comments concerning 9/11. He believes that the soverign god, Jehovah does not wink at open rebellion to the principle of family that he has instituted for his intelligent creature, man to observe. Nations who forget him the true god, suffer the consequences and that likely is taking the hedge of protection which he allows for good nations away. Thus, the first enemy attack directly on our own free soil turf on 9/11. The blessings we've enjoyed from God are diminishing and will soon be gone if we continue the slippery slide morally that we're on. Falwell should never have appologized about his statement but explained his reason for stating it. Of course if he had wanted to do that, the media would not likely have covered it.

And as with Jesus it may bring the danger to one's own as well as one's own self, and like the Baptist Christian missionaries who were shot dead in Iraq the other day by Islamics, knowing full well they couldn't even preach their gospel unless asked, they just wanted to help out and were working on the water supply system for the Iraqis, I understand.

---

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

With all due respect, Asgara, I see no one refuting my point that both of these individuals have been the reason for much bloodshed for the reasons I've given. Why are you trying to deprive me of this valid point. If and when I say false things about Islam, that's one thing, but if what I post is true, that's quite another. Where is my point here off topic?Btw, Asgara, are you going to now go after all the Christian bashers here on EvC who incessantly rant hate towards Christianity, some of which just isn't so? Why are you giving Islam a free ride? Why don't you refute the points I've made and then go after me?

Asgara, can you name any one person in history who has been the reason for more bloodshed, hate, war and violence/danger than these two individuals, subjects of my point?

Is it my fault that Islam has risen to the focus of so much attention on the world scene? Is it only Christianity that is subject to negative comment? Are Christians as we speak being persecuted and killed by Islam fundamentalist regimes in nations like the Sudan? Are we compelled to silence as this holocaust rages while we post??[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-19-2004]

I've never ever overlooked the bloodshed done in the name of Christianity, Asgara. I've always met it head on, showing positively that it was done contrary to the teaching of Christ and his apostles. I've never ever denied that it took place. It was the true Christians who were killed as well as others by the bloody so called Christian inquisitioner bishops and popes of Vatican City. The topic is about specific individuals, is it not? Why then should I have mentioned the popes of Vatican City when Jesus and Mohammed topped them as individual subjects appropriate to the thread title?Maybe it's "sickening" to you because it truely is sickening. It sickens me to have to talk about it, but sometimes the truth is sickening. Believe me, I do not enjoy it, but does anyone else in town really care enough to speak up? If it were another Jewish holocaust, in the Sudan, would anyone care? I duno, but I do care about my Christian black brothers and sisters in Islamic fundie regimes who are being brutally tortured and being sold in the flourishing slave market in Islamic Northern Sudan. I care enough to risk the possibility that an Islamic devout will show up at my doorstep and blow me away for telling the truth. I've brought up the subject only when appropriate. Please be specific and cite where it was inappropriate and we'll talk about it, if you care to open a thread to that effect. That's really silly isn't it, madear? How can they make claims against the true followers of Jesus and the apostles when people like Falwell, Robertson, James Kennedy and others do and teach no violence such as some of the Sunnas, the Hadiths and yes, the Quran advocate??
Did you read my late post on the Islamic fundie thread where I documented about Islamic Jihad? If so, do you care to count the times the word "fight" was quoted from the Quran and the Sunnas in the link by this Islamic author?Besides, I've never called for censorship of my Christian bashing cyber counterpart friends. Let them! They're fulfilling Biblical prophecy, bless their deluded hearts! The truth silences them soundly without the need for censorship.
By the same token, if my Islam bashing is false, let them go at me with the truth!! They do the best they can with what they've got, which imo, isn't much.Btw, Christ is not spelled "X". If I used the term "Xlam" or referred to the prophet Mohammed as something like the Xet Mr. X you'd have no problem, Asgara, or would all you nice people then begin giving the Christian messiah/lord due respect to teach me some respect in how to refer to the deities of others??Hey, call us what you want. I can handle it and anything you all come out with, but please don't come at me for negative truth I post about others.

I suggest Holmes, that you cite specifically wherein I lied. My post pertains to the number of times the word "fight" was used in the Quran, the Hadiths and Sunnas. Regardless of which were revered the most, all were/are revered and acknowledged by all Muslims as important. Where have you posted the number that word "fight" was used, in the link of quotes. How about just the number from the Quran itself? Then compare that to the number of that word in the New Testament. It may surprise you.

How many times in the link of this post is the word "fight" quoted from the Quran itself, not to mention the Sunnas and the Hadiths, Holmes? There is not one single reference to the word "fight" in the New Testament" as to applying to commanding or encouraging Christians to engage in fighting anyone. So I repeat, where am I lying??

Asgara, before you condemn this thread as a bashing of Islam, why don't you refute my statements about Islam? Are they true, or not? If they cannot be proven to be untrue, it is not an Islam bashing thread.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-21-2004]

Andya:1. Many of the texts refering to fighting are not in the defensive vein.
2. The Quran makes it plain that Islam is suppose to dominate the world and this implication is clear in many statement in the QuranI don't mean to go off topic, but I believe this is necessary information to substantiate the reason for my choice of the two idividuals in response to the thread title question.

Those evil balls began rolling because evil regimes like pagan Rome which persecuted the early Christians. Under Constantine pagan Rome then emerged with a concoction of Christianity which became hierarchial and brutal, ignoring the clear instructions of Christ and the apostles about harming no one but operating out of a love agenda. Jesus was the one who's influence set off the ball but Satan was pushing the ball along.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-21-2004]

If I participate in another Islam thread, Asgara's shure's heck gona add another to her list of two Islamic bashing threads I'm into if I post the facts. Besides, I don't see that we're off topic. How am I gona show that Mohammed is a dangerous man to prove my point for the topic of this thread without discussing him and his religion, pray tell??There's quite a lot in the link I gave about fighting and not all in the defensive vein from both the Quran, and the Haddiths. Did you read them?

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.