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

Again, everything you are quoting is Old Testament. Jesus did not teach any of this. In fact, many of his teachings can be construed as corrections to the OT - casting the first stone and so forth.

Of course, an omnipotent being such as Himself couldn't possibly get it right all in one go. He needs to correct His mistakes once in a while.

Quote from: zeroply on November 01, 2008, 08:43:15 PM

Again, everything you are quoting is Old Testament. Jesus did not teach any of this. In fact, many of his teachings can be construed as corrections to the OT - casting the first stone and so forth.

Of course, an omnipotent being such as Himself couldn't possibly get it right all in one go. He needs to correct His mistakes once in a while.

God didn't write the OT, or NT. A lot can be lost in translation, and sometimes clarifications are necessary.

Also, calling God "him" is sexist. We should call God "It", since it is not human.

Quote from: The Anarchist on November 01, 2008, 10:02:09 PM

Quote from: zeroply on November 01, 2008, 08:43:15 PM

Again, everything you are quoting is Old Testament. Jesus did not teach any of this. In fact, many of his teachings can be construed as corrections to the OT - casting the first stone and so forth.

Of course, an omnipotent being such as Himself couldn't possibly get it right all in one go. He needs to correct His mistakes once in a while.

God didn't write the OT, or NT. A lot can be lost in translation, and sometimes clarifications are necessary.

So it might all just be nonsensical gibberish? Islam, for one, holds that God needed to introduce his Word to the world in three consecutive stages (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) that improved upon the one before it until it became the "Final Revelation".

Some of the "clarifications" in the New Testament are fairly significant. I hardly think that the Old Testament would be entirely "lost in translation". If that's the case, why even bother keeping it is a part of the Bible and quote from it so consistently?

Also, calling God "him" is sexist. We should call God "It", since it is not human.

The Bible refers to God as "Him". He is both the Father and the Son. It is indeed very sexist. Welcome to religion. Population: six billion tools.

Quote from: zeroply on November 01, 2008, 08:43:15 PM

Again, everything you are quoting is Old Testament. Jesus did not teach any of this. In fact, many of his teachings can be construed as corrections to the OT - casting the first stone and so forth.

Of course, an omnipotent being such as Himself couldn't possibly get it right all in one go. He needs to correct His mistakes once in a while.

That doesn't make sense. How is it a mistake making different laws for different periods? That would show a lot more foresight than say Islam, whose rules have turned many countries into backwards cesspools.

That doesn't make sense. How is it a mistake making different laws for different periods?

So God accepted the stoning of prostitutes at some point?

Why was "love your neighbour as yourself" not a suitable law from the beginning?

That would show a lot more foresight than say Islam, whose rules have turned many countries into backwards cesspools.

Islam is approximately thirteen hundred years old at this moment. What was Christianity doing when it was that age?

Quote from: Raist on November 01, 2008, 10:21:59 PM

That doesn't make sense. How is it a mistake making different laws for different periods?

So God accepted the stoning of prostitutes at some point?

Why was "love your neighbour as yourself" not a suitable law from the beginning?

Quote from: Raist on November 01, 2008, 10:21:59 PM

That would show a lot more foresight than say Islam, whose rules have turned many countries into backwards cesspools.

Islam is approximately thirteen hundred years old at this moment. What was Christianity doing when it was that age?

I can go with God accepting the stoning of prostitutes - in an era where there was no knowledge of epidemiology, an emergent virus could have wiped out entire cultures.  In the old West, stealing a horse was an offense punishable by death, and for good reason. If you took someone's horse, it might be a death sentence if they are too far to walk to water. Obviously today the punishment has been adjusted to match the consequences.

But Islam is invariant. A 13 year old rape victim was just stoned to death in Somalia last week for "adultery". If you want to talk about a religion that produces evil consistently, you need look no further than Islam.

I can go with God accepting the stoning of prostitutes - in an era where there was no knowledge of epidemiology, an emergent virus could have wiped out entire cultures.  In the old West, stealing a horse was an offense punishable by death, and for good reason. If you took someone's horse, it might be a death sentence if they are too far to walk to water. Obviously today the punishment has been adjusted to match the consequences.

That's retarded and you know it. Stop grasping at straws.

But Islam is invariant. A 13 year old rape victim was just stoned to death in Somalia last week for "adultery". If you want to talk about a religion that produces evil consistently, you need look no further than Islam.

I agree, but please answer the question.

Quote from: Raist on November 01, 2008, 10:21:59 PM

That doesn't make sense. How is it a mistake making different laws for different periods?

So God accepted the stoning of prostitutes at some point?

Why was "love your neighbour as yourself" not a suitable law from the beginning?

Quote from: Raist on November 01, 2008, 10:21:59 PM

That would show a lot more foresight than say Islam, whose rules have turned many countries into backwards cesspools.

Islam is approximately thirteen hundred years old at this moment. What was Christianity doing when it was that age?

The age of the religion has nothing to do with what laws would work. It is the time period it is in.

I'm asking you to look at results, not methods.

Quote from: zeroply on November 02, 2008, 12:19:27 PM

I can go with God accepting the stoning of prostitutes - in an era where there was no knowledge of epidemiology, an emergent virus could have wiped out entire cultures.  In the old West, stealing a horse was an offense punishable by death, and for good reason. If you took someone's horse, it might be a death sentence if they are too far to walk to water. Obviously today the punishment has been adjusted to match the consequences.

That's retarded and you know it. Stop grasping at straws.

His answer makes complete sense. It's hardly grasping at straws. Most judaic law had to do with preventing disease. Whether it was keeping them from eating certain foods, demanding bathing, and the various laws of "spiritual cleanliness" which kept people away from dead bodies and other sources of disease. Please stop grasping at straws.

Thanks to harsh Islamic law against adultery in North Africa they have AIDS rates a fraction of those of Christian Africa.

The age of the religion has nothing to do with what laws would work. It is the time period it is in.

I'm asking you to look at results, not methods.

Christianity was royally fucking up the world when it was the age Islam is today. The results were The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Reformation, in short, the Dark Ages.

Different laws for different periods my ass.

His answer makes complete sense. It's hardly grasping at straws. Most judaic law had to do with preventing disease. Whether it was keeping them from eating certain foods, demanding bathing, and the various laws of "spiritual cleanliness" which kept people away from dead bodies and other sources of disease. Please stop grasping at straws.

Yes, stoning women to death was perfectly acceptable because it "stopped the spread of disease". They defend circumcision these days by saying it has "health benefits" too. Not bullshit at all.

Quote from: Raist on November 02, 2008, 12:22:33 PM

The age of the religion has nothing to do with what laws would work. It is the time period it is in.

I'm asking you to look at results, not methods.

Christianity was royally fucking up the world when it was the age Islam is today. The results were The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Reformation, in short, the Dark Ages.

Different laws for different periods my ass.

Quote from: Raist on November 02, 2008, 12:24:36 PM

His answer makes complete sense. It's hardly grasping at straws. Most judaic law had to do with preventing disease. Whether it was keeping them from eating certain foods, demanding bathing, and the various laws of "spiritual cleanliness" which kept people away from dead bodies and other sources of disease. Please stop grasping at straws.

Yes, stoning women to death was perfectly acceptable because it "stopped the spread of disease". They defend circumcision these days by saying it has "health benefits" too. Not bullshit at all.

I agree with you, Islam is very suitable for ignorant races that can't control themselves like we can. The newer form of christianity is better suited for people of European decent, we are smarter and better control our urges. Glad to know I have a brother out there.

Christianity was royally fucking up the world when it was the age Islam is today. The results were The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Reformation, in short, the Dark Ages.

The crusades were a response to Islamic military successes, the inquisition was exaggerated by British propagandist, the reformation paved the way for the enlightenment and the dark ages were a fabrication. Fail less.

I agree with you, Islam is very suitable for ignorant races that can't control themselves like we can. The newer form of christianity is better suited for people of European decent, we are smarter and better control our urges. Glad to know I have a brother out there.

Idiot.

Quote

Christianity was royally fucking up the world when it was the age Islam is today. The results were The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Reformation, in short, the Dark Ages.

The crusades were a response to Islamic military successes, the inquisition was exaggerated by British propagandist, the reformation paved the way for the enlightenment and the dark ages were a fabrication. Fail less.

The Crusades were aggression on the part of the Church, the brutality of the Inquisition was very real (though apparently more women were burned as witches in Protestant countries - hardly a point for your side, I would think), the Reformation caused numerous holy wars (Christianity hindered the Enlightenment no matter how you look at it) and the Dark Ages is another term for the Middle Ages employed to stress the nature of the era.

Masturbate with a crucifix less.

The Crusades were aggression on the part of the Church

Self defense is a crime, am I right?

the brutality of the Inquisition was very real (though apparently more women were burned as witches in Protestant countries - hardly a point for your side, I would think)

It was greatly exaggerated.

the Reformation caused numerous holy wars (Christianity hindered the Enlightenment no matter how you look at it)

No it didn't.

and the Dark Ages is another term for the Middle Ages employed to stress the nature of the era.

Historians won't even use the term dark ages anymore, that how bullshit it is.

You said that Christianity fucked up Europe, it had a few mishaps, but it was undoubtedly a positive influence (unless you are a delusional atheist).

Self defense is a crime, am I right?

According to the Church, it was.

It was greatly exaggerated.

It happened, did it not?

Historians won't even use the term dark ages anymore, that how bullshit it is.

Boo hoo.

You said that Christianity fucked up Europe, it had a few mishaps, but it was undoubtedly a positive influence (unless you are a delusional atheist).

Positive in relation to what?

According to the Church, it was.

Source?

It happened, did it not?

Yes.

Boo hoo.

So you won't admit you are wrong but you won't stop talking?

Positive in relation to what?

There being no Christianity in Europe.

Quote from: Raist on November 02, 2008, 12:35:23 PM

I agree with you, Islam is very suitable for ignorant races that can't control themselves like we can. The newer form of christianity is better suited for people of European decent, we are smarter and better control our urges. Glad to know I have a brother out there.

Idiot.

Quote from: Althalus on November 02, 2008, 12:35:40 PM

Quote

Christianity was royally fucking up the world when it was the age Islam is today. The results were The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Reformation, in short, the Dark Ages.

The crusades were a response to Islamic military successes, the inquisition was exaggerated by British propagandist, the reformation paved the way for the enlightenment and the dark ages were a fabrication. Fail less.

The Crusades were aggression on the part of the Church, the brutality of the Inquisition was very real (though apparently more women were burned as witches in Protestant countries - hardly a point for your side, I would think), the Reformation caused numerous holy wars (Christianity hindered the Enlightenment no matter how you look at it) and the Dark Ages is another term for the Middle Ages employed to stress the nature of the era.

Masturbate with a crucifix less.

Islam nearly destroyed the Great Library so that they could heat hot baths without going out and getting wood.

Source?

During this time, the Church was attempting to drive Muslims out of Spain and used the pretext of the Byzantine war with the Turks to try to also "liberate" the holy city of Jerusalem from the hands of the heathens.

Yes.

That must have hurt.

So you won't admit you are wrong but you won't stop talking?

You haven't proven anything.

There being no Christianity in Europe.

How do you know?

Islam nearly destroyed the Great Library so that they could heat hot baths without going out and getting wood.

I have no love of Islam.

Also, that is the least of their crimes.

During this time, the Church was attempting to drive Muslims out of Spain and used the pretext of the Byzantine war with the Turks to try to also "liberate" the holy city of Jerusalem from the hands of the heathens.

So they wanted to free Jerusalem, which had been conquered by Muslims, how is this bad?

That must have hurt.

Did I say it didn't happen?

You haven't proven anything.

Dark ages are bullshit propaganda.

How do you know?

Everything positive minus everything negative, net gain.

So they wanted to free Jerusalem, which had been conquered by Muslims, how is this bad?

Muslims had controlled Jerusalem for centuries and the Muslims and Jews fought side by side to defend it from the "liberators". Most of the heathen civilians were massacred and even the Christian population was eventually expelled.

Did I say it didn't happen?

You were very determined to trivialize it.

Dark ages are bullshit propaganda.

Your word versus mine.

Everything positive minus everything negative, net gain.

How do you know it was positive if there was no possible alternative?

Muslims had controlled Jerusalem for centuries and the Muslims and Jews fought side by side to defend it from the "liberators". Most of the heathen civilians were massacred and even the Christian population was eventually expelled.

And this territory helped defend Europe from later Muslim attacks.

You were very determined to trivialize it.

I said it's been exaggerated greatly as a result of British propaganda.

Your word versus mine.

Your words versus historians.

How do you know it was positive if there was no possible alternative?

So by this reasoning you can't say Christianity was bad for Europe.

Quote

Source?

During this time, the Church was attempting to drive Muslims out of Spain and used the pretext of the Byzantine war with the Turks to try to also "liberate" the holy city of Jerusalem from the hands of the heathens.

Quote

Yes.

That must have hurt.

Quote

So you won't admit you are wrong but you won't stop talking?

You haven't proven anything.

Quote

There being no Christianity in Europe.

How do you know?

Quote from: Raist on November 02, 2008, 01:36:17 PM

Islam nearly destroyed the Great Library so that they could heat hot baths without going out and getting wood.

I have no love of Islam.

Also, that is the least of their crimes.

Setting humanity back by centuries is the least of their crimes? If it wasn't for them who knows what we would have accomplished.

And this territory helped defend Europe from later Muslim attacks.

That was not the reason cited by the Pope.

Also, you asked why it was bad. I told you.

I said it's been exaggerated greatly as a result of British propaganda.

So what's your point?

Your words versus historians.

So you're an historian now, are you?

So by this reasoning you can't say Christianity was bad for Europe.

We can observe how it restricted progress significantly. We cannot know whether any positive influence was due solely to the religion as it was the only authority in the region at the time.

Setting humanity back by centuries is the least of their crimes? If it wasn't for them who knows what we would have accomplished.

They have done much worse than burning a single library.

Quote

And this territory helped defend Europe from later Muslim attacks.

That was not the reason cited by the Pope.

Cool story bro.

Quote

I said it's been exaggerated greatly as a result of British propaganda.

So what's your point?

...it's been exaggerated.

Quote

Your words versus historians.

So you're an historian now, are you?

No, but few to no modern historians dispute what I say.

Quote

So by this reasoning you can't say Christianity was bad for Europe.

We can observe how it restricted progress significantly. We cannot know whether any positive influence was due solely to the religion as it was the only authority in the region at the time.

We can observe how it advanced progress significantly. We cannot know whether any negative influence was due solely to the religion as it was the only authority in the region at the time.

Quote

And this territory helped defend Europe from later Muslim attacks.

That was not the reason cited by the Pope.

Also, you asked why it was bad. I told you.

Quote

I said it's been exaggerated greatly as a result of British propaganda.

So what's your point?

Quote

Your words versus historians.

So you're an historian now, are you?

Quote

So by this reasoning you can't say Christianity was bad for Europe.

We can observe how it restricted progress significantly. We cannot know whether any positive influence was due solely to the religion as it was the only authority in the region at the time.

Quote from: Raist on November 02, 2008, 02:27:19 PM

Setting humanity back by centuries is the least of their crimes? If it wasn't for them who knows what we would have accomplished.

They have done much worse than burning a single library.

this library was the sum total knowledge of the greeks. You underestimate the value of knowledge.

Cool story bro.

Do you admit the Crusades were not in self-defense then?

...it's been exaggerated.

...and how is that relevant?

No, but few to no modern historians dispute what I say.

Aheheh.

We can observe how it advanced progress significantly. We cannot know whether any negative influence was due solely to the religion as it was the only authority in the region at the time.

Actually, we can. We've just been discussing the negative influences. You are yet to show any positive influences brought about solely by the religion.

this library was the sum total knowledge of the greeks. You underestimate the value of knowledge.

The correct conclusion of your premise would be that I underestimate the value of the library's contents. Your premise is also incorrect, so you're completely wrong. I merely feel that burning the library (which may not have even happened in the first place) was not the pinnacle of Muslim evil.

troll elsewhere plz

Quote

Cool story bro.

Do you admit the Crusades were not in self-defense then?

Quote

...it's been exaggerated.

...and how is that relevant?

Quote

No, but few to no modern historians dispute what I say.

Aheheh.

Quote

We can observe how it advanced progress significantly. We cannot know whether any negative influence was due solely to the religion as it was the only authority in the region at the time.

Actually, we can. We've just been discussing the negative influences. You are yet to show any positive influences brought about solely by the religion.

Quote from: Raist on November 02, 2008, 03:06:04 PM

this library was the sum total knowledge of the greeks. You underestimate the value of knowledge.

The correct conclusion of your premise would be that I underestimate the value of the library's contents. Your premise is also incorrect, so you're completely wrong. I merely feel that burning the library (which may not have even happened in the first place) was not the pinnacle of Muslim evil.

troll elsewhere plz

I'm hardly trolling. You are the one that states things as fact then tells other people they are grasping at straws when they refute your point.

And where did they refute my point?

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.