Christian forums

[Snorri1234]

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.

Yes war is unchristian!

Also, I think we should bomb Iran.

[Iliad]

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.

Sorry to butt in but I don't agree with the comment about the chinese.
1) The chinese inventions preceded the europeans inventions by 300-1500 years.
2)Yes China didn't explore much after that BUT
a) if you look at the geography of china you will see that they were surrounded by tough terrain.
b) their technological lead came from them being isolated(which is uncommon)and mostly untouched by other coutnries
China did not remain in dark ages.It was ahead of Europe technologically at all times yet when China did have contact with the world that's when it stagnated in the 19-20th century

[Napoleon Ier]

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.

Yes war is unchristian!

Also, I think we should bomb Iran.

War is perfectly Christian....but never to spread faith by the sword.

[unriggable]

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.

Yes war is unchristian!

Also, I think we should bomb Iran.

War is perfectly Christian....but never to spread faith by the sword.

How convenient (see: Africa)

[Napoleon Ier]

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.

Yes war is unchristian!

Also, I think we should bomb Iran.

War is perfectly Christian....but never to spread faith by the sword.

How convenient (see: Africa)

find me a single instance of faith being spread by the sword there...and ever heard of Charles Foucauld? Anyway, the point is...it was never in the christian ideology, only maipilted for political gain .

[got tonkaed]

napoleon retreating to the defense that anytime someone does something out of the charcter of what you think christianity should be, they are not in fact practicing proper christanity is the refuge of those who cannot handle the fact that elements of their faith in practice have at times faced legitamate challenge.

[Guiscard]

How convenient (see: Africa)

find me a single instance of faith being spread by the sword there...and ever heard of Charles Foucauld? Anyway, the point is...it was never in the christian ideology, only maipilted for political gain .[/quote]

See:The Baltic Crusades

[CrazyAnglican]

Anything a little more up to date than 15th Century there? I mean sure there is no denying that colonial Europeans sometimes violently spread their culture (and the Church was part of that). Can you say that even in the Baltic Crusades the primary motivation was saving souls?

What Napoleon said here holds true. He expressed a sentiment that I would think that you guys would agree with that its a bad thing to spread your faith by the sword.

As for Africa, my own parish is a missionary church from Africa. Christianity is growing at an astonishing rate (Uganda went from 4% Christian to 96% Christian in tha last one hundred years). Where are all these heavily armed Christian missionaries over there? I haven't seen any. Most of the missionaries, that I know of, are people going over there and living and trying to help out in the society.

[got tonkaed]

I think there is often a bit of a historical distinction that needs to be made between individuals who are missionaries, and those who are not but hold onto some version of a religions values. Its rather infrequent for those who are professional religious people (though this term was probably less valid for much of history - a bit of an unrelated tangent) to spread their message through the sword so to speak.

It is entirely much more common however, for individuals and governments to claim as part of a wide variety of measures that they are bringing a faith and the benefits of it to a people. Though they are not specifically religious professionals, they are often believed to be bringing the priniciples of their religion with them.

[Jenos Ridan]

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.

That is not what I was saying; I was pointing out that God and His plan doesn't change, because His goal remains the same; to save us. He told Joshua and the gang to move in so as to "cultivate the soil" as it were. What part of that were you not paying attention too?

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.

In this you are not too far off the mark. But when people are faithful to the beliefs they hold dear, they do not distort them. And so, you can see the innate realities of the religion in question. In fact, if you read the books in question, you'll see them as they are.

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.

Woah, now where in the Bible did you read this? It says right in I Corinthians 6:9-10--"Do you know that the unrighteous will not inherit ther kingdom of God? Do not be fooled: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor extortions will inherit the kingdom of God".

I also never said it was outdated, I said it wasn't the end-all-be-all.

Talk about someone who likes to twist words.

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.

Non-Sequiter: You're trying to change the topic. Again. Further, the original intent of Islam is to bring the entire world into submission; to make dhimmis out of Jews and Christians and force all to either remain a slave class or convert. The nature of man is not on trial here; the nature of Islam is.

Really? I'm willing to read the Koran.

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

Non-Sequiter: you obviously have the precious time to argue with me here, and to have read up on the Koran (as evidenced by your responce further down), so why couldn't you have found the time to read the Bible? The only answer that occurs to me is bias on your part.

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?

My arguments in "Freedom of Religion" never got responded too.

Neither have mine. But that doesn't can the fact that the burden of proof that Christianity is an inherently violent religion has not shifted from your shoulders.

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.

The "Big Picture" tied directly to the specifics! The reason that they behave the way they do is tied up in what they believe; human beings don't do anything without attempting to justify it by a code of ethics, be they man-made or of divine origin.

Everyone is violent. I freely acknowledge that you win on the specific front. Islam includes more violent passages than Christianity.

And this excuses the beliefs taught by Muhammad, how?

However, it matters for naught. People will be as violent as they damn well please, regardless of what the religion dictates.

People behave as they believe, so what they believe is intrinsically tied to what they do. Further, the codified beliefs are thus paramount.

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?

Read the above replies.

I just cannot fathom your view on this; how can it be that an obviously violent belief can be equal to one that teachs forgiveness, patience, civil obedience and dis-obedience (yes, we can disobey the powers-that-be but only in a civil, non-violent manner)? How is it that Jesus and Muhammad are equals to you?

[Neutrino]

In this you are not too far off the mark. But when people are faithful to the beliefs they hold dear, they do not distort them. And so, you can see the innate realities of the religion in question.

No, they will twist quite happily, no matter how devout they are. Humanity is quite efficient at twisting information to fit our feelings.
A few hundred years ago, Christianity was almost universal in it's declaration that women were inferior to men (just like Islam...). Modern day Christians, however, generally view men and women as equal. They twist, declare to be metaphorical or flat out ignore the relivant verses. Are they any less devout than Christians from a few hundred years ago?

Woah, now where in the Bible did you read this? It says right in I Corinthians 6:9-10--"Do you know that the unrighteous will not inherit ther kingdom of God? Do not be fooled: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor extortions will inherit the kingdom of God".

I also never said it was outdated, I said it wasn't the end-all-be-all.

Homosexuals = evil. Gotcha...

Non-Sequiter: You're trying to change the topic. Again. Further, the original intent of Islam is to bring the entire world into submission; to make dhimmis out of Jews and Christians and force all to either remain a slave class or convert. The nature of man is not on trial here; the nature of Islam is.

How?
Change "submission" to "worship" and that sounds like a pretty accurate definition of Christianity and in fact all religions...
May I also point you to the quotes Frigdus posted three pages back? The ones about slaughtering the unbelievers. Sounds suspisciously like something Islam would advocate...
Yes, yes. They're invalid. I know. Why, though, was it perfectly excusable for Christians to go around slaughtering people, while it is not for Muslims who do the same things now?

Non-Sequiter: you obviously have the precious time to argue with me here, and to have read up on the Koran (as evidenced by your responce further down), so why couldn't you have found the time to read the Bible? The only answer that occurs to me is bias on your part.

Where is it obvious that I have read up on the Koran? I don't think I've even touched either book.
I'm not going to read up on the Bible, because it will take me far longer to read the chapters that are relivant to this discussion, much less the entire thing, than the expected lifetime of this thread.

Neither have mine. But that doesn't can the fact that the burden of proof that Christianity is an inherently violent religion has not shifted from your shoulders.

The Crusades
All the incidental little inter-European wars
Africa
Americas
Baltic Crusades
Australia
Everywhere else colonised by Europeans

Christians slaughtered people. Muslims slaughtered people. Violent times.

The "Big Picture" tied directly to the specifics! The reason that they behave the way they do is tied up in what they believe; human beings don't do anything without attempting to justify it by a code of ethics, be they man-made or of divine origin.

Exactly. And if what someone wants doesn't fit into their code? They twist their code to fit it. The commandments of every religion ever made have been open to interpretation. If you don't like the way they are interpreted now, then interpret them another way. The people who interpreted Christianity to mean "Violence = Good" were frequently the ones who rose to the top of the heap. Once they're in control, they can force the official interpretation to come around to their own view. No matter how severely Christianity condemned violence, someone will find a way to interpret it to mean that violence is excusable and since violence is a very expedient way to solve problems and create power for yourself, that person's interpretation would have gained support quickly.

It doesn't matter what the original state of a religion is. They'll all gravitate to the same state pretty quickly.

And this excuses the beliefs taught by Muhammad, how?

And Muhammad's teachings being inexcusable excuses Christianity, how, exactly?

Read the above replies.

You never actually answered the last question...

I just cannot fathom your view on this; how can it be that an obviously violent belief can be equal to one that teachs forgiveness, patience, civil obedience and dis-obedience (yes, we can disobey the powers-that-be but only in a civil, non-violent manner)? How is it that Jesus and Muhammad are equals to you?

It only teaches that if you want it to teach that. If you are naturally violent, but also naturally devout, in all likelyhood you will twist Christ's teachings around to excuse what you do. If you are naturally peaceful and devout, you will twist them so that Christ espouces peace and tolerance.

Were the Crusaders thinking about how Christ taught of peace and tolerance? No. They saw gold and they wanted it. So they focused on the "destroy the infidel" sections and ignored the "peace and tolerance" ones.
It's all a matter of your personal view at that moment. What the actual religion teaches is superflous.

[Jenos Ridan]

In this you are not too far off the mark. But when people are faithful to the beliefs they hold dear, they do not distort them. And so, you can see the innate realities of the religion in question.

No, they will twist quite happily, no matter how devout they are. Humanity is quite efficient at twisting information to fit our feelings.
A few hundred years ago, Christianity was almost universal in it's declaration that women were inferior to men (just like Islam...). Modern day Christians, however, generally view men and women as equal. They twist, declare to be metaphorical or flat out ignore the relivant verses. Are they any less devout than Christians from a few hundred years ago?

Since when did Jesus abuse women? In fact, nowhere in the New Testament does it say that kind of behaviour is exceptable.

Non-Sequiter: You're trying to change the topic. Again. Further, the original intent of Islam is to bring the entire world into submission; to make dhimmis out of Jews and Christians and force all to either remain a slave class or convert. The nature of man is not on trial here; the nature of Islam is.

How?
Change "submission" to "worship" and that sounds like a pretty accurate definition of Christianity and in fact all religions...
May I also point you to the quotes Frigdus posted three pages back? The ones about slaughtering the unbelievers. Sounds suspisciously like something Islam would advocate...
Yes, yes. They're invalid. I know. Why, though, was it perfectly excusable for Christians to go around slaughtering people, while it is not for Muslims who do the same things now?

It never is, was or will be. What exactly is your problem?

Neither have mine. But that doesn't can the fact that the burden of proof that Christianity is an inherently violent religion has not shifted from your shoulders.

The Crusades
All the incidental little inter-European wars
Africa
Americas
Baltic Crusades
Australia
Everywhere else colonised by Europeans

Christians slaughtered people. Muslims slaughtered people. Violent times.

In spite of the fact that nothing, repeat, NOTHING, those people did was advocated by Christ or any of the Apostles.

The "Big Picture" tied directly to the specifics! The reason that they behave the way they do is tied up in what they believe; human beings don't do anything without attempting to justify it by a code of ethics, be they man-made or of divine origin.

Exactly. And if what someone wants doesn't fit into their code? They twist their code to fit it. The commandments of every religion ever made have been open to interpretation. If you don't like the way they are interpreted now, then interpret them another way. The people who interpreted Christianity to mean "Violence = Good" were frequently the ones who rose to the top of the heap. Once they're in control, they can force the official interpretation to come around to their own view. No matter how severely Christianity condemned violence, someone will find a way to interpret it to mean that violence is excusable and since violence is a very expedient way to solve problems and create power for yourself, that person's interpretation would have gained support quickly.

Which is why the aforementioned actions are not true to the message of the Gosples. However, Islam does not require twisting to allow violence; violence is intrinsic to Islam, as is domination and barbarism.

And this excuses the beliefs taught by Muhammad, how?

And Muhammad's teachings being inexcusable excuses Christianity, how, exactly?

*sigh

Wow, you astound me, Neutrino. How you miss key points is unfathomable.

Christianity, as it is practiced in accadence with the Scriptures, does not allow much room for the "interpretation" you are hinging you argument on.

I just cannot fathom your view on this; how can it be that an obviously violent belief can be equal to one that teachs forgiveness, patience, civil obedience and dis-obedience (yes, we can disobey the powers-that-be but only in a civil, non-violent manner)? How is it that Jesus and Muhammad are equals to you?

It only teaches that if you want it to teach that. If you are naturally violent, but also naturally devout, in all likelyhood you will twist Christ's teachings around to excuse what you do. If you are naturally peaceful and devout, you will twist them so that Christ espouces peace and tolerance.

Were the Crusaders thinking about how Christ taught of peace and tolerance? No. They saw gold and they wanted it. So they focused on the "destroy the infidel" sections and ignored the "peace and tolerance" ones.
It's all a matter of your personal view at that moment. What the actual religion teaches is superflous.

And thus, we come full circle back to the fact that if one does not follow the teachings of the Bible, one cannot be a Christian and be anything other than a bold-faced liar.

[got tonkaed]

youll have to forgive me jenos, but to use write some of this post, im borrowing from teh skeptics annotated bible...Now i dont hold many of the hostile views the people who are involved with this project do towards christianity - i happen to think its a pretty decent religion as far as religions go. Still since you have rather consistently held to the point that your way of concieving of the biblical interpretation leaves no oppertunity for some egregious stances...allow those who disagree to make a case.

First in repsponse to the women as unequals...though you change tactic by arguing that Jesus did not do the same things as the prophet Mohammed, the followers of Christ certainly held a hierarchy in place, certainly the verses in 2nd timothy and the notions of the places of men and women within the body of christ are evidences to inequality.

But thats not the point i really wanted to make so lets get to the issues of violence that could be portrayed by perfectly pious believing christians as righteous...with much help from the SAB. (these will be their annotations not mine...unless i indicate so)

Matthew:
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19 (a possible interpretation for why some of those actions listed above would be ok? my own)

"The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12 (later could be percieved as justification for anti-semitism (myown) )

Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15 (possibly imperalist elements later on and crusading elements (my own) )

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

John: (repeates in teh other gospels will be omitted for the sake of brevity, which is already difficult)

The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 3:36

Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6

1 Corinthians:

If you defile the temple of God, God will destroy you. 3:17

Ephesians:
Those who refuse to obey will face the wrath of God. 5:6

Frankly i think we all get the point. Now there are things on here i particularly think are slanted and probably misintentioned. But the point remains....even in the new testament there are a number of ways to portray the text as rather violent. Do i think this detracts from the religion as a whole, no but thats just my own personal perspective.

Is it possible your seeing the religion both through the rosy colored glasses of a believer and as a member of a society which can cast aside some of these verses as out of context because literacy is common....i think its possible.

Anyway heres a helpful link for the stance against some of the textual issues you seem to be advocating.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

[Neutrino]

As I've said before and will probably say several times more before the last shread of entertainment value evaporates from this thread, the original point of a religion has virtually no impact on what it eventually becomes. Bigotry, hatred, descrimination and violence form the state to which all religions eventually fall, regardless of their starting point. Middle Age Christianity is an excellent example of this. The ideas the book espouced were all well and good, but very few people actually followed them. Christianity only ever lifted itself out of this state through a precise series of events. The vast majority of religions never get the opportunity to make this leap out of a violent and oppressive society, because the infrastructure for them to do so doesn't exist. But, of course, I've already said this before. My text longs for a responce.

You claim that the Koran includes more violent sections than the Bible. Very true. However, it doesn't matter. One verse espoucing violence, or a hundred; people will still use them to justify their violent ways. The fact that in both texts the violent verses are likely hugely outweighed by non-violent ones seems to be quietly ignored by both you and the pro-violence fanatics. All these verses dictating that one should help orphans that I found (there are a lot of them near the top. I only had time to read about a third of the way through) certainly don't support your idea of a cruel and oppressive Islam. They support the idea of an Islam that is quite similar to Christianity. True, there are a lot of sexist passages in the Koran, but there are a lot in the Bible too. I also admit you can claim that most of the rest of the Koran is devoted to "submission", but personally I don't see a huge difference between this and what Christianity (and all other religions) advocates. "Here's the truth. Obey it on pain of burning-in-hell for all eternity."
In fact, for almost any negative action you can claim that Islam espouses, Christianity is barely one step behind. Conservative Christianity is just as much a walking violation of the UDHR as conservative Islam is. As all religions are. Again, why is Islam deserving of your righteous wrath, when Christianity an be interpreted to mean almost the exact same things? Why does it deserve bashings, when it is merely one of a huge swarm of religions that never had the chance to progress beyond the fuedal state?

[unriggable]

I'm amazed people believe in these things. It just confounds me.

[Frigidus]

I'm amazed people believe in these things. It just confounds me.

I chalk most of it up to brain washing. However, some people (in fact I can name a few on this site) convert late enough in their life where I can't quite figure it out either. I guess some people are more interested in finding comfort than anything else.

[Napoleon Ier]

These little squeals of protest have basically been reduced to a competition of "find teh evil kristians in history", which, as I have explained numerous times is enitrely beside the point. Guiscard, we all know you're a historian. Bravo. You found an instance in which the faith of 90% of Europe was manipulated for political gains. Therefore, that religion must be false.
Islam, I have argued, is, and almost always has been in practice, totalitarian. I've produced the analysis, the evidence, the verses of the Qu'uran.
Anyway, if you limp-wristed liberal sissies, as Norse would say, want to kee loving the ideology that is out to kill you, enslave your family and rape your daughters in a fixed marriages because you want to seem "open" and "tolerant" to your fellow blue-state atheist quadriped vegan friends, fine. Just know this pathetic society bending over backwards for your muslim friends which you seem to love so much had the choice between war and dishonour, it chose dishonour and will get both.

Snorrarse, if you get the reference, don't post the inevitable.

[Frigidus]

These little squeals of protest have basically been reduced to a competition of "find teh evil kristians in history", which, as I have explained numerous times is enitrely beside the point. Guiscard, we all know you're a historian. Bravo. You found an instance in which the faith of 90% of Europe was manipulated for political gains. Therefore, that religion must be false.
Islam, I have argued, is, and almost always has been in practice, totalitarian. I've produced the analysis, the evidence, the verses of the Qu'uran.
Anyway, if you limp-wristed liberal sissies, as Norse would say, want to kee loving the ideology that is out to kill you, enslave your family and rape your daughters in a fixed marriages because you want to seem "open" and "tolerant" to your fellow blue-state atheist quadriped vegan friends, fine. Just know this pathetic society bending over backwards for your muslim friends which you seem to love so much had the choice between war and dishonour, it chose dishonour and will get both.

Snorrarse, if you get the reference, don't post the inevitable.

First off, vegetarianism is retarded. More retarded than theism. Second, we've been pointing out ways in which all of the Abrahamic faiths are violent (see GotTonkaed's post). If we're going to argue from the perspective that only the religious texts matter, then we've responded. If we're going to argue that the actions taken by people of that faith matter, then we've responded. The only way in which your argument of Islam being more violent than your religion works is if you only use very, very recent events into account. As for being totalitarian, so what? What wasn't totalitarian in the 5th century?

[Napoleon Ier]

1/Christianity wasn't and isn't totalitarian.
2/Does it matter Islam came about in the 7th century? It's still totalitarian.

[Neoteny]

These little squeals of protest have basically been reduced to a competition of "find teh evil kristians in history", which, as I have explained numerous times is enitrely beside the point. Guiscard, we all know you're a historian. Bravo. You found an instance in which the faith of 90% of Europe was manipulated for political gains. Therefore, that religion must be false.
Islam, I have argued, is, and almost always has been in practice, totalitarian. I've produced the analysis, the evidence, the verses of the Qu'uran.
Anyway, if you limp-wristed liberal sissies, as Norse would say, want to kee loving the ideology that is out to kill you, enslave your family and rape your daughters in a fixed marriages because you want to seem "open" and "tolerant" to your fellow blue-state atheist quadriped vegan friends, fine. Just know this pathetic society bending over backwards for your muslim friends which you seem to love so much had the choice between war and dishonour, it chose dishonour and will get both.

Snorrarse, if you get the reference, don't post the inevitable.

First off, vegetarianism is retarded. More retarded than theism. Second, we've been pointing out ways in which all of the Abrahamic faiths are violent (see GotTonkaed's post). If we're going to argue from the perspective that only the religious texts matter, then we've responded. If we're going to argue that the actions taken by people of that faith matter, then we've responded. The only way in which your argument of Islam being more violent than your religion works is if you only use very, very recent events into account. As for being totalitarian, so what? What wasn't totalitarian in the 5th century?

I disagree with your second statement. I can see some good reasons for the various forms of vegetarianism.

[Frigidus]

These little squeals of protest have basically been reduced to a competition of "find teh evil kristians in history", which, as I have explained numerous times is enitrely beside the point. Guiscard, we all know you're a historian. Bravo. You found an instance in which the faith of 90% of Europe was manipulated for political gains. Therefore, that religion must be false.
Islam, I have argued, is, and almost always has been in practice, totalitarian. I've produced the analysis, the evidence, the verses of the Qu'uran.
Anyway, if you limp-wristed liberal sissies, as Norse would say, want to kee loving the ideology that is out to kill you, enslave your family and rape your daughters in a fixed marriages because you want to seem "open" and "tolerant" to your fellow blue-state atheist quadriped vegan friends, fine. Just know this pathetic society bending over backwards for your muslim friends which you seem to love so much had the choice between war and dishonour, it chose dishonour and will get both.

Snorrarse, if you get the reference, don't post the inevitable.

First off, vegetarianism is retarded. More retarded than theism. Second, we've been pointing out ways in which all of the Abrahamic faiths are violent (see GotTonkaed's post). If we're going to argue from the perspective that only the religious texts matter, then we've responded. If we're going to argue that the actions taken by people of that faith matter, then we've responded. The only way in which your argument of Islam being more violent than your religion works is if you only use very, very recent events into account. As for being totalitarian, so what? What wasn't totalitarian in the 5th century?

I disagree with your second statement. I can see some good reasons for the various forms of vegetarianism.

Then don't you disagree with my first statement?

[Neoteny]

These little squeals of protest have basically been reduced to a competition of "find teh evil kristians in history", which, as I have explained numerous times is enitrely beside the point. Guiscard, we all know you're a historian. Bravo. You found an instance in which the faith of 90% of Europe was manipulated for political gains. Therefore, that religion must be false.
Islam, I have argued, is, and almost always has been in practice, totalitarian. I've produced the analysis, the evidence, the verses of the Qu'uran.
Anyway, if you limp-wristed liberal sissies, as Norse would say, want to kee loving the ideology that is out to kill you, enslave your family and rape your daughters in a fixed marriages because you want to seem "open" and "tolerant" to your fellow blue-state atheist quadriped vegan friends, fine. Just know this pathetic society bending over backwards for your muslim friends which you seem to love so much had the choice between war and dishonour, it chose dishonour and will get both.

Snorrarse, if you get the reference, don't post the inevitable.

First off, vegetarianism is retarded. More retarded than theism. Second, we've been pointing out ways in which all of the Abrahamic faiths are violent (see GotTonkaed's post). If we're going to argue from the perspective that only the religious texts matter, then we've responded. If we're going to argue that the actions taken by people of that faith matter, then we've responded. The only way in which your argument of Islam being more violent than your religion works is if you only use very, very recent events into account. As for being totalitarian, so what? What wasn't totalitarian in the 5th century?

I disagree with your second statement. I can see some good reasons for the various forms of vegetarianism.

Then don't you disagree with my first statement?

Well, yes, but disagreeing with the second statement disagrees summarily with both of your points, with only one statement.

[got tonkaed]

Also napoleon, you would probably serve your argument better by texutal arguing that christianity is not totalitarian. Since you have argued that islam by its doctrine is, it inevitably leads to a necessity of a defense that christianity is not.

However, you cant go cheat on us by claiming that because gov's and societies which are not totalitarian have used christianity as their own predominate faith, becuase that would essentially be the defense that those you are arguing against have made, and its not very fun to be pointed out as a hypocrite.

[Neoteny]

I think there needs to be some explanation as to how a belief system that is claimed to be totalitarian in nature, which can never be put fully into practice, needs to be completely blamed for such. There are so many factors that go into a totalitarian state, but we are just singling out one.

[Frigidus]

I think there needs to be some explanation as to how a belief system that is claimed to be totalitarian in nature, which can never be put fully into practice, needs to be completely blamed for such. There are so many factors that go into a totalitarian state, but we are just singling out one.

True. It would be like saying "communism is great because everyone is equal." Sounds nice, but it doesn't really work that way.