If God exists, would Islam be the perfect response from the devil?

Islamist fundies are not, but that's a whole other story.

Same can be said for Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Jennings_Hill

Quote from: Wendy on November 08, 2008, 12:58:19 PM

Islamist fundies are not, but that's a whole other story.

Same can be said for Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Jennings_Hill

There are more violent Muslim fundies. Entire countries of them in fact.

The Muslim fundamentalist concentration in the middle east is chiefly a product of Western hegemony. I believe that Islam, while still a major contributor to violence via its divisive dogma, has been utilized as a combat weapon (similar to the use of Marxism) to achieve political ends. I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to claim this is a conscious strategy, though I'm sure there are many Arabs with personal stake in the desired shift to Middle Eastern autonomy/sovereignty and support Islamism as a convenient method of unifying the population. 

The Muslim fundamentalist concentration in the middle east is chiefly a product of Western hegemony. I believe that Islam, while still a major contributor to violence via its divisive dogma, has been utilized as a combat weapon (similar to the use of Marxism) to achieve political ends. I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to claim this is a conscious strategy, though I'm sure there are many Arabs with personal stake in the desired shift to Middle Eastern autonomy/sovereignty and support Islamism as a convenient method of unifying the population. 

The man who founded it started conquering people.

   I don't think that necessarily correlates to the current situation in the Middle East. In the past year, I've tamed my belief that religious dogma is the ultimate cause for the hate and violence inherent in religiously dominated discourse. An example, as I've already eluded to, is the use of Marxism in the class struggles in the USSR, China, and others. The doctrine was utilized to unify populations and achieve political ends of control and mutation. 

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on November 08, 2008, 11:37:14 AM

Quote from: Raist on November 07, 2008, 09:17:08 PM

Quote from: The Anarchist on November 02, 2008, 04:37:55 PM

Muslims back then were generally much more tolerant than Christians.

This statement still makes me lawl.

Although I don't think they were "much more tolerant" I think they were a little more tolerant. Of course, back then both religions were generally a lot less tolerant than they are now.

If Islam was less tolerant back then....

Back then neither religion had a problem killing off non-believers, but Islam was more tolerant towards the people they conquered.  They allowed them to keep whatever religion they already had, with some restrictions.. they weren't allowed to try to convert Muslims or intermarry, but they didn't force them to convert to Islam.  Christians were all about converting the people they conquered, or burning them at the stake.

Quote from: Benocrates on November 08, 2008, 04:06:56 PM

The Muslim fundamentalist concentration in the middle east is chiefly a product of Western hegemony. I believe that Islam, while still a major contributor to violence via its divisive dogma, has been utilized as a combat weapon (similar to the use of Marxism) to achieve political ends. I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to claim this is a conscious strategy, though I'm sure there are many Arabs with personal stake in the desired shift to Middle Eastern autonomy/sovereignty and support Islamism as a convenient method of unifying the population. 

The man who founded it started conquering people.

The man who founded it was a religious nutjob who believed that God had spoken to him in the desert. What would you expect him to do?

Quote from: Raist on November 08, 2008, 04:13:01 PM

Quote from: Benocrates on November 08, 2008, 04:06:56 PM

The Muslim fundamentalist concentration in the middle east is chiefly a product of Western hegemony. I believe that Islam, while still a major contributor to violence via its divisive dogma, has been utilized as a combat weapon (similar to the use of Marxism) to achieve political ends. I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to claim this is a conscious strategy, though I'm sure there are many Arabs with personal stake in the desired shift to Middle Eastern autonomy/sovereignty and support Islamism as a convenient method of unifying the population. 

The man who founded it started conquering people.

The man who founded it was a religious nutjob who believed that God had spoken to him in the desert. What would you expect him to do?

Jesus claimed to hear god and killed negative two people. I think he wins.

Quote from: Wendy on November 09, 2008, 02:12:21 AM

Quote from: Raist on November 08, 2008, 04:13:01 PM

Quote from: Benocrates on November 08, 2008, 04:06:56 PM

The Muslim fundamentalist concentration in the middle east is chiefly a product of Western hegemony. I believe that Islam, while still a major contributor to violence via its divisive dogma, has been utilized as a combat weapon (similar to the use of Marxism) to achieve political ends. I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to claim this is a conscious strategy, though I'm sure there are many Arabs with personal stake in the desired shift to Middle Eastern autonomy/sovereignty and support Islamism as a convenient method of unifying the population. 

The man who founded it started conquering people.

The man who founded it was a religious nutjob who believed that God had spoken to him in the desert. What would you expect him to do?

Jesus claimed to hear god and killed negative two people. I think he wins.

Jesus wasn't a religious fucknut. He was a hippie fucknut. Difference.

Dark ages are bullshit propaganda.

Why would you think that?

In any case, can we all agree that islam promotes violence just about as much as christianity does? Over a million people die in the bible as a direct result of God being pissy. I don't have numbers on how many people die in the koran, but I'm betting it's a lot of people too.

Off topic: Are you the oldest sibling in your family?

No, why? Because I play the diplomat?

Quote from: Althalus on November 02, 2008, 01:48:10 PM

Dark ages are bullshit propaganda.

Why would you think that?

Quote from: Wendy on November 02, 2008, 03:21:36 PM

In any case, can we all agree that islam promotes violence just about as much as christianity does? Over a million people die in the bible as a direct result of God being pissy. I don't have numbers on how many people die in the koran, but I'm betting it's a lot of people too.

Off topic: Are you the oldest sibling in your family?

Sad thing is, I'm the second oldest yet I am usually the diplomatic/manipulative one. Comes in handy dealing with drunks.

The Muslim fundamentalist concentration in the middle east is chiefly a product of Western hegemony. I believe that Islam, while still a major contributor to violence via its divisive dogma, has been utilized as a combat weapon (similar to the use of Marxism) to achieve political ends. I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to claim this is a conscious strategy, though I'm sure there are many Arabs with personal stake in the desired shift to Middle Eastern autonomy/sovereignty and support Islamism as a convenient method of unifying the population. 

In the context of the current discussion, the important factor would be that Islam CAN be used as a combat weapon - in fact, it is probably the ideal religious combat weapon.

Fundamentalism in other religions doesn't seem to be as self-sustaining as it is in Islam. I don't think violence is codified into the axioms of the religion, but it seems to occur as an emergent behavior both predictably and frequently. The feedback loops in Islam all lead to violence and ignorance - which is why the Middle East will probably still be stoning women after the west has established a moon base.

Jesus is the Holy Ghost is The Father who killed millions of people in mass genocides because they deviated from the will of God.  This same people also ordered other people to kill in large numbers for him.

It says so in the Bible, so it must be true.

Jesus is the Holy Ghost is The Father who killed millions of people in mass genocides because they deviated from the will of God.  This same people also ordered other people to kill in large numbers for him.

It says so in the Bible, so it must be true.

Can you give specific references in the Bible for what you are claiming? Remember it has to be New Testament.

Quote from: AtheistGuy on November 19, 2008, 07:08:30 PM

Jesus is the Holy Ghost is The Father who killed millions of people in mass genocides because they deviated from the will of God.  This same people also ordered other people to kill in large numbers for him.

It says so in the Bible, so it must be true.

Can you give specific references in the Bible for what you are claiming? Remember it has to be New Testament.

Why?

Quote from: zeroply on November 19, 2008, 07:43:05 PM

Quote from: AtheistGuy on November 19, 2008, 07:08:30 PM

Jesus is the Holy Ghost is The Father who killed millions of people in mass genocides because they deviated from the will of God.  This same people also ordered other people to kill in large numbers for him.

It says so in the Bible, so it must be true.

Can you give specific references in the Bible for what you are claiming? Remember it has to be New Testament.

Why?

Saying something doesn't make it true. He wants examples. Jesus proclaimed that the rules of the past were abolished, and therefore stating something before him as being a christian act is not only retarded, it is... well retarded.

Saying something doesn't make it true. He wants examples. Jesus proclaimed that the rules of the past were abolished, and therefore stating something before him as being a christian act is not only retarded, it is... well retarded.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." - Matthew 5:17-18

Quote from: Raist on November 19, 2008, 09:55:38 PM

Saying something doesn't make it true. He wants examples. Jesus proclaimed that the rules of the past were abolished, and therefore stating something before him as being a christian act is not only retarded, it is... well retarded.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." - Matthew 5:17-18

That applied to god's law, not the law of the pharisees. He claimed as God's son it was up to him to interpret the laws, and decide who was right.

On many occasions he abolished their laws about the sabath. I maintain jesus abolished Judaic law by redefining what the commandments meant.

"The Pharisees had taken that simple instruction and blown it up into several hundred laws that specified exactly what one could and could not do on the Sabbath. This was common of most of the laws that God had given them. It was a point that Jesus admonished them for on a number of occasions."

That applied to god's law, not the law of the pharisees. He claimed as God's son it was up to him to interpret the laws, and decide who was right.

How very convenient...

On many occasions he abolished their laws about the sabath. I maintain jesus abolished Judaic law by redefining what the commandments meant.

I think it is quite obvious what he meant. Read the passage I quoted again.

"The Pharisees had taken that simple instruction and blown it up into several hundred laws that specified exactly what one could and could not do on the Sabbath. This was common of most of the laws that God had given them. It was a point that Jesus admonished them for on a number of occasions."

I must have missed this passage of the Bible.

Quote from: Raist on November 19, 2008, 09:55:38 PM

Saying something doesn't make it true. He wants examples. Jesus proclaimed that the rules of the past were abolished, and therefore stating something before him as being a christian act is not only retarded, it is... well retarded.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." - Matthew 5:17-18

It's a little more nuanced than that. The word "fulfill" is English of course. The original Greek "plerosai" can mean something more along the lines of fleshing out the meaning. Of course Jesus didn't want people to abandon the OT altogether - this would have produced an extreme schism. But in preventing the stoning of adulterers for instance, he was using such a radical reinterpretation that the OT becomes largely irrelevant. What use is it when the OT calls for genocide but the NT doesn't let you cast the first stone?

Also, he's talking about the letter of the law. Notice he doesn't say you have to follow the law in the same way as before - his teachings explicitly state otherwise. The sense I get from Matthew 5:17 is more along the lines of "we're going to leave the book alone, but you need to read it a bit different".

Quote from: Raist on November 19, 2008, 10:29:34 PM

That applied to god's law, not the law of the pharisees. He claimed as God's son it was up to him to interpret the laws, and decide who was right.

How very convenient...

Quote from: Raist on November 19, 2008, 10:29:34 PM

On many occasions he abolished their laws about the sabath. I maintain jesus abolished Judaic law by redefining what the commandments meant.

I think it is quite obvious what he meant. Read the passage I quoted again.

Quote from: Raist on November 19, 2008, 10:29:34 PM

"The Pharisees had taken that simple instruction and blown it up into several hundred laws that specified exactly what one could and could not do on the Sabbath. This was common of most of the laws that God had given them. It was a point that Jesus admonished them for on a number of occasions."

I must have missed this passage of the Bible.

That quote was written by experts that spent their lives studying the bible.

The reason it was up to him to interpret the laws was because he was god. So yes how convenient that the quote you showed only applied to laws I wasn't talking about.

And I said he abolished "their laws" not The Law, that happens to be capitalized, go look up the significance of it. Your quote was the first hit on a google search, you probably should read a few hits down.

That quote was written by experts that spent their lives studying the bible.

I can post quotes "written by experts" too. Doesn't mean a thing.
 

The reason it was up to him to interpret the laws was because he was god.

This brings us back to the topic at hand:

Is the Bible infallible?

And...

Do you disagree with the following quote?

Jesus is the Holy Ghost is The Father who killed millions of people in mass genocides because they deviated from the will of God.

So yes how convenient that the quote you showed only applied to laws I wasn't talking about.

Huh?

And I said he abolished "their laws" not The Law, that happens to be capitalized, go look up the significance of it.

Ah, semantics; the cause and solution to all of theology's problems.

Your quote was the first hit on a google search, you probably should read a few hits down.

What search is that?

So ignore the specifics and make a broad sweeping statement. That is how the debate should go. So I shall do the same.

You are an atheist, atheists do not believe the Bible therefore I can't argue with you. Sorry.

I accept your concession.

I accept your concession.

I accept your sinful ways, and I hope the devil does not sodomize you too hard. Sinfag.

Quote from: Recusant on November 20, 2008, 06:35:22 PM

I accept your concession.

I accept your sinful ways, and I hope the devil does not sodomize you too hard. Sinfag.

My sins are my own. I do not want them to be heaped upon some poor, idealistic Jew used in some form of ghastly human sacrifice. I do not seek to absolve myself; I live with it every day.

I've worked hard, so I'd better get my money's worth of sodomy in Hell.

Quote from: Raist on November 20, 2008, 06:43:51 PM

Quote from: Recusant on November 20, 2008, 06:35:22 PM

I accept your concession.

I accept your sinful ways, and I hope the devil does not sodomize you too hard. Sinfag.

My sins are my own. I do not want them to be heaped upon some poor, idealistic Jew used in some form of ghastly human sacrifice. I do not seek to absolve myself; I live with it every day.

I've worked hard, so I'd better get my money's worth of sodomy in Hell.

Is there lube in hell?

Quote from: Recusant on November 20, 2008, 07:42:22 PM

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 20, 2008, 07:38:20 PM

Quote from: Recusant on November 20, 2008, 07:32:47 PM

I've worked hard, so I'd better get my money's worth of sodomy in Hell.

How will you enjoy sex without nerve endings?

The same way I'll suffer eternal torment without them.

Separation from God (who's great to be around) which you have not been conscience of to this point?

Sure. Makes perfect sense.

That's actually a great point. Is hell a physically real place? And if it is, why the hell, pardon the pun, would God simply want to send us there? Let's assume you get a physical body similar or identical to the one you have here in hell, and then you, by supernatural means, are granted immortality, and set about on an endless torture session... Would God actually think that this is enough for the really big sinners? Don't get me wrong, physical pain as a punishment is one of the most inhumande things I can think of, so great work there, O benevolent one, but is it really enough? In that case, we could, albeit not for eternity, but still very much create an actual hell on earth. Would Hell actually be such a bad place if you could get there without dying?