Since when did the NAACP become pro moslem??

[milohimself]

Because if I don't he looks at me funny with that "come on give me just a lil taste" look until I finally cave in.

He does a mean James Cagney too. Makes me laugh everytime. But he changes the rat part to ferret because well he's a ferret.

lulz. My HS biology teacher had a blind pet ferret that ran around the room sideways. Just pictured that reading this post.

 

[NEO]

If that's how you'd like to characterize it, fine.

FWIW I describe myself of Christian faith, and still attend church when I can (though I have 9-5 work on Sundays), don't bring this bias crap around. gs's "o noez we oughta be scurred of all da sand ppl and all da moslems!" BS is what populates the board, so it's what I respond to.

Bias against gs, not against a religion. I didn't say anything about a religion. I just notice you don't like the guy and the above I felt was unfair. There are just as many people on here who put down Christianity. I would also like to point out that neither Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader liked Sand People. Sometimes in the universe, you're just not popular.

 

[NEO]

lulz. My HS biology teacher had a blind pet ferret that ran around the room sideways. Just pictured that reading this post.

I think your talking about my dad and I loved that ferret.





Ok, I kid.

 

[milohimself]

True enough, I just see the big three of western organized religion as responsible for a whole lot of evil throughout history. Some seriously evil crap has been done in the name of Islam, but to distrust an entire race of people based on it is wrong. If you think Christianity's hands are any cleaner in history, you're either lying to yourself or poorly informed.

Some here may have disdain for the Church or Christianity as a whole, but I think the point others are trying to make is debasing that religion in order to prove the same point gs is trying to make in the opposite direction.

The whole thing is ridiculous, and whether or not distrusting an entire group of people under one religion, be it Islam or Christianity is technically racist by definition, it's racist in spirit. People who choose to look at the world that way of prejudgment may not be wrong in every case, but that does make them close-minded morons.

 

[gsvol]

Right. While the right way to witness to a Christian is to not get chained to the rear bumper of a pickup truck...
Posted via VolNation Mobile

You make a big deal of one incident that probably had more to do with competition for the attention of one woman than it had to do with racism and certainly had nothing to do with religion.

Perhaps you would like to explain the Zebra killings that saw close to 400 people killed for no other reason than the color of their skin??

The Nation of Islam Fruit of Islam division known as the Death Angels killed white people all accross the nation, particularly in California and awarded points according to the age and sex of their victims, the most points went for a child, then for a woman and the least amount of points went for an adult male.

Louis Farrakhan persoanally approved the payment of legal fees for all the perpertrators who were caught and pleaded innocent but ignored the one perpertrator who pleaded guilty.

Is this the sort of people the NAACP is trying to defend?

 

[sjt18]

You are correct. It is the literal reading of such texts.

No. It is NOT. Literal does NOT preclude the use of figures of speech. Those passages in the Koran are not figures of speech.

But since you are so insistent on parsing words, the "normative" reading of the NT prohibits violence to spread the gospel. The "normative" reading of the Koran in which the reader does NOT attempt to moralize the text allows or commands Muslims to use force to spread the reign of Islam.

You are trying way too hard to deny the "in your face" implications and differences between the founding documents of these two religions.

 

[therealUT]

No. It is NOT. Literal does NOT preclude the use of figures of speech. Those passages in the Koran are not figures of speech.

But since you are so insistent on parsing words, the "normative" reading of the NT prohibits violence to spread the gospel. The "normative" reading of the Koran in which the reader does NOT attempt to moralize the text allows or commands Muslims to use force to spread the reign of Islam.

You are trying way too hard to deny the "in your face" implications and differences between the founding documents of these two religions.

Wrong, again.

Having read both texts in full, the only thing I will say in favor of the Bible over the Koran is that it is written at a much higher level of literacy. The Koran reads as though a third grader wrote it. That said, however, literal interpretations of both promote and prohibit violence. They are both riddled with literal contradictions. Hence, both should be taken as allegorical and figurative. In such a case, and by such non-fundamental practitioners, the case for religiously inspired and tolerated violence is far less apparent and much harder to make (although, it is still made by both non-fundamental practitioners of each of these two religions).

 

[sjt18]

Only others require evidence. You just roll out whatever and it's "gospel," pardon the pun.

So let me get this straight. The only "evidence" that is acceptable is what you or I see with our own eyes, correct?

I've never claimed that Christians are not persecuted by Islam. My only issue is with you painting one billion people as all the same, but then making exception at will to whom you count as Christian. It's not an even playing field.

I am not painting all Muslims one way.

I am saying that the closer someone is to the Koranic definition of a Muslim... the more likely they are to accept violence as a means of spreading Islam while just the opposite is true of the Bible and Christians.

Most Muslims including those who might accept the use of violence in the name of Islam in theory are not violent. They would probably qualify the use of violence at a higher threshold than Islamists. They do NOT hold a western, Judeo-Christian paradigm like many on the left mistakenly attribute to them... but they do not choose violence. They would rather live in peace... be left alone.

But the estimates I have seen is that 10% or more of Muslims are "radicalized". They expressly advocate violence in the name of Islam. From that group comes those who commit violence. That is a big number. Somewhere around half the population of the US from which to draw "soldiers".

Frankly, all religion is by it's nature intolerant.

No it isn't. Christianity certainly isn't if you accept the meaning of the word "tolerance". The word doesn't mean that you don't disagree or even separate. It certainly doesn't mean that you close your eyes to the world around you. It means that you respect the right of others to hold a contrary pov while living peacefully with them.

The uniquely western concept of religious freedom and tolerance has its origins in fundamental, biblical Christianity. It IS the most tolerant in the world. I have disgreed with you often. Have I ever suggested that your pov be silenced by force or law? Have I ever demanded anything other than to live peacefully according to my own convictions without being forced to accept someone else's pov?

 

[therealUT]

No it isn't. Christianity certainly isn't if you accept the meaning of the word "tolerance".

So, you would say that it is "tolerant" for one to state, with conviction, that everyone outside their group is going to burn in hell?

That, in my opinion, is the absolute highest form of intolerance and arrogance; such an opinion, also, can easily lead one to commit horrible atrocities, not only in the name of Christianity, but even "for the sake of the souls of those" they are committing the atrocities against.

 

[BeecherVol]

So, you would say that it is "tolerant" for one to state, with conviction, that everyone outside their group is going to burn in hell?

That, in my opinion, is the absolute highest form of intolerance and arrogance; such an opinion, also, can easily lead one to commit horrible atrocities, not only in the name of Christianity, but even "for the sake of the souls of those" they are committing the atrocities against.

So there is different definitions of tolerant in your opinion.

 

[sjt18]

Wrong, again.

Having read both texts in full, the only thing I will say in favor of the Bible over the Koran is that it is written at a much higher level of literacy. The Koran reads as though a third grader wrote it. That said, however, literal interpretations of both promote and prohibit violence. They are both riddled with literal contradictions. Hence, both should be taken as allegorical and figurative. In such a case, and by such non-fundamental practitioners, the case for religiously inspired and tolerated violence is far less apparent and much harder to make (although, it is still made by both non-fundamental practitioners of each of these two religions).

That is simply untrue.... in the extreme.

The NT does NOT promote violence by Christians in the effort to spread the gospel. Cite a passage if you think you can and I will more than gladly discuss it with you.

Also, it is the most non-fundamental practioners of Christianity that have committed the most violence. The RCC for instance as I believe we discussed before became increasingly violent in response to dissent as it strayed further from a literal reading of the NT. Groups like the Aryan Nation bears little resemblance to biblical Christianity and rejects key Bible principles... like the fact that every human being on earth are blood relatives to everyone else. The "Liberation Theology" of Latin American revolutionaries (and the good Rev Wright by revision) is certainly not fundamental.

Please point to the biblically fundamental group of Christians that have engaged in violence to spread their faith.

 

[therealUT]

So there is different definitions of tolerant in your opinion.

Not at all.

To declare that one who worships at the altar of a most intolerant deity is to declare that that person is not tolerant.

 

[therealUT]

That is simply untrue.... in the extreme.

The NT does NOT promote violence by Christians in the effort to spread the gospel. Cite a passage if you think you can and I will more than gladly discuss it with you.

I don't need to discuss this with you. I grew up in a household where my mom was Baptist and my father was Catholic. I have had plenty of instruction concerning the interpretation of the Bible. That is the key word, though, "interpretation". You, on the other hand, have probably had no instruction on the interpretation of the Koran. So, I am using your literal standard on the Bible as well. Doing so, the Bible is just as violent, if not more (God certainly instructed that infidel woman and children be extinguished from the face of the earth in the Book of Joshua).

Also, it is the most non-fundamental practioners of Christianity that have committed the most violence. The RCC for instance as I believe we discussed before became increasingly violent in response to dissent as it strayed further from a literal reading of the NT.

Right...Calvin and Cromwell were such peaceful personages. The Lutheran German princes were also incredibly merciful as they wreaked death and destruction throughout Prussia. Puritans...they were peaceful, as long as you consider burning people at the stake a form of peace.

Please point to the biblically fundamental group of Christians that have engaged in violence to spread their faith.

Done.

 

[BeecherVol]

Not at all.

To declare that one who worships at the altar of a most intolerant deity is to declare that that person is not tolerant.

Thats not what I gather from the comments.

Joe telling you that God will judge you one day be prepared, and Joe killing you for not following God are different.

 

[BeecherVol]

I don't need to discuss this with you. I grew up in a household where my mom was Baptist and my father was Catholic. I have had plenty of instruction concerning the interpretation of the Bible. That is the key word, though, "interpretation". You, on the other hand, have probably had no instruction on the interpretation of the Koran. So, I am using your literal standard on the Bible as well. Doing so, the Bible is just as violent, if not more (God certainly instructed that infidel woman and children be extinguished from the face of the earth in the Book of Joshua).


Right...Calvin and Cromwell were such peaceful personages. The Lutheran German princes were also incredibly merciful as they wreaked death and destruction throughout Prussia. Puritans...they were peaceful, as long as you consider burning people at the stake a form of peace.



Done.

This is making more sense now.

I have a similar background. My grandfather was Catholic, grandmother was Baptist.

 

[sjt18]

So, you would say that it is "tolerant" for one to state, with conviction, that everyone outside their group is going to burn in hell?

Yes. Just as much so as it is another group's right to characterize those who disagree with them as "haters", "homophobes", et al.

How is stating one's belief "intolerant"? As beecher alludes to, the left's conception of "tolerance" leads to hopeless inconsistency. You cannot meet that definition of "tolerant" if you oppose those you consider "intolerant".

That, in my opinion, is the absolute highest form of intolerance and arrogance;

I believe your pov is the highest form of intolerance and arrogance... was I just intolerant to you?

such an opinion, also, can easily lead one to commit horrible atrocities, not only in the name of Christianity, but even "for the sake of the souls of those" they are committing the atrocities against.

Can? Teaching children they are nothing more than animals "can" lead them to amoral, sociopathic attitudes toward other people. Teaching permissive views on sexuality "can" ( and has) lead to more STD's.

Teaching people that homosexual sex is just as healthy as heterosexual sex "can" lead to the spread of STD's.

Teaching the poor they are entitled to the property of the "rich" "can" lead to more crime.

At what point do you propose we stop limiting rights based on what "can" happen?

FWIW, millions upon millions of fundamental Christians have lived and died believing the lost go to hell. Few if any have made it their personal mission to get people there faster. If you believe it and love people (as Christians by definition are to do) then the last thing you want for a lost person is for them to die.... regardless of what sin they are guilty of.

Though I am generally strict on issues of justice, I struggle with the death penalty for this very reason.

 

[sjt18]

Not at all.

To declare that one who worships at the altar of a most intolerant deity is to declare that that person is not tolerant.

By your definition, the act of declaring that person "not tolerant" is intolerant and could lead you to use law or violence to suppress them.

 

[sjt18]

I don't need to discuss this with you. I grew up in a household where my mom was Baptist and my father was Catholic. I have had plenty of instruction concerning the interpretation of the Bible. That is the key word, though, "interpretation". You, on the other hand, have probably had no instruction on the interpretation of the Koran. So, I am using your literal standard on the Bible as well. Doing so, the Bible is just as violent, if not more (God certainly instructed that infidel woman and children be extinguished from the face of the earth in the Book of Joshua).

I think I said pretty clearly that Christian behavior was defined by the NT, right?

No. I have not been formally instructed on the Koran.... I have however been exposed to speakers and writers who have. I have listened not only to those who left Islam but have read and listened to those who have not.

If you are going to continue with this foolishness concerning the express meanings of the text then you probably shouldn't continue.

Right...Calvin and Cromwell were such peaceful personages. The Lutheran German princes were also incredibly merciful as they wreaked death and destruction throughout Prussia. Puritans...they were peaceful, as long as you consider burning people at the stake a form of peace.

I didn't say a) Christians were ever perfect or b) that any of those groups were thoroughly reformed much less fundamentalists.

Calvin made some great contributions but was also guilty of having a guy killed as a heretic. Cromwell and other English reformers contributed the Bible in English to the world... many were bloody. The last English martyr was a Baptist named Edward Wightman. Some of the charges levled against him were contradictory. He was convicted by the Anglican Church around the same time they published the King James Version of the Bible.

Ironically, there are Baptists today who think there is no other valid version of the Bible.

Let me give you the fundamental that ALL of these rejected- separation of church and state. The Baptists codified it in their earliest Confessions of Faith. Jesus said, "my kingdom is not of this world". The Church-State union from around 400 AD to 1600 or so was a direct contradiction regardless of whether it was headed by the Pope or some European king/clergyman.

Done.

OK:hi:

 

[Vol Mania 21]

ya therealUT keeps defining Christians by the Old Test.

 

[gsvol]

Gates of Vienna: Time to Unmask Muhammad

The Koran, and hence Allah, lays down that Muhammad’s life must be imitated. The consequences of this are horrendous and can be witnessed on a daily basis.

Ali Sina is an Iranian ex-Muslim who established the organisation for apostates of Islam Faith Freedom International. In his latest book he posits that Muhammad is a narcissist, a paedophile, a mass murderer, a terrorist, a misogynist, a lecher, a cult leader, a madman, a rapist, a torturer, an assassin and a looter.

Sina has offered 50,000 dollars for the one who can prove otherwise. Nobody has claimed the reward as yet. And no wonder, as the description is based on the Islamic texts themselves, such as the hadiths, the descriptions of Muhammad’s life from testimonies of contemporaries.

The historical Muhammad was the savage leader of a gang of robbers from Medina. Without scruples they looted, raped and murdered. The sources describe orgies of savagery where hundreds of people’s throats were cut, hands and feet chopped off, eyes cut out, entire tribes massacred. An example is the extinction of the Jewish Kurayza tribe in Medina in 627. One of those who chopped off their heads was Muhammad. The women and children were sold as slaves. Confronted with the lunacy of Islamic terrorists today, it is not hard to find out where the lunacy comes from.

According to the historian Theophanes (752-817) Muhammad was an epileptic. Epileptic crises are sometimes accompanied by hallucinations, perspiration form the forehead and foaming at the mouth, the very symptoms which Muhammad displayed during his visions.

In his book “The other Muhammad” (1992) the Flemish psychologist dr. Herman Somers concludes that in his forties the “prophet” began to suffer from acromegaly, a condition caused by a tumor in the pituitary gland, a small organ that is situated just below the brain. When the tumor in the pituitary gland causes too much pressure in the brain, people start to see and hear things that are not there. Somers’s psychopathological diagnosis of Muhammad’s condition is: organic hallucinatory affliction with paranoid characteristics.

The truth is not always pleasant or politically correct.

In the above link one can find several other scholarly references to clinical descriptions of mhammed's psyche.

 

[NEO]

I don't need to discuss this with you. I grew up in a household where my mom was Baptist and my father was Catholic. I have had plenty of instruction concerning the interpretation of the Bible. That is the key word, though, "interpretation". You, on the other hand, have probably had no instruction on the interpretation of the Koran. So, I am using your literal standard on the Bible as well. Doing so, the Bible is just as violent, if not more (God certainly instructed that infidel woman and children be extinguished from the face of the earth in the Book of Joshua).


Right...Calvin and Cromwell were such peaceful personages. The Lutheran German princes were also incredibly merciful as they wreaked death and destruction throughout Prussia. Puritans...they were peaceful, as long as you consider burning people at the stake a form of peace.



Done.

Follow the man, you will always find fault. Follow Christ, and you will find heaven.

I challenge you to find any actual text spoken by Christ himself that shows intolerance. Christians follow Christ. The OT does exist. It shows the way salvation was gained before Christ died on the cross. The old law does not hold any weight anymore and Christ completed the law and is now the only way.

Again, I challenge you to find words spoken by Christ that show intolerance.

 

[therealUT]

intolerance (n.): unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own

Oxford English Dictionary

When Jesus instructs his followers to hate their family members if their family members do not follow Christ's teaching, he is certainly not showing acceptance of their beliefs. When Christ states that "anyone who is not with me is against me", he again is demonstrating an intolerant position.

When missionaries goes all over the world to convert persons who proclaim different beliefs, that is not "accepting" those beliefs. It is, in both deed and in fact, intolerant by definition.

Feel free to change the definition of intolerant, though.

Am I intolerant of some things? Yes. However, I freely admit such. Many on here are displaying themselves to be self-righteous hypocrites. I might appear self-righteous, but I certainly feel I am avoiding hypocrisy.

 

[NEO]

When Jesus instructs his followers to hate their family members if their family members do not follow Christ's teaching, he is certainly not showing acceptance of their beliefs. When Christ states that "anyone who is not with me is against me", he again is demonstrating an intolerant position.

When missionaries goes all over the world to convert persons who proclaim different beliefs, that is not "accepting" those beliefs. It is, in both deed and in fact, intolerant by definition.

Feel free to change the definition of intolerant, though.

Am I intolerant of some things? Yes. However, I freely admit such. Many on here are displaying themselves to be self-righteous hypocrites. I might appear self-righteous, but I certainly feel I am avoiding hypocrisy.

I noticed you didn't quote a verse but opinion.

Try again.

 

[NEO]

"He who is without sin throw the first stone."

That pretty much sums up Christ.

 

[therealUT]

I noticed you didn't quote a verse but opinion.

Try again.

I have already quoted that verse and many others throughout this discussion.

Do you want me to add to that Jesus' parable concerning the ten coins? Where the King, whom Jesus lauds for his decisions, states at the end:

Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.

Luke 19: 27

Real peaceful and tolerant...