Christian forums

[Jenos Ridan]

Too much evidence gives Christian debaters a heart attack

Funny, it seems to still be ticking away.

BTW: those verses you quote were unbelievably out of context that is took me a while to see that you were dead serious.

Since you're an apparent fan of Quote Wars, care to explain these?

Sura 9:123
Sura 66:9
Sura 8:39
Sura 9:29
Sura 4:76
Sura 2:193
Sura 2:190

[Neutrino]

Too much evidence gives Christian debaters a heart attack

Funny, it seems to still be ticking away.

BTW: those verses you quote were unbelievably out of context that is took me a while to see that you were dead serious.

Since you're an apparent fan of Quote Wars, care to explain these?

Sura 9:123
Sura 66:9
Sura 8:39
Sura 9:29
Sura 4:76
Sura 2:193
Sura 2:190

What was the context on those quotes, then?
The ugly beast of double standards seems to be rearing it's head again. Christian quotes are out of context while Muslim ones are completely and totally as intended...

P.S. I seem to recall a certain thread, "Freedom of Religion" by title... I wonder what happened to it? I had a nice little responce typed up and everything and it just never got responded too...

[comic boy]

Too much evidence gives Christian debaters a heart attack

Funny, it seems to still be ticking away.

BTW: those verses you quote were unbelievably out of context that is took me a while to see that you were dead serious.

Since you're an apparent fan of Quote Wars, care to explain these?

Sura 9:123
Sura 66:9
Sura 8:39
Sura 9:29
Sura 4:76
Sura 2:193
Sura 2:190

I posted a long time back about how only a small minority of Muslims belong to sects that interpret Jihad literaly, as usual you did not respond.
You have a fixed position which you are not prepared to debate and are consequently wasting everyones time with what amounts to anti Islamic propoganda and nothing else.

[Napoleon Ier]

Really? You posted did you? And I suppose you can find me polls, articles, and experts in islamic studies that back up this view that muslims don't take Jihad literally?
I mean, quite apart from the fact their kiddie-fiddling prophet clearly didn't take it metaphorically, and he wrote those verses (which, remember, you were inspired by God and left for Mohammad to exemplify), muslims consistently show in polls they interpret Jihad as armed struggle, even if only against oppression, so I'd very musch like to see who and what published these revolutionnary statistics, which I trust, are all from reliable sources, and that the data that has been analyzed by top scholars?

[Frigidus]

Really? You posted did you? And I suppose you can find me polls, articles, and experts in islamic studies that back up this view that muslims don't take Jihad literally?
I mean, quite apart from the fact their kiddie-fiddling prophet clearly didn't take it metaphorically, and he wrote those verses (which, remember, you were inspired by God and left for Mohammad to exemplify), muslims consistently show in polls they interpret Jihad as armed struggle, even if only against oppression, so I'd very musch like to see who and what published these revolutionnary statistics, which I trust, are all from reliable sources, and that the data that has been analyzed by top scholars?

Leviticus 1-3: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+1-3

Let me ask you, when you slaughter a goat as a burnt sacrifice, do you always make sure to do it on the North side of the altar?

Some parts of a religion fade away over time, and I'm pretty sure that anyone who takes all of Leviticus seriously isn't considered a very well balanced Christian. The same goes for the Muslim religion.

[Snorri1234]

Really? You posted did you? And I suppose you can find me polls, articles, and experts in islamic studies that back up this view that muslims don't take Jihad literally?
I mean, quite apart from the fact their kiddie-fiddling prophet clearly didn't take it metaphorically, and he wrote those verses (which, remember, you were inspired by God and left for Mohammad to exemplify), muslims consistently show in polls they interpret Jihad as armed struggle, even if only against oppression, so I'd very musch like to see who and what published these revolutionnary statistics, which I trust, are all from reliable sources, and that the data that has been analyzed by top scholars?

Leviticus 1-3: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+1-3

Let me ask you, when you slaughter a goat as a burnt sacrifice, do you always make sure to do it on the North side of the altar?

Some parts of a religion fade away over time, and I'm pretty sure that anyone who takes all of Leviticus seriously isn't considered a very well balanced Christian. The same goes for the Muslim religion.

Well obviously because of jebus that doesn't count.

[Frigidus]

Really? You posted did you? And I suppose you can find me polls, articles, and experts in islamic studies that back up this view that muslims don't take Jihad literally?
I mean, quite apart from the fact their kiddie-fiddling prophet clearly didn't take it metaphorically, and he wrote those verses (which, remember, you were inspired by God and left for Mohammad to exemplify), muslims consistently show in polls they interpret Jihad as armed struggle, even if only against oppression, so I'd very musch like to see who and what published these revolutionnary statistics, which I trust, are all from reliable sources, and that the data that has been analyzed by top scholars?

Leviticus 1-3: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+1-3

Let me ask you, when you slaughter a goat as a burnt sacrifice, do you always make sure to do it on the North side of the altar?

Some parts of a religion fade away over time, and I'm pretty sure that anyone who takes all of Leviticus seriously isn't considered a very well balanced Christian. The same goes for the Muslim religion.

Well obviously because of jebus that doesn't count.

When exactly was it that Christians got together and voted on what parts of the OT don't count? It always seems to me like they pick and choose based on their whims...

[Snorri1234]

When exactly was it that Christians got together and voted on what parts of the OT don't count? It always seems to me like they pick and choose based on their whims...

It was a secret meeting where noone was invited.

[Napoleon Ier]

[quot="Snorri"]

Really? You posted did you? And I suppose you can find me polls, articles, and experts in islamic studies that back up this view that muslims don't take Jihad literally?
I mean, quite apart from the fact their kiddie-fiddling prophet clearly didn't take it metaphorically, and he wrote those verses (which, remember, you were inspired by God and left for Mohammad to exemplify), muslims consistently show in polls they interpret Jihad as armed struggle, even if only against oppression, so I'd very musch like to see who and what published these revolutionnary statistics, which I trust, are all from reliable sources, and that the data that has been analyzed by top scholars?

Leviticus 1-3: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+1-3

Let me ask you, when you slaughter a goat as a burnt sacrifice, do you always make sure to do it on the North side of the altar?

Some parts of a religion fade away over time, and I'm pretty sure that anyone who takes all of Leviticus seriously isn't considered a very well balanced Christian. The same goes for the Muslim religion.

Well obviously because of jebus that doesn't count. [/quote]


Ahhhh....short on arguments, snorri must resort to assuming that Islam and Christianity are directly analagous, and that the Mosaic law "faded away".
Obviously, his NT and Early Church history culture are seriosuly deficient, so much so, that rather than realising he's out of his depth, he continues to bury himself further into his puerile little leftist card-board fort in lalaland, in which one can twist historical and theological parametres to make simplistic direct analogies.
Unfortunatly, to anyone with basic knowledge of Christianity, this makes him look a little silly. For now, I'll suggest he reads up on St.Paul and his rift with St. Peter, the Councils leading up to Nicea (which are by the way the main authoritative proclaimers of Christian doctrine, not the Bible, which wasn't compiled until Nicea).
"jebus", you should also note, violates the literal mosaic law repeatedly, and this is explained rather well by Himself, St.Paul in the NT, and the Early Fathers.
However, in Islam, you find entirely different concepts, that revolove around the Qu'uran being the ultimate and perfected, final, even incarnation of Allah. The Qu'uran cannot be "disinterpreted" in Islam,since it is the direct commands of Allah to his prophet, and the only authoritative source, unlike in Christianity, where the Mosaic law was repealed by Jesus' New Covenant.

[Napoleon Ier]

When exactly was it that Christians got together and voted on what parts of the OT don't count? It always seems to me like they pick and choose based on their whims...

It was a secret meeting where noone was invited.

Yes, it was exactly that, actually, snorrarse. It took place in 50 AD.

[Snorri1234]

Ahhhh....short on arguments, snorri must resort to assuming that Islam and Christianity are directly analagous, and that the Mosaic law "faded away".
Obviously, his NT and Early Church history culture are seriosuly deficient, so much so, that rather than realising he's out of his depth, he continues to bury himself further into his puerile little leftist card-board fort in lalaland, in which one can twist historical and theological parametres to make simplistic direct analogies.
Unfortunatly, to anyone with basic knowledge of Christianity, this makes him look a little silly. For now, I'll suggest he reads up on St.Paul and his rift with St. Peter, the Councils leading up to Nicea (which are by the way the main authoritative proclaimers of Christian doctrine, not the Bible, which wasn't compiled until Nicea).
"jebus", you should also note, violates the literal mosaic law repeatedly, and this is explained rather well by Himself, St.Paul in the NT, and the Early Fathers.
However, in Islam, you find entirely different concepts, that revolove around the Qu'uran being the ultimate and perfected, final, even incarnation of Allah. The Qu'uran cannot be "disinterpreted" in Islam,since it is the direct commands of Allah to his prophet, and the only authoritative source, unlike in Christianity, where the Mosaic law was repealed by Jesus' New Covenant.

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER!

I don't care what is says in the Quran or Bible, I'm just annoyed that you try to seperate what followers actually do with what it says in the book. There are christians out there who also interpret the OT as literal and law, and who use many passages in that book as an excuse to do or think things. The fact that most muslims are just as peacefull as christians means that those muslims also have radical groups who do the exact same thing.

I am saying that Mosaic law faded away just like most of the OT-teachings for the Jews. I don't see jewish people slaughtering sheep or stoning unfaithfull spouses. And they don't have Jesus to make those laws void or anything.

[Frigidus]

Really? You posted did you? And I suppose you can find me polls, articles, and experts in islamic studies that back up this view that muslims don't take Jihad literally?
I mean, quite apart from the fact their kiddie-fiddling prophet clearly didn't take it metaphorically, and he wrote those verses (which, remember, you were inspired by God and left for Mohammad to exemplify), muslims consistently show in polls they interpret Jihad as armed struggle, even if only against oppression, so I'd very musch like to see who and what published these revolutionnary statistics, which I trust, are all from reliable sources, and that the data that has been analyzed by top scholars?

Leviticus 1-3: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+1-3

Let me ask you, when you slaughter a goat as a burnt sacrifice, do you always make sure to do it on the North side of the altar?

Some parts of a religion fade away over time, and I'm pretty sure that anyone who takes all of Leviticus seriously isn't considered a very well balanced Christian. The same goes for the Muslim religion.

Well obviously because of jebus that doesn't count.

Ahhhh....short on arguments, snorri must resort to assuming that Islam and Christianity are directly analagous, and that the Mosaic law "faded away".
Obviously, his NT and Early Church history culture are seriosuly deficient, so much so, that rather than realising he's out of his depth, he continues to bury himself further into his puerile little leftist card-board fort in lalaland, in which one can twist historical and theological parametres to make simplistic direct analogies.
Unfortunatly, to anyone with basic knowledge of Christianity, this makes him look a little silly. For now, I'll suggest he reads up on St.Paul and his rift with St. Peter, the Councils leading up to Nicea (which are by the way the main authoritative proclaimers of Christian doctrine, not the Bible, which wasn't compiled until Nicea).
"jebus", you should also note, violates the literal mosaic law repeatedly, and this is explained rather well by Himself, St.Paul in the NT, and the Early Fathers.
However, in Islam, you find entirely different concepts, that revolove around the Qu'uran being the ultimate and perfected, final, even incarnation of Allah. The Qu'uran cannot be "disinterpreted" in Islam,since it is the direct commands of Allah to his prophet, and the only authoritative source, unlike in Christianity, where the Mosaic law was repealed by Jesus' New Covenant.

Do all Catholics agree with everything the Pope says? Naturally it is advantageous to the religious leaders that the Koran is unquestionable and can only be interpreted in one way: their way. Yet there are many different sects of Islam. Kind of hard to explain that away.

[Napoleon Ier]

Ahhhh....short on arguments, snorri must resort to assuming that Islam and Christianity are directly analagous, and that the Mosaic law "faded away".
Obviously, his NT and Early Church history culture are seriosuly deficient, so much so, that rather than realising he's out of his depth, he continues to bury himself further into his puerile little leftist card-board fort in lalaland, in which one can twist historical and theological parametres to make simplistic direct analogies.
Unfortunatly, to anyone with basic knowledge of Christianity, this makes him look a little silly. For now, I'll suggest he reads up on St.Paul and his rift with St. Peter, the Councils leading up to Nicea (which are by the way the main authoritative proclaimers of Christian doctrine, not the Bible, which wasn't compiled until Nicea).
"jebus", you should also note, violates the literal mosaic law repeatedly, and this is explained rather well by Himself, St.Paul in the NT, and the Early Fathers.
However, in Islam, you find entirely different concepts, that revolove around the Qu'uran being the ultimate and perfected, final, even incarnation of Allah. The Qu'uran cannot be "disinterpreted" in Islam,since it is the direct commands of Allah to his prophet, and the only authoritative source, unlike in Christianity, where the Mosaic law was repealed by Jesus' New Covenant.

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER!

I don't care what is says in the Quran or Bible, I'm just annoyed that you try to seperate what followers actually do with what it says in the book. There are christians out there who also interpret the OT as literal and law, and who use many passages in that book as an excuse to do or think things. The fact that most muslims are just as peacefull as christians means that those muslims also have radical groups who do the exact same thing.

I am saying that Mosaic law faded away just like most of the OT-teachings for the Jews. I don't see jewish people slaughtering sheep or stoning unfaithfull spouses. And they don't have Jesus to make those laws void or anything.

I see. So you're admitting that the ideology of islam is totalitarian, and militaro-expansionnist in in its societal and religious proselytizing nature?
In principle? As a politico-religious system (which it is)?
because that's all I've personally ever claimed...

[Frigidus]

Ahhhh....short on arguments, snorri must resort to assuming that Islam and Christianity are directly analagous, and that the Mosaic law "faded away".
Obviously, his NT and Early Church history culture are seriosuly deficient, so much so, that rather than realising he's out of his depth, he continues to bury himself further into his puerile little leftist card-board fort in lalaland, in which one can twist historical and theological parametres to make simplistic direct analogies.
Unfortunatly, to anyone with basic knowledge of Christianity, this makes him look a little silly. For now, I'll suggest he reads up on St.Paul and his rift with St. Peter, the Councils leading up to Nicea (which are by the way the main authoritative proclaimers of Christian doctrine, not the Bible, which wasn't compiled until Nicea).
"jebus", you should also note, violates the literal mosaic law repeatedly, and this is explained rather well by Himself, St.Paul in the NT, and the Early Fathers.
However, in Islam, you find entirely different concepts, that revolove around the Qu'uran being the ultimate and perfected, final, even incarnation of Allah. The Qu'uran cannot be "disinterpreted" in Islam,since it is the direct commands of Allah to his prophet, and the only authoritative source, unlike in Christianity, where the Mosaic law was repealed by Jesus' New Covenant.

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER!

I don't care what is says in the Quran or Bible, I'm just annoyed that you try to seperate what followers actually do with what it says in the book. There are christians out there who also interpret the OT as literal and law, and who use many passages in that book as an excuse to do or think things. The fact that most muslims are just as peacefull as christians means that those muslims also have radical groups who do the exact same thing.

I am saying that Mosaic law faded away just like most of the OT-teachings for the Jews. I don't see jewish people slaughtering sheep or stoning unfaithfull spouses. And they don't have Jesus to make those laws void or anything.

I see. So you're admitting that the ideology of islam is totalitarian, and militaro-expansionnist in in its societal and religious proselytizing nature?
In principle? As a politico-religious system (which it is)?
because that's all I've personally ever claimed...

I'll admit that if you admit that a proper Jew should sacrifice animals and stone the unfaithful. Then we can live in one, big, unhappy, misguided world.

[got tonkaed]

napoleon...should you be able to access it, here is an article which offers perhaps a bit of evidence (albeit on a more theorectical level than perhaps the hard numbers you are looking for) as to why some of your understandings are perhaps flawed.

The Dialectic of Unenlightenment: Toward a Critical Theory of Islamic Fundamentalism

Author Langman, Lauren

Affiliation Dept Sociology, Loyola U, Chicago

Source Critical Sociology, vol. 31, no. 1-2, pp. 243-279, 2005

[unriggable]

Napoleon, the ideology of almost all religions is totalitarian, but then again if you believe that word for word then there are plenty of contradictions you have to deal with. Here's the deal. The more desolate your lifestyle, the more you believe your respective religion (this is more or less the case in the US, in China, etc.). So in the Middle East, where it's all desert its no surprise that there is a surplus of fanatics. Of course the fact that they go as far as they do go is because of the nations they live in and all the western pressure that is put on them.

[Napoleon Ier]

I haven't studied Judaism to an extent that I can make any statements about it with any great qualification, but my basic grounding in Old Testament history allows even me to see that you're taking a simplistic approach to this. Mosaic Law is inerpreted very differently by Jewish rabbis. That said, I'm not here to apologise for Judaism, and would potentially argue Judaism in many aspects, does pose a threat, especially due to certain Zionist circles of thought.

[Neutrino]

I note Napoleon failed to actually read what I wrote in the "freedom of Religion thread".
Deliberately missing the point seems to be his greatest talent.

It disproved your inference by explaining in quite a simple manner that your inference boiled down to nothing more than "Islam is not Western civilization". Really, your argument is nothing more than that. Myriads of other cultures have stagnated, yet Islam is somehow to blame for failing to be exceptional.
It takes a large number of events, occuring at precisely the right time and in precisely the right order to lift a culture out of stagnation. The Chinese almost did it. They had rounded the Cape of Good Hope using far larger ships, 50 years before the Portugese would consider pulling off the same trick. Yet court politics lead to the fleets being recalled, China turned in on itself, and their massive technological lead was lost. If they had maintained that lead, then there is a good probability at least part of Chinese society would have been able to push itself out of the dark ages.
Islam, as a whole, never got the chance to advance out of Feudalism, yet you blame them specifically for a failure that the vast majority of other cultures also make.

By your own logic you are a vicious bastard, simply because you failed to invent Cold Fusion.

If you can't respond to this then all your other Anti-Islamic arguments are null and void.

[Jenos Ridan]

Napoleon, the ideology of almost all religions is totalitarian, but then again if you believe that word for word then there are plenty of contradictions you have to deal with. Here's the deal. The more desolate your lifestyle, the more you believe your respective religion (this is more or less the case in the US, in China, etc.). So in the Middle East, where it's all desert its no surprise that there is a surplus of fanatics. Of course the fact that they go as far as they do go is because of the nations they live in and all the western pressure that is put on them.

Ever read Dune? Just a friendly question, since this line of reasoning reminds me of the premise of certain aspects of the story.

[Jenos Ridan]

Too much evidence gives Christian debaters a heart attack

Funny, it seems to still be ticking away.

BTW: those verses you quote were unbelievably out of context that is took me a while to see that you were dead serious.

Since you're an apparent fan of Quote Wars, care to explain these?

Sura 9:123
Sura 66:9
Sura 8:39
Sura 9:29
Sura 4:76
Sura 2:193
Sura 2:190

What was the context on those quotes, then?
The ugly beast of double standards seems to be rearing it's head again. Christian quotes are out of context while Muslim ones are completely and totally as intended...

P.S. I seem to recall a certain thread, "Freedom of Religion" by title... I wonder what happened to it? I had a nice little responce typed up and everything and it just never got responded too...

Biblical context rule 1: While both contain amazing wisdom (especially Ecclesiastes), the New Testament is superior to the Old Testament.

Biblical context rule 2: The Law (OT) was fulfilled when Christ died on the cross. 'Though it still contains wise teaching and gives us a good history of the faith, the NT shows us how we are to live NOW, in the Post-Crusification world.

This is pretty basic theology stuff, dudes. I'm amazed that you aren't aware of this. Perhaps you fell asleep when someone like me tried to explain this to you (or else, your mind was worthwise some place else at the time).

Would you two care to explain away these key differences?

James 1:17 vs. Sura 2:106
John 3:16 vs. Sura 32:13
Titus 1:2 vs. Sura 8:30
Colossians 1:17 vs. Sura 3:59
John 14:6 vs. Sura 4:171
John 1:14 vs. Sura 18:4-5
I John 2:1-2 vs. Sura 9:80
Matthew 26:52 vs. Sura 8:65
Matthew 5:38-39 vs. Sura 2:194
Romans 3:23 & 5:12 vs. nothing (seriously, there exists no reciprical Koranic verse of verses)
Romans 3:24-26 vs. Sura 19:30
Romans 10:13 vs. Sura 2:284
Ephesians 2:8-9 vs. Sura 11:114
John 10:28 vs. Sura 3:157
Matthew 11:28-30 vs. Sura 2:193 & 9:29

I politely suggest you both (and anyone getting involved in this) read these out of a copy of the Koran and Bible at your local public library (or simple go to a story and buy a copy. You can always re-gift or donate it later) before either of you (or anyone) replies. While you are there, check out two other books; The Great Divide by Alvin J Schmidt and Unveiling Islam by Ergun Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner.

[Neutrino]

OT: War = Good
NT: War = Bad
NT > OT

Pretty simple set of rules...

... until you consider the fact that God is perfect, eternal and unchanging. How could an unchanging being change their opinion? By definition, it cannot. If God says war is good (and remember, God said this first) then war is good and is to be engaged in at any and all opportunities. There is no other possibility that fits in with an unchanging God. How could God's opinion suddenly become invalid? Not. Possible.

I'm not quite sure what purpose this little addendum served, but it is certainly quite an effective distraction from my main arguments. Why is Islam at fault for failing to be exceptional?

P.S. No, I am not going to read the Bible just to win an internet argument.

[Jenos Ridan]

OT: War = Good
NT: War = Bad
NT > OT

Pretty simple set of rules...

... until you consider the fact that God is perfect, eternal and unchanging. How could an unchanging being change their opinion? By definition, it cannot. If God says war is good (and remember, God said this first) then war is good and is to be engaged in at any and all opportunities. There is no other possibility that fits in with an unchanging God. How could God's opinion suddenly become invalid? Not. Possible.

But note how and when it was said, and further to whom and for what reason. The important concept: Context. Joshua and the Israelites where told the land was theirs and they were to move in. But, that was for them aback then. Not for us in the now. God doesn't change, people and conditions they are in do. It is just that simple.

I'm not quite sure what purpose this little addendum served, but it is certainly quite an effective distraction from my main arguments. Why is Islam at fault for failing to be exceptional?

It was to point out, in the form of verses drawn from both books, why they are nothing alike. To enlighten you and others about the nature of the two respectice beliefs.

P.S. No, I am not going to read the Bible just to win an internet argument.

Really? I'm willing to read the Koran. And how, again, am I biased, exactlly? Quite simply, sir, you are the one who is biased. You complain about "yur dodging my points" all the while doing exactly what you accuse me of. You are not only biased, but a hypocrite too! How's about you quit playing these puerille games and debate with me face to face?

[Neutrino]

But note how and when it was said, and further to whom and for what reason. The important concept: Context. Joshua and the Israelites where told the land was theirs and they were to move in. But, that was for them aback then. Not for us in the now. God doesn't change, people and conditions they are in do. It is just that simple.

So you're saying that God views war as good sometimes. This flatly isn't possible. If given two different senarios at two different times, God will give two different answers, according to you. Impossible. God's opinion does not change with circumstance.

It was to point out, in the form of verses drawn from both books, why they are nothing alike. To enlighten you and others about the nature of the two respectice beliefs.

So? It doesn't matter how warlike a religion is, people will twist it to support their own view. Eventually people won't even realise it's being twisted horribly out of shape. The people who believe gays are sinners, for example. According to you the OT is outdated and innacurate; all of the verses are superseded. Therefore God doesn't actually view homosexuality as sin (yet declared it to be during the OT). These people, however, have twisted and ignored their way to believeing that God still views homosexuality as evil.
I could make a religion who's one and only tenant is "Thou Shalt Not Kill and Thou Shalt Be Nice And Plesant to Everyone" and someone will still manage to twist it around to justify the slaughter of the infidels.

It's not the religion, it's the worshipers, and since Christians and Muslims are part of the same species they will both manage to violate the intentions of the original creators of their respective religions just as much.

Really? I'm willing to read the Koran.

That's your perogative. I have better things to do with the next few months.

And how, again, am I biased, exactlly? Quite simply, sir, you are the one who is biased. You complain about "yur dodging my points" all the while doing exactly what you accuse me of. You are not only biased, but a hypocrite too! How's about you quit playing these puerille games and debate with me face to face?

I never claimed you were biased...
Anyway, you were dodging my points. My arguments in "Freedom of Religion" never got responded too. That quote of mine not 5 posts up has yet to merit attention from your divine intellect (admittedly it wasn't directed to you but it contained essentially the same arguments as the ones that were).

The main problem here is you're trying to argue specifics. This verse against that verse. I, however, am trying to argue the big picture. Everyone is violent. I freely acknowledge that you win on the specific front. Islam includes more violent passages than Christianity. However, it matters for naught. People will be as violent as they damn well please, regardless of what the religion dictates. Christianity may actively encourage less violence, but people will supply more than enough violence on their own to bring it to par with other religions. You also fail to explain why Islam, specifically, is to blame here. I could give you a list longer than my arm of religions that are equally as violent and oppressive. Why is Islam singled out as the most heinous offender amongst them?

[Napoleon Ier]

I note Napoleon failed to actually read what I wrote in the "freedom of Religion thread".
Deliberately missing the point seems to be his greatest talent.

It disproved your inference by explaining in quite a simple manner that your inference boiled down to nothing more than "Islam is not Western civilization". Really, your argument is nothing more than that. Myriads of other cultures have stagnated, yet Islam is somehow to blame for failing to be exceptional.
It takes a large number of events, occuring at precisely the right time and in precisely the right order to lift a culture out of stagnation. The Chinese almost did it. They had rounded the Cape of Good Hope using far larger ships, 50 years before the Portugese would consider pulling off the same trick. Yet court politics lead to the fleets being recalled, China turned in on itself, and their massive technological lead was lost. If they had maintained that lead, then there is a good probability at least part of Chinese society would have been able to push itself out of the dark ages.
Islam, as a whole, never got the chance to advance out of Feudalism, yet you blame them specifically for a failure that the vast majority of other cultures also make.

By your own logic you are a vicious bastard, simply because you failed to invent Cold Fusion.

If you can't respond to this then all your other Anti-Islamic arguments are null and void.

Hmm. The main thurst, the essential point, as it were, of this particular little diatribe appears to have as a fulcrum the idea that Islam hasn't been given a chance to develop. Aside from a bizarre tangent about Chinese fleets, the point you make is surprisingly good. I'll concede that Islam may evolve into something completely benign. However, at its root, and at present, it is a cancer. And I say we take the gamma rays to it.

[Neutrino]

Hmm. The main thurst, the essential point, as it were, of this particular little diatribe appears to have as a fulcrum the idea that Islam hasn't been given a chance to develop. Aside from a bizarre tangent about Chinese fleets, the point you make is surprisingly good. I'll concede that Islam may evolve into something completely benign. However, at its root, and at present, it is a cancer. And I say we take the gamma rays to it.

So you're planning on taking the gamma rays to more or less the entirety of the non-Western world, and probably a decent percentage of that too?