DescentBB

Curious but what does the Koran tell where females will go if they kill a jew? Do women go anywhere after they die or were they only put on earth for procreation and to pleasure men?

woodchip wrote:Curious but what does the Koran tell where females will go if they kill a jew? Do women go anywhere after they die or were they only put on earth for procreation and to pleasure men?

I've tried to read the Koran and find a lot of this stuff. It's not there, at least according to the translations I've seen. I think it's not unlike the sermons or rulings we get here in america, whatever is in your heart or ideology you can find in your guidebooks. We have people pulling all sorts of stuff out of the constitution that isn't there, ignoring what clearly is there... and ask a thousand preachers what god means in passage X, Y, and Z and you'll get one thousand and one different answers.

The problem with the islamo-facsists is what's in their hearts and ideology, not what's in their book.
Here you might get a preacher to tell you your jewish friends are going to go to hell because they don't believe jesus is the man...in Iran you'll get a cleric to tell you that killing the jew because he doesn't have Allah's blessing will get you great rewards.
Sure you can say "Well both religious leaders are whacked out..." like many have tried to do in this thread but come on people! Look at the different results the two whacko's will get from their respective flock of believers!!
On the one hand an ignorant baptist in Kansas thinks the Jews are stupid and going to hell because they deny Jesus is the man so he's smug and self righteous, whereas an ignorant Muslim in Iran wants to kill the Jew because the cleric says Allah has made them less than human and they do the devils work!!

To try and rationalize the two situations as the same is ludicrous. There are about two thousand years of cultural evolution missing in many parts of Islamo-facsist Land!

Bettina:

I just don't believe that a girl, just born, should be stamped inferior because she happened to be born in the middle east and the point I was making was that any form of liberation for these girls will be virtually impossible once protected with weapons they would not be afraid to use. I think about them all the time and its always bothered me that someday we won't be able to do anything for them.

I almost completely agree with you Bettina. The exception is that the time where we could do anything for them is probably long past. The weaponry is not the issue. Pakistan is a Moslem country and has had nuclear capability for decades. They are probably the source for Iran's technology.
On the other hand only one hundred years ago in the United States a wife was listed among a man's good and chattels, a woman had no vote, could not own property, and the dress code of the day would not allow any show of ankle or even arm. Bathing attire (swim suits) were full coverage neck to ankle.
The changes in the last century are almost beyond belief, maybe some day changes like that will arrive in the Moslem world.

Will please don't forget that the Nazis were Christian. We are only 60 years removed from the gas chambers.
And don't forget that the Serbs are the Christian faction and the Albanians in Kosovo are the Moslems. The ethnic cleansing was conducted by the Serbs. As was the slaughter of up to 6000 Moslem men and boys in Srebernica.

By the way Will. Did Pres. Bush ever deny he said those things to Abbas? I can't find a denial anywhere although I am sure as you say those were not his exact words.
As for advancing the \"Christian agenda\" I suppose his choice of supreme court appointee will have the greatest effect.

woodchip wrote:Curious but what does the Koran tell where females will go if they kill a jew? Do women go anywhere after they die or were they only put on earth for procreation and to pleasure men?

According to the Koran, Unless I am a perfect Islamic women who never casts her eyes any higher than the sidewalk, never unveils herself, and never utters a word, I will go to hell with all the other women.

(Koran Fatwa 311)-- Most of the inhabitants in hell will be women.

Here are some other items..

(Koran verse 9.30) -- And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

(Koran verse 5.51) -- O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

(Koran verse 3.151) -- We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust

(Koran verse 4.34) -- Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

(Koran Fatwa 603)--Can I watch television?... Allah has forbidden the watching of dancing, listening to music, or watching indecent films other than religious programs. A man must supervise what his wife and children watch.

(Koran Fatwa 1490)--Can I play soccer?.. Playing with men is forbidden by Allah. You may play only with women and where no man can see you.

(Koran Fatwa 1764)--Can I go dancing?... No. Dancing is unlawful as is music. It is considered shameless by Allah.

(Koran Fatwa 418 and 1777)--Can I go swimming?.... Yes, as long as no alien man, brother, son, or daughter is able to see you. You must also be covered over the entire body with no flesh showing. A Muslim should fear Almighty Allah.

(Koran Fatwa 1160)--Can I wear makeup?... It is prohibited for a woman to go out with makeup except when she is completely covered up. If she is not covering her face then going out with make up is absolutely prohibited.

(Koran Fatwa 4282)--Can my husband beat me....Yes, as long as he does not leave any marks or break her bones.

Bettina

Ford Prefect wrote:Bettina:

I just don't believe that a girl, just born, should be stamped inferior because she happened to be born in the middle east and the point I was making was that any form of liberation for these girls will be virtually impossible once protected with weapons they would not be afraid to use. I think about them all the time and its always bothered me that someday we won't be able to do anything for them.

I almost completely agree with you Bettina. The exception is that the time where we could do anything for them is probably long past. The weaponry is not the issue. Pakistan is a Moslem country and has had nuclear capability for decades. They are probably the source for Iran's technology.
On the other hand only one hundred years ago in the United States a wife was listed among a man's good and chattels, a woman had no vote, could not own property, and the dress code of the day would not allow any show of ankle or even arm. Bathing attire (swim suits) were full coverage neck to ankle.
The changes in the last century are almost beyond belief, maybe some day changes like that will arrive in the Moslem world.

I understand and I've seen those photographs showing those women covered head to toe in a swimming outfit, but the one distinguishing characteristic that set them apart from Islamists is that we were smiling and were allowed to swim. Thats the difference.

Times changed and we voted but we were never beaten to a pulp or stoned to death for trying. Those changes won't happen to Muslims as you can see by Iran pushing themselves back into the sharia laws.

Bettina

Woodchip- Most of the things we hear about as Islamic dogma come not from the Koran but from the Sunnah which is the source of Sharia law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah

I found the article below on the BBC today. An elderly Jew recalls his life as a young boy in Iraq.

\"We used to eat with them, sleep with them, go to school with them, the Arabs and the Jews went to the same high school.

\"We never thought of who was Jewish and who was Arab, until 1947. It all suddenly changed. The people that you knew as good people turned into bad people for you and you became bad for them. It was very sad.\"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6611667.stm
Remember at the time this man lived side by side with Arabs the Christian Nazis were exterminating Jews.

I guess that part of the world is only occasionally screwed up.

Bet51987 wrote:

Behemoth wrote:I agree with their dress codes, and just because us americans are spoiled with priveledges doesn't mean you should think every culture in the world should be that way.

This just shows you don't know the difference between culture and systematic oppression. Not one clue.

http://www.payvand.com/news/07/may/1033.html

You didn't get the impression from this article, that the moral police are strugling and a change is afoot? That's the impression it gives me. I've also seen documentarys that indicate the same thing, a growing mass of disident. I saw underground modern artists and musicians. I think as long as Iran's education system stays the way it is, they will continue to get better.

roid wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:

Behemoth wrote:I agree with their dress codes, and just because us americans are spoiled with priveledges doesn't mean you should think every culture in the world should be that way.

This just shows you don't know the difference between culture and systematic oppression. Not one clue.

http://www.payvand.com/news/07/may/1033.html

You didn't get the impression from this article, that the moral police are strugling and a change is afoot? That's the impression it gives me. I've also seen documentarys that indicate the same thing, a growing mass of disident. I saw underground modern artists and musicians. I think as long as Iran's education system stays the way it is, they will continue to get better.

Yes, I did see the struggle but it will be crushed. The Islamic religion is fast growing, powerful, and plays on the weak... Your point about the educations system is a good one, but it can work both ways.

This morning...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18544314/

Bettina

Will Robinson wrote: Did your sunday school teacher ever tell you god will reward you with 17 virgins for your pleasure and you would live forever at his side if you go blow yourself up to kill a jew?!?
Certain words indeed!

changes include removing or adding parts. you should have already known that.

Ford Prefect wrote:Will please don't forget that the Nazis were Christian. We are only 60 years removed from the gas chambers.
And don't forget that the Serbs are the Christian faction and the Albanians in Kosovo are the Moslems. The ethnic cleansing was conducted by the Serbs. As was the slaughter of up to 6000 Moslem men and boys in Srebernica.

The Nazi's and Hitler were not the product of religious conditioning. Any culture will produce a murderous bastard and from time to time one of them may come to power.
That's a different situation than a culture that for thousands of years has taught hatred to everyone born into it!
Germany was not full of countless generations of people brought up believing the arian race was superior, believing people who followed any other religion than theirs were not deserving of basic human rights and that exterminating other races was an acceptable tactic in the quest for dominance over the planet!

Yes all races and religions and countries have the ability and occasion to commit horrendous acts. I guess that is a part of the human condition. But most civilized countries and/or religions do not still cultivate and promote the horrible ways of their ancestors....some do. That is the difference you are refusing to acknowlege.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: Did your sunday school teacher ever tell you god will reward you with 17 virgins for your pleasure and you would live forever at his side if you go blow yourself up to kill a jew?!?
Certain words indeed!

changes include removing or adding parts. you should have already known that.

Ferno I think I made it pretty clear that I acknowlege both christian and islamic clerics interpret their respective books to forward an agenda. That manipulation is not the issue I'm railing against. It's the agenda that is the difference.

It's like this:

Will says - "The islamo-fascists use religion to create hatred and fuel their terrorist camps with willing assassins"

Ferno says - "Christians use religion to advance their agenda too."

To which Will says - "There is a big difference in what they are trying to accomplish, a difference in the two agendas which is the important part of this discussion"

And Ferno returns with - "But the Christians use religion too"

To which I say - So what's your point?!?

Ford Prefect wrote:By the way Will. Did Pres. Bush ever deny he said those things to Abbas? I can't find a denial anywhere although I am sure as you say those were not his exact words.
As for advancing the "Christian agenda" I suppose his choice of supreme court appointee will have the greatest effect.

I don't know. Has anyone asked him?
I'm guessing he tried to speak to them in a way that they might relate to. He probably said something like he has faith in god and his faith gives him the strength to do the right thing when he's making the hard decisions like going to war. Maybe he said he knows freeing thousands of oppressed Iraqi's would please god....that he felt god in his heart etc.

The point relevant to this conversation is, he doesn't execute his duties according to the bible or the approval of a bunch of religious leaders who make sure he doesn't stray from their interpretation of what god wants. If anything he represents the church of the republican branch of the two headed political party (a much more devious religion to be sure).
And appointing Justice Roberts to the bench is a far cry from creating a theocracy or stealth theocracy like the ones that rule the Islamic governments like Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. etc. Even if Roberts is a Christian stooge, which is yet to be determined, Supreme Court justices do not make the law, a secular body of elected representatives in congress do that. didn't we just have one of those elected congressmen, a Muslim, swear his oath on a Koran?!? Try that with a Christian and a bible over there!

I find this whole attempt to equate fundamentalist Christian influence and agenda on American government with the fundamentalist Islamic influence and agenda on Iranian government a silly baseless rationalization.

Will Robinson wrote:
It's like this:

Will says - "The islamo-fascists use religion to create hatred and fuel their terrorist camps with willing assassins"

Ferno says - "Christians use religion to advance their agenda too."

To which Will says - "There is a big difference in what they are trying to accomplish, a difference in the two agendas which is the important part of this discussion"

And Ferno returns with - "But the Christians use religion too"

To which I say - So what's your point?!?

My point is, it doesn't matter what religion it is.. people with the lust for power will use whatever they have at their disposal as a means of obtaining and holding onto that power.

BTW: it's quite refreshing to actually discuss something and move forward with no need to jump into the mud instead.

I find this whole attempt to equate fundamentalist Christian influence and agenda on American government with the fundamentalist Islamic influence and agenda on Iranian government a silly baseless rationalization.

Your right there. I'm not trying to equate the two but I am pointing out that there is much more danger of the Christian right gaining control of the politics of the U.S. and changing the laws of the U.S. to reflect their agenda and thus to restrict the freedoms of the citizens than there is of a foreign nation doing it. The image of evil empires surrounding a nation at bay serves to strengthen the case for the Christian right making the U.S. seem a nation in danger of being overrun and enslaved.
I am also trying to point out that it has only been in the last 60 years that Islamic countries have become a hotbed of unrest and conflict. There are about 2000 years of history conflict between the mid east and the west and both sides have been the aggressor at times.

Ford Prefect wrote:it has only been in the last 60 years that Islamic countries have become a hotbed of unrest and conflict.

No, it's been pretty much since the founding of Islam. It's only in the last 60 years that we've started to recognize it again. They had a bit of a lull between maybe 1850 or so and WWII, but Islam has always been militant and always been aggressive. (Sometimes it hasn't appeared that way to the West only because the violence is so often between sects.)

Yes Lothar but it was the Christians that organized the Crusades. It was the Christians that drove the Moors out of Iberia (Spain) in the 15th century and then purged the country of \"heretics\" (read Jews and Moslems) with the Inquisition.
I am not defending Islam as a religion. I don't like it. But don't pretend that the rest of the human race has not been involved in the bad stuff.

Ford Prefect wrote:it was the Christians that organized the Crusades. It was the Christians that drove the Moors out of Iberia....

People love bringing up the Crusades as a Christian war of aggression without referencing the growth of the Caliphate through Islamic aggression in the 350 years prior. You place the blame on the Christians for "organizing" the crusades without even acknowledging that they were merely a phase in a war that had been going on for 350 years.

If you look at Christian (or Buddhist or Hindu or whatever) history, you find some religious/cultural/political wars, as well as some periods of substantial peace. If you look at Islamic history, you find constant warfare. Everyone has been "involved in the bad stuff", but Islam has the bad stuff at its core. Look at the life and teachings of Jesus, Buddha, the unknown founders of Hinduism, and Mohammed, and this becomes clear.

It's true that both sides have gone "on the offensive" in the war of civilization vs. Islam (not merely "the west vs. Islam") but that doesn't mean both sides are equal or both sides are equally to blame. Both England and Germany went on the offensive during certain parts of WWII, but that does not make them equally culpable. Christians, Buddhists, and many others have been the aggressors when fighting Islam, but that doesn't make them equally to blame. Muhammed and those who follow in his militant footsteps are primarily at fault.

It seems like Islam has been the aggressor for only the past 60 years simply because "Old Europe" had such a degree of military superiority and a willingness to use it from about 1800 onward, and there were no convenient Western targets for the Islamic world to attack. When large Islamic armies tried stuff in the mid 1800's they tended to be on the business end of superior firepower, so they didn't generally get very far. Once Israel was founded, there was again a convenient target. The West maintains military superiority, but is far more restrained in its use (IIRC no Western country sent troops to conquer any Islamic country between WWII and Afghanistan.)

Lothar wrote: Christians, Buddhists, and many others have been the aggressors when fighting Islam, but that doesn't make them equally to blame. Muhammed and those who follow in his militant footsteps are primarily at fault.

Please clarify when and where 'Buddhists' went on the offensive.

Lothar:
Try this list from Fred Reed's column
Moslem Wars

There follows a list of Christian countries I can think of that have been conquered by Moslems since the Industrial Revolution:

On the other hand, to the best of my admittedly weak historical understanding, the following Islamic countries have been conquered by Christians: Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Chad, Pakistan, Bangla Desh, Libya, Indonesia, Yemen, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Kyrgyz, Kazakhstan, Somalia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan, to name a few. On various occasions Christians have tried to conquer Afghanistan, but with no better luck than they deserved.

Note: Christians he says but not as you mentioned Western Countries since you probably don't count England as Western.

Bettina: If you can I strongly recommend you find a copy of Honeymoon in Purdah by Allison Wearing
Honeymoon in Purdah.
A young Canadian woman forged a wedding certificate with a young man she met travelling in Europe so they could tour Iran. They covered for each other, he for her since a single woman could not travel alone in Iran and she for him since as a gay man his sexuality put him at risk of a theoretical death sentence.
The book shows the good the bad, the right and the wrong of Iran. You will get an idea of the life led by Iranian women of all different social levels Most of all though you will be impressed by the constant generosity of the Iranian people.

Will: Did you ever get a chance to read House of War?

Ford Prefect wrote: Moslem Wars

There follows a list of Christian countries I can think of that have been conquered by Moslems since the Industrial Revolution:

On the other hand, to the best of my admittedly weak historical understanding, the following Islamic countries have been conquered by Christians: Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Chad, Pakistan, Bangla Desh, Libya, Indonesia, Yemen, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Kyrgyz, Kazakhstan, Somalia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan, to name a few. On various occasions Christians have tried to conquer Afghanistan, but with no better luck than they deserved.

Note: Christians he says but not as you mentioned Western Countries since you probably don't count England as Western.

And what, in context, did Christianity have to do with any of these purported conquests?

Cops: the Il-Khanate (around 1200 IIRC) established Buddhism as the state religion and was fairly oppressive to Muslims. More recently, Japan -- with its strange religious mix including a fair bit of Buddhism -- did that whole "Pearl Harbor" thing.

Doesn't mean Buddhists are bad people, or that Buddhism itself is to blame. Just shows that war has been a part of every culture, despite the fact that neither Jesus nor Buddha taught people to go to war. But, of course, war is more a part of some cultures than others -- Muhammed taught people to fight, so those who follow him tend to do so.

Ford Prefect wrote:There follows a list of Christian countries I can think of that have been conquered by Moslems since the Industrial Revolution

As I mentioned, since the Industrial Revolution, the West has had a striking technological advantage (and it had that whole "colonialism" phase wherein the West conquered basically everyone. And yes, England is part of the West.) There haven't been any Islamic countries capable of conquering any country in the West since then. There have been plenty of Islamic acts of aggression, just none resulting in conquest. Limiting the list to "conquest" conveniently obfuscates this simple point:

Islam has been aggressive and militant CONSTANTLY since it was founded, BECAUSE it was founded upon aggressive and militant philosophy. Most other religions and non-religious political philosophies have had times of war and times of peace (with the exception of Fascism.)

Now, this doesn't mean every Muslim is a bad person, and it doesn't mean Christianity or Democracy or whatever else is all magic pink ponies and butterflies. All it means is that Muhammed spread his religion through aggression (and deception -- Taqqiya and such) and many of those who've followed in his footsteps do the same... and we would do well to take them seriously and take them at their word, instead of manufacturing excuses for them. We'd do well to understand that they're following what Mohammed said and did, rather than pretending Islamic aggression is a new phenomenon caused by Israel or US bases in Saudi Arabia or whatever. Those things certainly make things worse, but they're not the core issue we should be looking at.

Lothar wrote:Cops: the Il-Khanate (around 1200 IIRC) established Buddhism as the state religion and was fairly oppressive to Muslims.

...and then converted to Islam oppressing the Christians and Buddhists in the area.

Lothar wrote:More recently, Japan -- with its strange religious mix including a fair bit of Buddhism -- did that whole "Pearl Harbor" thing.

Hirohito was Shinto.

Lothar wrote:Doesn't mean Buddhists are bad people, or that Buddhism itself is to blame. Just shows that war has been a part of every culture, despite the fact that neither Jesus nor Buddha taught people to go to war. But, of course, war is more a part of some cultures than others -- Muhammed taught people to fight, so those who follow him tend to do so.

Please stop trying to drag 'Buddhists' into the conversation because Christians and Muslims are on a whole... nuva... level when it comes to warfare, violence, genocide, and oppression.

Good try though.

TheCope wrote:

Lothar wrote:Cops: the Il-Khanate (around 1200 IIRC) established Buddhism as the state religion and was fairly oppressive to Muslims.

...and then converted to Islam oppressing the Christians and Buddhists in the area.

Yep. Your point?

Hirohito was Shinto.

Yep. Which makes Japan about as Buddhist as many of the "Christian" countries that conquered Muslim countries in Ford's list a few posts ago. The religion is a part of the culture that went to war, but not particularly to blame for it.

Please stop trying to drag 'Buddhists' into the conversation because Christians and Muslims are on a whole... nuva... level when it comes to warfare, violence, genocide, and oppression.

Now you know how I feel when people decide to drag Christians into the conversation. I'll stop with the unnecessary Buddhist-dragging if the rest of you stop with the unnecessary Christian-dragging. Because, honestly, neither Christians nor Buddhists particularly belong in this conversation except in contrast to Islam.

Jesus taught peace; Buddha taught peace; Muhammed taught conquest. People claiming to follow Jesus and Buddha have engaged in war from time to time, sometimes offensively and sometimes defensively. I don't know enough of Buddhist history to be able to say how many wars they've been involved in, but I do know it's more than zero and less than Islam. Islam is on a whole nother level. That's been my whole point here -- Muslims have a history of virtually uninterrupted warfare because their founder taught it. We absolutely MUST understand that if we're going to understand the conflict that's going on today.

Lothar wrote:Jesus taught peace; Buddha taught peace; Muhammed taught conquest. People claiming to follow Jesus and Buddha have engaged in war from time to time, sometimes offensively and sometimes defensively. I don't know enough of Buddhist history to be able to say how many wars they've been involved in, but I do know it's more than zero and less than Islam. Islam is on a whole nother level. That's been my whole point here -- Muslims have a history of virtually uninterrupted warfare because their founder taught it. We absolutely MUST understand that if we're going to understand the conflict that's going on today.

Kinda fair. But!

Are you sure you CAN understand the Koran if you don't understand the Arabic language? Metaphor runs amok in all religious texts I've read and technically you are supposed to read the Koran in Arabic.

Crescent moons, bigass swords?

I don't know what it means. I don't think someone strapping themselves with dynamite and ball bearings knows what it means either.

Are you sure that was what Muhammad was teaching? I think you should be careful with that one.

I don't blame Jesus for the Ku Klux Klan; but those delusional freaks sure believe the origin of their unbridled hatred is from the Bible.

Basically, you have to learn fluent Arabic to be able to claim "Muslims have a history of virtually uninterrupted warfare because their founder taught it."

You are smarter than I am and I found that statement to be dumb.

Muhammad himself lead the slaughter across Africa. He started out as well intentioned, but it didn't last long when he was told to take a hike. (that's a paraphrase)

I don't disagree that Islam and Sikhism are both \"aggressive\" teachings. Christ and the Buddha taught that this world was not worth fighting over where other religions such as Islam and Sikhism teach that it is your duty to defend your religion. Christianity was bent into that type of thinking at various points in history as a reaction. For example the forced conversion of over a million Moslems in Iberia at the hands of the Inquisition.
On the other hand you cannot ignore that conflict requires two sides and the Christian side has not been above ignoring what Christ taught and picking up the sword. And this is becoming more and more one of those times in history. In the U.S. Your evangelical, born again, Christian President has started a pre-emptive war that has all the trappings of an assault against a religious group since all of the other reasons have proven to be trumped up nonsense.
This thread started when Bettina bemoaned the fate of women and girls under the oppressive hand of Islam. We have as usual gotten a bit sidetracked. I worry that Bettina and other American women are being manipulated in the most common direction of propaganda during war time. That of demonizing the enemy so that when tens of thousands of civilians die as collateral damage it doesn't matter much because \"Well they are really awful people aren't they. Not really like us at all.\" The truth is they are very much like us. Mother's love their children and most want to live in peace and prosperity. That is why I strongly recommend Honeymoon in Purdah. No sugar coating of the bad but you see the humanity of the Iranian people.
When I point out the faults of the \"Christian\" nations it is not really about Christianity since things like the Inquisition were surely never in Christ's plans. It is just to point out that people are people no matter what God they worship and all are capable of both wonderful and terrible things.

Duper wrote:Muhammad himself lead the slaughter across Africa. He started out as well intentioned, but it didn't last long when he was told to take a hike. (that's a paraphrase)

I'll be sure to get all my historical knowledge from the descentBB's Duper in a paraphrase for now on. Do you see how this filtering through 'teachers' can twist things? Nah! You would never be that irresponsible!

Hi Ford.... No, I didn't read that book. School books come first but I just might sneak it in. However, I don't feel manipulated but I have to believe in some source. So I believe every photo taken by journalists of what life was like for women and girls under the Taliban and I'm glad we invaded.

Although I don't have a problem with the Iranian people, I do have a problem with Iran, its opression of girls, and the Islamic religion in its entirety which I feel is the number one threat for life on this planet... especially if your a female.

And, as far as Christians in politics? Three of the republican presidential candidates don't believe in evolution. Geez.. how dumb is that?

This is all interesting reading, but digging up the past does not help change the present and thats the big problem. I'm going to take flak here but I hope the next president of the U.S. is as strong as Bush when it comes to seeing what Islam is capable of doing.

Bettina

“You and I are laying the foundation for a world led by Islamists,” Farfour squeaked on a recent episode. “We will return the Islamic community to its former greatness, and liberate Jerusalem, God willing, liberate Iraq, God willing, and liberate all the countries of the Muslims invaded by the murderers.”

Children called in to the show, many singing Hamas anthems about fighting Israel.

Farfour is the name of a mickey mouse lookalike puppet character on Hamas TV teaching jihad against infidels to little kids.
It was pulled once the west got a video of it but you can bet it wasn't the first or the last time the little muslims were being programmed.
Now does anyone want to tell me this is no different than christian influence on americas youth? Who knows, maybe I just haven't seen that Christian hate-programming channel on cable. Maybe I just missed the episode where the Flying Nun carpet bombs the pilgrims at prayer in mecca.
I guess if we are really the same then Jerry Falwell is going to have to start producing Sesame Street episodes where he and Big Bird rally little kids to gear up for the coming Crusades...
Que Winnie the Pooh singing: \"Oh bother, kill the Muslims, every one until there are no more...\"

google 'Militant Mouse' if you want to know what the hell I'm talking about....
Make it quick, CNN is already censoring it in their usual fashion, it won't be long before YouTube censors it as well.

TheCope wrote:

Duper wrote:Muhammad himself lead the slaughter across Africa. He started out as well intentioned, but it didn't last long when he was told to take a hike. (that's a paraphrase)

I'll be sure to get all my historical knowledge from the descentBB's Duper in a paraphrase for now on. Do you see how this filtering through 'teachers' can twist things? Nah! You would never be that irresponsible!

yeah... have fun with that.

TheCope wrote:Are you sure you CAN understand the Koran if you don't understand the Arabic language?

I don't speak Hebrew or Greek, but I pretty solidly understand the Bible. Metaphor runs deep, but metaphors can be explained by translators. None of us has a problem saying things like "Jesus taught people to be selfless" despite the fact that He taught it in a different language, because the teaching is pretty clear, and His actions agree. The same is true for Muhammed's teachings and actions.

It's tremendously insulting to Buddha and to his followers when someone engages in conquest and oppression in his name. Historically, it has happened on occasion, but that's not what he was about and that's not what his followers are about.

It's tremendously insulting to Jesus and to his followers when someone engages in conquest and oppression in his name. Historically, it has happened on occasion, but that's not what he was about and that's not what his followers are about. (As Ford said, the Christian side has not been above ignoring what Christ taught.)

Muhammed engaged in conquest and oppression, and he taught people to use deception and trickery against the unbelievers. His followers have constantly done the same in his name. I think it's fair to say that is what he was about.

Your evangelical, born again, Christian President has started a pre-emptive war that has all the trappings of an assault against a religious group

... well, only an assault on Muhammed's true followers (the religion Bush calls "radical Islam" and I call "true Islam".) The people who claim the name but don't do the deeds aren't a problem. It's those who engage in conquest and oppression -- the Taliban, Saddam, Al Qaeda, and hopefully Hamas and Hezbollah -- who we've gone to war with, on behalf of all civilization.

Bettina bemoaned the fate of women and girls under the oppressive hand of Islam.... I worry [she's] demonizing the enemy

It is of course important to be aware that most of the Iranian people are not true followers of Muhammed in the way I've described it (in fact, the Iranian public is among the most secular in the middle east.) The same goes for most Iraqis, Egyptians, Saudis, and so on. Most people are just good people who want to live their lives, take care of their families, and do what they've been told is right. Most people don't want conquest and oppression, they just want to live in peace with their families. This goes for everybody from tribal Africa to Georgia (either) to Canada to Iran to North Korea.

I wish there was an easy way to separate the crazy Iranian leadership and support structure from the mostly sane Iranian people. But, just like in Iraq, the only way to do it is one by one. That's why this war is destined to be long and ugly.

Actually Will what you want is an episode of \"Veggie Tales\" where they sing cute songs while burning witches.
If you haven't caught any \"Veggie Tales\" videos you should. They are the Christian answer to... I don't know... Ren and Stimpy?
http://www.bigidea.com/

wow cope.. breath a little. You're turning blue.

bottom line: no one's perfect. No GROUP of peoples are perfect.

You missed what Lothar said. Neither Buddhism nor Christianity originally taught aggressive behavior with the intent of conquest. Muhammad did. Both Christianity and Buddhism have it's blights on history. I think that Buddhism was brought in because it's a major religion.


I work with an older woman from Iran a number of years back. She told me that Terran, the capitol, that houses a college that teaches radical Islam. She also told me that most don't hold to that ideology and that they (the students of the college) were crazy.
*edit*

uh.. did someone blow that post away?

I'm not sure if Bhudda is referred to as comming back to earth in some huge ego battle, wearing bloody clothes and a huge sword ready to kill ppl.
Jesus though? yeah, that's him. Woop de doo for the kind of peace.

Duper wrote:uh.. did someone blow that post away?

x2

I did not blow any posts away. I didn't even see the post being referenced.

roid wrote:wearing bloody clothes and a huge sword ready to kill ppl.

There's a lot of strange apocalyptic text in Revelation (including the four horsemen, angels of death, God's wrath, the beast, and other things.) Trying to understand any of it in a vacuum is a bad idea.

The "huge sword" you reference (in Rev 20) comes "out of his mouth". So either he's fighting in some weird mouth-ninja style, or there's something symbolic, perhaps relating to his words piercing through people and destroying their ideas. The robes could be covered in the blood of others, or in his own blood -- and which it is really changes the symbolism!

Recall the "good theology / bad theology" pics I've put up on occasion:


Pretty much anybody who tries to do theology by interpreting the symbols in Revelation is doing bad theology, cult-style. Since you grew up in a group I consider to be a cult, it's no surprise that you'd remember some bad theology.

I don't know enough details of Buddhism to know if there are any weird "Buddha the mouth-ninja" texts. But I do know enough details of Christianity to know that the things Jesus taught clearly, certainly, over and over again were things like repentance, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and peace, and that you have to go to really obscure teachings with weird symbolism to get anything different. And I know enough details of Islam to know that Muhammed led armies, slaughtered innocents, entered into treaties when he was at a disadvantage that he broke immediately when he gained the advantage, and taught people that it was OK to lie and cheat and backstab for Islam. You don't need to go to obscure passages to find that stuff.

Lothar wrote: Recall the "good theology / bad theology" pics I've put up on occasion:


Pretty much anybody who tries to do theology by interpreting the symbols in Revelation is doing bad theology, cult-style.

Ah, excellent point! Are you a (partial/orthodox) preterist by any chance?

Firewheel wrote:Are you a (partial/orthodox) preterist by any chance?

I hold the view that you should only be as certain of your viewpoints as is appropriate -- if your support looks like the picture on the right, you shouldn't hold any strong conclusions whatsoever. Therefore, with respect to end-time prophecies, I'm extremely uncertain. I haven't studied Revelation carefully and in-depth, and I don't think such a study would justify me holding opinions as strong as many people seem to. I think it's possible Revelation might be symbolic of events that have already passed, or events that might happen in the future. There's not sufficient detail for me to have formed a "strong" opinion one way or another.

I happened to be reading about things that suck about evangelism earlier today. While I don't agree with everything he said, #4 was right on the money:

Ask a non-believer to give a rudimentary explanation of "the Rapture" and chances are they can provide a fairly accurate description of that concept. Ask the same person to give a basic explanation of the Gospel message, though, and they are likely to be stumped. The reason for this curious state of affairs is that evangelicals have promoted what I refer to as "Tribulationism" -- an overemphasis on eschatology that overshadows the Gospel. I'm sure that somewhere in the three dozen novels that comprise the Left Behind series the Gospel message is presented. But there is something horribly wrong when the greatest story ever told is buried beneath a third-rate tale of the apocalypse.

The gospel is presented clearly, over and over again in many different ways. We're separated from God by our selfishness, or "sin". Jesus died in a way that mirrored religious symbolism of cleansed sin and then rose back to life, demonstrating that God had provided us with the opportunity to be forgiven. Jesus taught that we should trust God to forgive us and to bring us into His kingdom, and that trusting God would lead us to live like He wants us to live. That's something I hold a pretty certain viewpoint on.

And then there's this one verse about Jesus with a sword coming out of his mouth, and a whole bunch of stuff about trumpets and kingdoms and beasts and Babylon. I don't think I'd be justified in saying "oh yeah, I know exactly what that's all about because it's so clear and obvious."

Lothar wrote:I don't know enough details of Buddhism to know if there are any weird "Buddha the mouth-ninja" texts. But I do know enough details of Christianity to know that the things Jesus taught clearly, certainly, over and over again were things like repentance, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and peace, and that you have to go to really obscure teachings with weird symbolism to get anything different. And I know enough details of Islam to know that Muhammed led armies, slaughtered innocents, entered into treaties when he was at a disadvantage that he broke immediately when he gained the advantage, and taught people that it was OK to lie and cheat and backstab for Islam. You don't need to go to obscure passages to find that stuff.

the bloodthirsty Abrahamic God of the Christians slaughtered millions.

Bhudda wasn't into that ego trip murdering ★■◆●