Muslim Vs. Christian debating Options

[illriginal]

lolz

[Reidar]

That would be the Al-Anfāl, and it's one of the most important sections of the scripture, being a partner portion to the Sura At-Tawba. The forces of Saddam Hussein cited this as their divine permission to slaughter our Peshmerga and Kurd civilian friends.

[illriginal]

That would be the Al-Anfāl, and it's one of the most important sections of the scripture., being a partner portion to the Sura At-Tawba. The Baathist regime cited this as its divine permission to slaughter our Peshmerga and Kurd civilian friends.

And do you think they truly represent Islam? Do you think that the KKK truly represents Christianity? All of those who commit violent acts as transgressors, offenders, and or oppressors are by no means following the strict Qur'anic rules of War.

[Reidar]

And do you think they truly represent Islam?

Yes. They are abiding by what the scripture says.

It certainly was mainstream Muslims citing the offensive part of Salman Rushdie's heresy to be his crime of writing a novel, not the fatwa layed on him by Khomeini (ah, how I miss my Iranian countrymen), or when the main offense of Muhammad's depiction in a Danish cartoon was the infidelity of the publishers, not the infringement upon free speech rights.

Do you think that the KKK truly represents Christianity?

The Christian Bible doesn't call for arms against blacks, so no. The powers trying to force junk science into our schools do.

All of those who commit violent acts as transgressors, offenders, and or oppressors are by no means following the strict Qur'anic rules of War.

"Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority" is one of many.

[illriginal]

Yes. They are abiding by what the scripture says.

As transgressors? LOL C'mon Reidar, the Qur'an strictly forbids and condemns the killing of benevolence. Especially transgression and oppression.

It certainly was mainstream Muslims citing the offensive part of Salman Rushdie's heresy to be his crime of writing a novel, not the fatwa layed on him by Khomeini (ah, how I miss my Iranian countrymen), or when the main offense of Muhammad's depiction in a Danish cartoon was the infidelity of the publishers, not the infringement upon free speech rights.

Muslims take their religion a lot more serious than Christians of the West, who allow depictions of Jesus and mockeries of Jesus. God and all the Prophets/Apostles (peace and blessings upon them) of God are sacred.

The Christian Bible doesn't call for arms against blacks, so no. The powers trying to force junk science into our schools do.

Nor did it say anything about attacking non-whites in general. Yet the KKK claimed to be Christians same with King James who committed and commanded atrocities.

"Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority" is one of many.

Ok.. so you're just gonna keep using verses out of context like so many do and more than likely keep repeating them.

I will finish this discussion with you with these two videos. From Iran, from your countrymen.

[Reidar]

As transgressors? LOL C'mon Reidar, the Qur'an strictly forbids and condemns the killing of benevolence. Especially transgression and oppression.

"Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority."

Muslims take their religion a lot more serious than Christians of the West, who allow depictions of Jesus and mockeries of Jesus.

Free speech > fake gods.

Doing anything but coming to Salman Rushie's defense is shameful.

Nor did it say anything about attacking non-whites in general. Yet the KKK claimed to be Christians same with King James who committed and commanded atrocities.

Yup, which is why they aren't representative of Christians. Their incentives were not religiously-based. You're preaching to the choir if you're trying to say, "Well, look here, Christianity is just as bad." Christianity is abhorrent, just not in the correlation you're trying to attribute the KKK to. Of all the fantastically easy things to go after the Christian Bible for, you had to pick a false one.

Ok.. so you're just gonna keep using verses out of context like so many do and more than likely keep repeating them.

To remove an excerpt from its context is to remove the interrelated circumstances in which it exists under. If you feel that that is the case, point out in which manner the subject of the discourse was bypassed. As it stands, and as it will continue to, highlighting the specific part of dissent is not removing context because the context hasn't changed within the contention.

And for every 1 out of context violent verse, I can post 3 to combat it.

That's like me writing a 500-page book on home gardening, and then in the middle of page 162 I insert "DEATH TO ALL JEWS." It'd be folly to say, "For that one bad line, there were hundreds of pleasant pages to combat it." I need only one preaching of violence out of a thousand supposed peace proclamations for Islam to have any instance of positing violence. It only takes one line with true premises and a false conclusion to establish the invalidity of an invalid inference.

[illriginal]

"Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority."

oh lawd. Please find your way into, "Ask About Islam" thread in the bodybuilding forum, brah. Apparently you're not aware.

Free speech > God.

In your perspective.

Yup, which is why they aren't representative of Christians. Their incentives were not religiously-based.

Well then, I guess you never read the Holy Bible either... specifically the King James version. Who's preaching to the choir when you're not even understanding what I'm telling you. How is it religion's fault, God's fault, or the Holy Book's fault that people commit lewdness? For God sake, the Qur'an even has the Hadiths!!! Only an illiterate moron could ever misunderstand the Qur'an and try to commit lewdness thinking that's what God commanded.

To remove an excerpt from its context is to remove the interrelated circumstances in which it exists under. If you feel that that is the case, point out in which manner the subject of the discourse was bypassed. As it stands, and as it will continue to, highlighting the specific part of dissent is not removing context because the context hasn't changed within the contention.

Read the whole chapter or you'll never understand the verse. Simple as that.

I need only one preaching of violence out of a thousand supposed peace proclamations for Islam to have any instance of positing violence. It only takes one line with true premises and a false conclusion to establish the invalidity of an invalid inference.

Yes by someone who's literally demented and breaks the conduct of war set forth by God. If you can't understand the Qu'ran especially when it's the literal word of God.. then it's because it has been destined to be and nothing will ever change that.


One thing I've never understood about non-believers. You guys slam religion, God, and the Holy Books.. yet, you don't have an ounce of a clue as to wtf yall are talkin about. Instead you google up "religious evil texts" or some phrases like that and you start to quote exactly what you read.. it's quite amusing yet mind numbing.