UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
does that go for muslims too then?
Donald Trump
- Thread starter MrStickyScissors
- Start date
- Status
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
Oh come off it. If Anders Breveik isn't a "real Christian," then Sayeed Farook isn't a "real Muslim." If the KKK aren't "real Christians," then Daesh isn't "real Islam." The argument that "people committing horrendous acts are not real Christians [but if a Muslim does it he's a real Muslim]" is one the stupidest most illogical thing I've read. It's a huge double standard.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
If it goes against their teachings than yes. They would be considered backwards or false.
There are different types of muslims.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
I never said if a Muslim does it he is a true muslim.
It is an assumption of yours that I distrust all muslims.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
Most of you make assumptions instead of asking.
FauxRoux
Well-Known Member
You're absolutely right, assumptions are being made. some fair, some unfair.
But...in the name of being fair.
If you play devils advocate about a semantic argument its common sense that people will assume you're taking the opposite points stance. That should be obvious. I don't think it poor form to make that assumption and if you don't want it taken that way you should declare your actual stance from the start.
Otherwise it COULD be constrewn as backtracking. Which the church practically invented.
2. Sunday school is not a religious education. Its indoctrination. Cite your theological education and the university its from and then you and I can talk about "education on religion". I have a minor in history and a bookshelf full of theology on MANY denominations. The beliefs that drive people are fascinating and diverse.
The "word" of Jesus was written over a span of 1500 yrs by over 40 authors and was edited down like a carved up turkey by Emperor Constantine in the 4th century (this is a point of fact by the way...Vatican scholars even agree on it) Why? Because it was fiscally viable, helping centralize power in a time of economic downfall.
So technically one could argue that the Koran only having 1 version is a more "valid" interpretation of the word of God then the bible....same for the gospel of Judas or Mary. This doesn't disprove your faith...or detract from it I imagine. Nor should it, I suppose.
Anyway....getting into a debate about the validity of religious text is asinine. 1 is not BETTER or more correct (despite what they tell you at service when that donation cup starts getting passed around). It will always come down to the personal message taken by the individual.
Peoples expression of religion is in fact a huge indicator as to the nature of the individual, not necessarily the religion.
If you want to tell me Jesus is about love and Mohammad isn't and turn it into justification for not helping refugees or to discriminate people?
OK...nothing against Christians but that individual is an asshole and a bigot.
If you simply want to live IN our wonderfully diverse world sharing a happy, healthy life with all, despite what any 1 passage in your holy text says and regardless of which religion it comes from?
You're probably like the other majority of rational people on the planet and I'll likely be glad to know you.
In most cases the unspoken or "interpreted" ideals of a religion (which generally change slowly over time as a society evolves) are merely pretense for an individual or community to rationalize and validate socially accepted prejudices.
The current "argument" isn't about the perceived validity or semantic debate as to certain passages in either the bible or Koran (as Lord Kanti would have us believe). He made a comparison that Jesus never ordered a death but Mohammad did. Lord Kanti would like us to believe that making this comparison does not insinuate an underlying meaning or prejudice.... and who knows, maybe he just interjects comments to troll and ISN'T a bigot. Doesn't really matter.
The point is Lord Kanti's comparison is leading and a clear example that Muslims are frequently believed to be violent by nature as a result of their religion. This is a social prejudice being exploited through faith. Maybe not BY the church specifically but let's face it...they haven't run their own show in this country for a loooong time. Just like they didn't run the show back when Constantine (and company) decided what Christian faith should be comprised of to better benefit the empire.
Last edited:
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
They are violent based on their track record as they use their twisted version of Islam to justify their insatiable thirst to murder innocents who don't follow the Islamic Herd.
It is what it is. Has nothing to do with some pie in the sky crap of "social prejudice".
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
They are violent based on their track record as they use their twisted version of Christianity to justify their insatiable thirst to murder innocents who don't follow the Christian Herd.
It is what it is.
FauxRoux
Well-Known Member
The fact that you're using "us vs them" terms clearly shows you dont get it. There are Muslims and there are Muslim extremists. If you dont see a distinction or the parallel with other faiths then you're actively choosing not too.
It has nothing to do with utopian ideals. You even said...
doesn't that imply that there can be more then 1 interpretation?
Boiling down a complex international situation spanning economic, social and religious issues into a simple "us vs them" soapbox is ignorant, shortsighted and lazy.
But hey, whatever makes you feel safer I guess. Knock yourself out. I prefer to think objectively.
Last edited:
Lord Kanti
Well-Known Member
Except that Mohammad committed horrendous acts. Try again.
Lord Kanti
Well-Known Member
>Twisted
You don't have to twist anything. Deception and murder are tools that regularly come up in Islam as Mohammad utilized them regularly and preached for their utilization.
Lord Kanti
Well-Known Member
https://archive.is/JoHUZ
I never heard of this poster child. I stopped watching MSNBC and switched to CNBC for my stock news. Since I stopped day trading I haven't watched either in a very long time.
Apparently he claimed Islamophobia kept him on the no fly list, yet he was arrested abroad along with others for operating within an ISIS terror cell.
I never heard of this poster child. I stopped watching MSNBC and switched to CNBC for my stock news. Since I stopped day trading I haven't watched either in a very long time.
Apparently he claimed Islamophobia kept him on the no fly list, yet he was arrested abroad along with others for operating within an ISIS terror cell.
FauxRoux
Well-Known Member
I think you're confused. You aren't an authority on other peoples moral interpretations. You dont set the bar we need to reach to prove something.
Why dont YOU prove that Muslims are inherently violent as a result of Muhammad's teachings as opposed to simply violent like any other group.
See how that works?
You are using the Koran/Bible comparison to validate a fallacious viewpoint.
So again... YOU prove that Muslims are inherently violent as a result of Muhammad's teachings as opposed to simply violent like any other group. As that IS what you are saying by your comparison.
Well gosh...since you cant...by you're logic im right (regardless of whatever the answer im implying is)
TAUTOLOGY: (a sub-category of circular argument) defining terms or qualifying an argument in such a way that it would be impossible to disprove the argument. Often, the rationale for the argument is merely a restatement of the conclusion in different words.
Anyway...It strikes me that if 1 of 2 groups teaches peace but neither follows the teaching, to then use it to argue some sort of moral distinction is pretty ridiculous.
Last edited:
Lord Kanti
Well-Known Member
You still want to say that the word "YES" is open to interpretation....I think you're confused. You aren't an authority on other peoples moral interpretations. You dont set the bar we need to reach to prove something.
Why dont YOU prove that Muslims are inherently violent as a result of Muhammad's teachings as opposed to simply violent like any other group.
See how that works?
You are using the Koran/Bible comparison to validate a fallacious viewpoint.
So again... YOU prove that Muslims are inherently violent as a result of Muhammad's teachings as opposed to simply violent like any other group. As that IS what you are saying by your comparison.
Well gosh...since you cant...by you're logic im right
TAUTOLOGY: (a sub-category of circular argument) defining terms or qualifying an argument in such a way that it would be impossible to disprove the argument. Often, the rationale for the argument is merely a restatement of the conclusion in different words.
Anyway...It strikes me that if 1 of 2 groups teaches peace but neither follows the teaching, to then use it to argue some sort of moral distinction is pretty ridiculous.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Interpretations are irrelevant. Both books have used to justify horrible things throughout history.
Lord Kanti
Well-Known Member
Comparisons can be made about anything, regardless of what importance you personally attach to the subject at hand. Mohammad called for murder and deceit while Jesus Christ calls hate equal to murder and both being wrong. A member claims both religions teach the same thing, yet clearly they do not. Faux keeps trying to drag nearly 2 billion Muslims into this discussion while I'm comparing 2 men: Mohammad and Jesus Christ. My intent was to point out that these teachings are different and since not a single person can prove me wrong by quoting Jesus Christ ordering an assassination or ordering followers to kill non-believers, I stand correct.
Imply, over generalize, utilize every fallacy you can think of, but on multiple occasions Mohammad utilized deceit, murder, and taught Muslims that it is acceptable to lie. That is a key difference between the two teachings and your personal beliefs are once again irrelevant to the facts.
Fast food may not be healthy, but that doesn't mean different fast foods cannot be compared to one another. Your placed value on any given subject doesn't detract from their existence.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
If one is good (Christianity) and one is bad (Islam), then why do people kill innocent people in the name of both?
It would seem to me both are equally as bad as both of them promote an unverifiable narrative based on faith, not evidence
If Jesus only teaches good, then why have Christians throughout history committed the exact same things Muslims have?
Lord Kanti
Well-Known Member
If knives are used as eating utensils, then why have they been used as tools for people to stab one another with?
Cool fallacy game, Ahmed.
superloud
Well-Known Member
I don't get this argument Christianity isent about Jesus Christ it is about God and ther is alot of shit in the Bible that you get put to death for including not following god.
Lord Kanti
Well-Known Member
Christianity isn't about Christ? Do I need to post the definition again or has this generation forgotten how to read a dictionary?
- Status