Religion Topics On These Forums

[MyPurpleCrayon]

Yeah I guess I can, I've already done it about sixteen times so why not.

 

 

 

You need to ask? I know Muslims have experience of getting their point across.

 

This is where you stereotyped them Shadow, and this is what I was responding to. Nothing more.

 

 

 

Are we done yet?

[Faux]

And how is that stereotyping them as extremists?

[MyPurpleCrayon]

And how is that stereotyping them as extremists?

 

I never said it was. The only time I even used the word extremist was when I said "There are extremists and every group." You might be confusing Locke and me.

 

 

 

 

 

Besides, you've drifted off from my one and only point. It's wrong to make a generalization about a group of people and then use it against someone when you're arguing. That's all I was saying. You kinda turned it into something more.

[Faux]

I just don't like how you're accusing me of stereotyping every Muslim out there. It goes against everything I was taught :|

[MyPurpleCrayon]

I just don't like how you're accusing me of stereotyping every Muslim out there. It goes against everything I was taught :|

 

 

 

Dude, when you say something like "You need to ask? I know Muslims have experience of getting their point across." It kinda makes it hard for me to interpret it any other way.

 

 

 

Do ya understand what I'm saying?

[Satenza]

How come when I have a three page debate about morality with somone people always are like "Will you two shut up!" now what Shadow and MyPurpleCrayon go at it for like 4 pages about whether or not he was refering to extremists or not, having the same posts time and time again no one says a damn thing.

 

 

 

Anyway, "I know Muslims have experience of getting their point across" i would see refering too terrorism and all that jazz. However since this is all about semantics i will say you did stereotype Muslims in as much as you said refered to them in a generalized way for something that was not neccessarily bad AKA protesting. Someone take a middle ground here, and one of you admit that Shadow didn't actually call anyone extremists in a general way, but he did generalize them as protesting.

 

 

 

But anyway. Whats the first paragraph about!

[Faux]

I just don't like how you're accusing me of stereotyping every Muslim out there. It goes against everything I was taught :|

 

 

 

Dude, when you say something like "You need to ask? I know Muslims have experience of getting their point across." It kinda makes it hard for me to interpret it any other way.

 

 

 

Do ya understand what I'm saying?

 

 

 

Yeah. I was really pointing out at "protests." Violence didn't even come up in my mind :|

 

 

 

If I really wanted to insult, I would've posted WTC crashing down or something :?

[Bubsa]

How come when I have a three page debate about morality with somone people always are like "Will you two shut up!" now what Shadow and MyPurpleCrayon go at it for like 4 pages

 

Probably because you'd question whether there's morals into having a poo. You're a walking discussion.

[warri0r45]

How come when I have a three page debate about morality with somone people always are like "Will you two shut up!" now what Shadow and MyPurpleCrayon go at it for like 4 pages

 

Probably because you'd question whether there's morals into having a poo. You're a walking discussion.

 

 

 

Ahh, the most revered philosophical question since how to define what makes something beautiful: when to cut the cable.

 

 

 

To cut the cable, or not to cut the cable; that is the question (and so on and so forth, insert joke here yada yada). :XD: :P

[Ambassadar]

I gave you military interventions starting from 1950s and you're still crying about that.

 

 

 

If USA has bombed the birth places of their religion for decades,

 

 

 

You said they had been BOMBING the birth places of their religion for decades and then proceed to give examples of interventions that were NOT in the birthplace of Islam(Saudi Arabia) that DID NOT have any bombing prior to 1991 which IS NOT 20 years so it is NOT decades which means your statement IS wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

Rightful owners? First of all Jerusalem has had countless of owners, including Romans.

 

According to that logic the US should be an owner of Iraq now and be able to make a legitimate claim in the future to why they should own the country and the oil. The Soviet Union should also claim to have a right to own Finland now since they controlled your country for a while. I mean how dare we say a certain people have a right to own a country if others have owned it at some point even if only momentarily in the grand scheme of things...

 

 

 

Second, it's the holy place of 3 big religions. Saying one religion would be its rightful owner is just wrong.

 

I didn't say one religion should be it's rightful owner. All I said is one religion should NOT be it's rightful owner. Two of those religions were existing together peacefully before that third religion decided to militarily take over. If I invent a religion and then go take a city does that give me a right to it as well if I call it holy?

 

 

 

You also didn't give an answer why Christians attacked against other religions which weren't even close to Jerusalem, didn't do any religious imperialism and so on?

 

Actually I did...

 

Let's see... the first Crusade never would have happened except people of a certain religion decided to go conquer all their neighbors and kill any resistance and take their land. Then all of a sudden it is bad if other people come and attack those militant people of a certain religion for doing what they did?

 

 

 

I agree there was some screwy stuff going on with certain Crusades. Look at what happened to Constantinople. The difference is people at times have tried to exploit Christianity for their own selfish ends but the fundamental texts of Christianity condemn this as wrong. The fundamentalist texts of Islam support any warlike aggression that is waged. I don't get why you are having a problem understanding this point.

 

I only defended the reasons for the first Crusade being declared. I admitted some of the Crusades were completely wrong and gave the Constantinople example.

 

 

 

We got into Japan after you were praising the way how west has threatened other cultures and how it was so superior.

 

It is a superior culture. If it wasn't then why does everyone want to move to Western nations to get Western freedoms that were created from Western culture? Why is it always Western nations giving money to help out non-Western nations? Why are Western nations leading the world in science? Why are Western nations the ones that ended slavery, gave women the right to vote, gave women equal rights, gave black people equal rights, created Republics and Democracies, etc etc? Western culture produced all of those things and more, hence it is superior.

 

 

 

Please read Joshua 4 or Samuel 15 for example and you get something about war from your own holy book.

 

I have read those and you will notice that it is in the Old Testement and is what God specifically told the Israelites to do at that moment to nations that were sacrificing their children to idols and other crazyness. Notice how it was not a overall command of always kill everyone that isn't Jewish. It was an order to attack a specific country to play out God's judgment on that country. You will also notice if you keep reading the Bible that when the Israelites turned away from God he allowed the exact same thing to happen to them and their whole nation would be taken off into slavery. Also notice in the Bible when an overall command of how to treat others is given then it says to treat people with love. It never says to go around converting people at the end of a sword.

 

 

 

So now we're putting Christian extremists and muslim extremists into 2 different categories.

 

Christian extremists(by this I assume you mean anyone killing others to convert them or punish them for not being Christian) first of all aren't actually Christians. If they were they wouldn't be doing what they did. Second point is the foundational texts of Christianity condemn Christian extremism as wrong and last point is other Christians openly condemn their actions.

 

 

 

Muslim extremists are praised by other Muslims and their foundational texts support their actions.

 

 

 

Because of this then yes, they are in two different categories.

 

 

 

And all the time you are arguing against that principal. By judging muslims and accepting their different threatening in airports for example, you already have put them into 2nd category.

 

If Americans started making militant comments about Finland saying we were going to destroy Finland if you don't become the 51st state and then some Americans that weren't in the military killed over 3,000 Finnish people and then other Americans tried to do stuff in the same way the first Americans killed all those people did and Americans back in the USA cheered when your people died and didn't condemn it and called for the deaths of more of your people wouldn't you have a problem with America and Americans? Would you feel the need to search French people when it was only America doing all of this? Would you feel the need to search Finnish grandmothers like they are some kind of suspect that is going to blow up a building? Would you pull little Finnish girls to the side and search them?

 

 

 

That is what is happening here because no one has the guts to say that it is only Arab Muslims that are doing all this stuff. Can that change in the future? Yes. As of right now the majority by far conducting terrorism against the US, Great Britain, Spain, etc is Arab Muslims. Is there a reason to search Chinese or Australian or any other people at this point? No. If those people or grandmothers or little girls started blowing stuff up then I would say sure, go ahead and search them but until that point comes it is stupid and pointless to do so.

 

 

 

I accept defending against other nations when you are being under attack with another army. That's why I have given support for Iraq for example.

 

Iraq had broken the peace treaty from the Gulf War over and over and over. They had fired on US planes patrolling the zones established in that peace treaty repeatedly. When a peace treaty gets broken then that means the war continues. If you will remember Iraq started the Gulf War by invading a smaller country. The problem with all of this is Bush was an absolute idiot in the way he tried to drum up support for the war and completely missed the true reasons we should go to war in Iraq. To me it is all about upholding our peace treaties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How many muslim nations declared a war against you?

 

Afghanistan pretty much did. When you openly support training terrorists in your country for their sole purpose of attacking another country then that is equivalent to declaring war on the second country. Like I said before Iraq was over their breaking our peace treaty which is an invitation to resume the war.

 

 

 

it doesn't mean you would be in same kind of a danger as when over 50 times bigger country waged a war and sent their troops over your boarder.

 

On a side note you are exaggerating big time right here. Iraq as of 2006 had a population of 26,783,383. The US at the same time had a population of 298,444,215. That's only about 11 times bigger which means you are off by about 450%.

 

 

 

If you were talking about land area then 9,161,923 sq KM for the US and 432,162 SQ KM for Iraq which means the US is 21 times larger. You were only off 240% this time. :P

[hohto]

You said they had been BOMBING the birth places of their religion for decades and then proceed to give examples of interventions that were NOT in the birthplace of Islam(Saudi Arabia) that DID NOT have any bombing prior to 1991 which IS NOT 20 years so it is NOT decades which means your statement IS wrong.

 

 

 

In Finnish we got a saying f-ing the dot. You're doing it at the moment. I gave you military interventions, I gave you a link for more and you still aren't happy. You just keep crying about that. OK, took me 30 secs to look at the link I posted:

 

* Air strikes to Libya in 1986.

 

* Bombing Iran in 1987

 

* 2 Libyan jet sets shot down 1989.

 

 

 

Is that enough of bombing to you or will you do a bit of that dot thing? If you now somehow still get to argue that airstrike doesn't count for this, you can forget the whole argue about this.

 

 

 

According to that logic the US should be an owner of Iraq now and be able to make a legitimate claim in the future to why they should own the country and the oil. The Soviet Union should also claim to have a right to own Finland now since they controlled your country for a while. I mean how dare we say a certain people have a right to own a country if others have owned it at some point even if only momentarily in the grand scheme of things...

 

 

 

My point was that Jerusalem has had too many owners and is too important and general place for many religions that it's impossible to say who is the rightful owner.

 

 

 

Btw earlier you told me to go read my history books again. Now I tell it to you: how long was Finland under the reign of Soviet Union? We've been an autonomic part of Russia and got our independency 5 years before whole Soviet system was even found. We didn't have a war against Russia to get our independency, but we had 2 wars against the Soviet Union to keep our independency. How should the Soviet Union have had the reason to claim our lands? TBH we should actually claim some areas back we lost in wars, after all they were part of autonomic Finland during the reign of Sweden, during the reign of Russian, during the first decades of our independency and for centuries they have been the property of Finnish tribes.

 

 

 

I didn't say one religion should be it's rightful owner. All I said is one religion should NOT be it's rightful owner. Two of those religions were existing together peacefully before that third religion decided to militarily take over. If I invent a religion and then go take a city does that give me a right to it as well if I call it holy?

 

 

 

From your text at least I get the feeling that you support the power of one in Jerusalem. And for your peacefulness with jews... What happened in Iberia in 1492? What about the persecution of jews in 1400th century?

 

 

 

You also forget that during the times when muslims conquered Jerusalem, they didn't convert anyone else than arabs to islam, at least not forced to join the same way how christians forced people to turn into christians just few centuries ago.

 

 

 

I only defended the reasons for the first Crusade being declared. I admitted some of the Crusades were completely wrong and gave the Constantinople example.

 

 

 

When I get into the crimes made by christians, you hide under an excuse of "well first crusade..", start crying about which should be called bombing, do they bomb exactly right place and so on. Now I'm asking you: Do you accept the things your forefathers did? Can you explain why they did it? Do they have anything to do with your religion? Which is worse, a terrorist group hijacking a plane and riding it to wtc killing some thousands, or the headmaster of religion sending troops to kill hundreds of thousands?

 

 

 

It is a superior culture. If it wasn't then why does everyone want to move to Western nations to get Western freedoms that were created from Western culture? Why is it always Western nations giving money to help out non-Western nations? Why are Western nations leading the world in science? Why are Western nations the ones that ended slavery, gave women the right to vote, gave women equal rights, gave black people equal rights, created Republics and Democracies, etc etc? Western culture produced all of those things and more, hence it is superior.

 

 

 

Why is it so superior? Because they got economical and military power which are from the imperialist-coloniast times. At the moment it's economically better for non-western countries to adapt into their system and live with them than follow their own path.

 

 

 

If you ask me, cultures should stay as individuals, not convert or be converted into one massculture.

 

 

 

I have read those and you will notice that it is in the Old Testement and is what God specifically told the Israelites to do at that moment to nations that were sacrificing their children to idols and other crazyness. Notice how it was not a overall command of always kill everyone that isn't Jewish. It was an order to attack a specific country to play out God's judgment on that country. You will also notice if you keep reading the Bible that when the Israelites turned away from God he allowed the exact same thing to happen to them and their whole nation would be taken off into slavery. Also notice in the Bible when an overall command of how to treat others is given then it says to treat people with love. It never says to go around converting people at the end of a sword.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christian extremists(by this I assume you mean anyone killing others to convert them or punish them for not being Christian) first of all aren't actually Christians. If they were they wouldn't be doing what they did. Second point is the foundational texts of Christianity condemn Christian extremism as wrong and last point is other Christians openly condemn their actions.

 

 

 

So christians some decades ago weren't real christians? The Pope wasn't real christian? Btw as you're so much into that acceptance of killing in islam, please find me the chapters from Koran where it is allowed. I tried to, but couldn't find any.

 

 

 

Muslim extremists are praised by other Muslims and their foundational texts support their actions.

 

 

 

They are so much praised that every muslim I know judged the riots agaist the "mohammed pics" if you remember that case. In that case they didn't accept the pictures, but even less accepted the riots against them.

 

 

 

If Americans started making militant comments about Finland saying we were going to destroy Finland if you don't become the 51st state and then some Americans that weren't in the military killed over 3,000 Finnish people and then other Americans tried to do stuff in the same way the first Americans killed all those people did and Americans back in the USA cheered when your people died and didn't condemn it and called for the deaths of more of your people wouldn't you have a problem with America and Americans? Would you feel the need to search French people when it was only America doing all of this? Would you feel the need to search Finnish grandmothers like they are some kind of suspect that is going to blow up a building? Would you pull little Finnish girls to the side and search them?

 

 

 

Again, that would be a country vs country. If your goverment gave support to it, it would be same as Pearl Harbour was to you. If it went into a full America vs Finland war, I wouldn't be surprised if some suicide bombers came. After all they are surprisingly good way for psycological war against an enemy which is a lot stronger. Also most likely after your troops took over Finland same way you took Iraq, you wouldn't lose 3,000 troops in 6 years. You would lose a lot more; we got a lot stronger military than Iraq, we got over 300,000 man reserve and around 90% of finnish men have gotten at least 6 month military training before the age of 25. We wouldn't have just some random bandits shooting every now and then, we would have an organised military.

 

 

 

That is what is happening here because no one has the guts to say that it is only Arab Muslims that are doing all this stuff. Can that change in the future? Yes. As of right now the majority by far conducting terrorism against the US, Great Britain, Spain, etc is Arab Muslims. Is there a reason to search Chinese or Australian or any other people at this point? No. If those people or grandmothers or little girls started blowing stuff up then I would say sure, go ahead and search them but until that point comes it is stupid and pointless to do so.

 

 

 

What caused this terrorism? Why are they attacking only certain nations. Look at your politics and you might find the answer.

 

 

 

Iraq had broken the peace treaty from the Gulf War over and over and over. They had fired on US planes patrolling the zones established in that peace treaty repeatedly. When a peace treaty gets broken then that means the war continues. If you will remember Iraq started the Gulf War by invading a smaller country. The problem with all of this is Bush was an absolute idiot in the way he tried to drum up support for the war and completely missed the true reasons we should go to war in Iraq. To me it is all about upholding our peace treaties.

 

 

 

By accepting I meant the newest war in Iraq, not the Gulf War.

 

 

 

Afghanistan pretty much did. When you openly support training terrorists in your country for their sole purpose of attacking another country then that is equivalent to declaring war on the second country. Like I said before Iraq was over their breaking our peace treaty which is an invitation to resume the war.

 

 

 

I agree that you got the right to do something for stopping the support of terrorists there. For the doings of Iraq, I'd say they were more like playing with fire than actively going for war.

 

 

 

On a side note you are exaggerating big time right here. Iraq as of 2006 had a population of 26,783,383. The US at the same time had a population of 298,444,215. That's only about 11 times bigger which means you are off by about 450%.

 

 

 

If you were talking about land area then 9,161,923 sq KM for the US and 432,162 SQ KM for Iraq which means the US is 21 times larger. You were only off 240% this time. :P

 

 

 

To experience the same as we did, you shouldn't compare it that way. We got attacked by a bigger nation. 50 Times bigger (now talking in population) would mean 14,922,210,750 in your case if that 298m is true. If you managed to survive from 2 wars against a nation which is that big and ahead of you in military technology, I'll bow to west every morning I wake up.

 

 

 

Note that the Soviet Union even tried to fake it in a way that Finland would have attacked them. Internationally this try was judged immediately and later Yeltsin for example has stated that the cannonballs actually came from their side. For more info on this you can read about the shelling of Mainila. Wikipedia for example has a short (too short imo) info on that.

[Locke]

You said they had been BOMBING the birth places of their religion for decades and then proceed to give examples of interventions that were NOT in the birthplace of Islam(Saudi Arabia) that DID NOT have any bombing prior to 1991 which IS NOT 20 years so it is NOT decades which means your statement IS wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

In Finnish we got a saying [bleep] the dot. You're doing it at the moment. I gave you military interventions, I gave you a link for more and you still aren't happy. You just keep crying about that. OK, took me 30 secs to look at the link I posted:

 

* Air strikes to Libya in 1986.

 

* Bombing Iran in 1987

 

* 2 Libyan jet sets shot down 1989.

 

 

 

Is that enough of bombing to you or will you do a bit of that dot thing? If you now somehow still get to argue that airstrike doesn't count for this, you can forget the whole argue about this.

 

 

 

Notice the area I bolded. I believe that is the problem. He is specifically asking about bombings where Islam began (Saudi Arabia) and you continue to give him bombings and other countries.

 

 

 

I think you would be less irritated at him if you read his post a little more accurately. Clearly he wants examples from Saudi Arabia, and you gave him 3 examples from countries that are not Saudi Arabia. Why would you think that would the criteria of his question?

[hohto]

Notice the area I bolded. I believe that is the problem. He is specifically asking about bombings where Islam began (Saudi Arabia) and you continue to give him bombings and other countries.

 

 

 

I think you would be less irritated at him if you read his post a little more accurately. Clearly he wants examples from Saudi Arabia, and you gave him 3 examples from countries that are not Saudi Arabia. Why would you think that would the criteria of his question?

 

 

 

I'll quote myself from this thread:

 

 

 

I meant the birth place in a larger scale: the area where it has evolved into what it is now, spread and so on. If you still don't get it, it's the Near East.

 

 

 

Sorry if I used wrong words, but at least I corrected it once. Now I'm doing it 2nd and hopefully last time. Even after my last correction he kept crying about the word decade, how different actions shouldn't count for the word "bombing" and so on.

[Locke]

Notice the area I bolded. I believe that is the problem. He is specifically asking about bombings where Islam began (Saudi Arabia) and you continue to give him bombings and other countries.

 

 

 

I think you would be less irritated at him if you read his post a little more accurately. Clearly he wants examples from Saudi Arabia, and you gave him 3 examples from countries that are not Saudi Arabia. Why would you think that would the criteria of his question?

 

 

 

I'll quote myself from this thread:

 

 

 

I meant the birth place in a larger scale: the area where it has evolved into what it is now, spread and so on. If you still don't get it, it's the Near East.

 

 

 

Sorry if I used wrong words, but at least I corrected it once. Now I'm doing it 2nd and hopefully last time. Even after my last correction he kept crying about the word decade, how different actions shouldn't count for the word "bombing" and so on.

 

 

 

I know that you said that, but it seems pretty clear to me that he is rejecting that definition of "birthplace," as it is not such.

[Ambassadar]

If you want to say the US has bombed a few of the early conquests from the first Muslim Crusade (that lasted for centuries pretty much nonstop and began in 630) because they have been engaged in terrorism(Libya, Iran and Afghanistan), kidnapping(Iran), murder(All of them) and rape(Iraq) then I will agree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So christians some decades ago weren't real christians? The Pope wasn't real christian?

 

If he was declaring people to be murdered or convert then no he was not a Christian. Same goes for the inquisitors in Spain and whoever else you want to add.

 

 

 

Why is it so superior?

 

You completely ignored everything I said about all the freedoms and rights that were granted to people that have been oppressed for centuries by Western Culture.

 

 

 

If you ask me, cultures should stay as individuals, not convert

 

What about cultures where they would raid other villages to support their need for meat because they were cannibals? What about cultures that said murder all the Jews? What about cultures that thought the Chinese were dogs to be killed? What about cultures that think anyone not of their religion is a Kuffar and is scum?

 

 

 

I am not advocating they all join some mega culture. I am just saying they need to change their culture in whatever way they want to get rid of the bad stuff like murdering people.

 

 

 

Which is worse, a terrorist group hijacking a plane and riding it to wtc killing some thousands, or the headmaster of religion sending troops to kill hundreds of thousands?

 

You forgot one option.... or the FOUNDER of a religion leading his troops to conquer, murder, and extort everyone that wouldn't follow his brand new religion.

 

 

 

Like I said before I don't support Christian leaders supporting wars in terms of anything to do with Christianity like "the Bible says to go convert these people or kill them." The reason is the Bible never says anything like that so if someone says something like that they are making it up and you know they aren't following Christ. They are distorting Christianity for their own whims.

 

 

 

I do support the idea of the first Crusade. Islam had been conquering everyone and extorting money/converting/or killing them for the past 450 years prior to the first Crusade. They were already advancing up into Europe. Something had to be done or else everyone would have come under the yoke of Islamic power. The first crusade was a reactionary move to Islamic aggression.

 

 

 

They are so much praised that every muslim I know judged the riots agaist the "mohammed pics" if you remember that case. In that case they didn't accept the pictures, but even less accepted the riots against them.

 

I'm glad to hear that. As individuals you will see Muslims condemn things but I saw very few leaders come out and condemn terrorist acts or the riots or other stuff. I guess I should clarify that is what I meant. Sorry if my original statement was misleading.

 

 

 

Again, that would be a country vs country.

 

What if it was Male Anglo-Saxon Christians doing these acts of terror instead of Americans in my example. Would you feel the need to search your grandmother or little sister at an airport like they might be a terrorist if it was only Male Anglo Saxon Christians perpetrating these crimes?

 

 

 

By accepting I meant the newest war in Iraq, not the Gulf War.

To me they are one and the same because the second one started because of the broken peace treaty from the first one.

 

 

 

For the doings of Iraq, I'd say they were more like playing with fire than actively going for war.

 

When a country breaks a peace treaty that is an act of war. Hitler is the only other person I can think of in near history that so flagrantly violated a peace treaty. Do you think the world would have been a better place if England, France, the US, and Russia had enforced their treaty at that time when he first broke it?

 

 

 

As to the last part I love reading about the Winter War. The Finns were awesome in that war and did an amazing job. *cheers Finland*

[hohto]

If he was declaring people to be murdered or convert then no he was not a Christian. Same goes for the inquisitors in Spain and whoever else you want to add.

 

 

 

So old popes weren't real christians?

 

 

 

Why is it so superior?

 

You completely ignored everything I said about all the freedoms and rights that were granted to people that have been oppressed for centuries by Western Culture.

 

 

 

Do we have real freedoms or just illusional freedoms?

 

 

 

What about cultures where they would raid other villages to support their need for meat because they were cannibals? What about cultures that said murder all the Jews? What about cultures that thought the Chinese were dogs to be killed? What about cultures that think anyone not of their religion is a Kuffar and is scum?

 

 

 

I am not advocating they all join some mega culture. I am just saying they need to change their culture in whatever way they want to get rid of the bad stuff like murdering people.

 

 

 

If this culture imperialism was only against so primitive tribe cultures that human meat is still at their menu, I wouldn't really care. However what about peaceful cultures which have been demolished and converted into something else?

 

 

 

You forgot one option.... or the FOUNDER of a religion leading his troops to conquer, murder, and extort everyone that wouldn't follow his brand new religion.

 

 

 

Muslim invasion hasn't been as bad as chrstian invasion. Like I told you, it wasn't a must for non-arabs to become muslims. What about the Pope giving his amen for crusades?

 

 

 

Like I said before I don't support Christian leaders supporting wars in terms of anything to do with Christianity like "the Bible says to go convert these people or kill them." The reason is the Bible never says anything like that so if someone says something like that they are making it up and you know they aren't following Christ. They are distorting Christianity for their own whims.

 

 

 

Just like islam, in texts it is a peaceful religion. In reality...well...

 

 

 

I do support the idea of the first Crusade. Islam had been conquering everyone and extorting money/converting/or killing them for the past 450 years prior to the first Crusade. They were already advancing up into Europe. Something had to be done or else everyone would have come under the yoke of Islamic power. The first crusade was a reactionary move to Islamic aggression.

 

 

 

First might be understood, I agree on that. However, it was nowere near the only one. On 4th they for example even took over a christian city called Zara.

 

 

 

What if it was Male Anglo-Saxon Christians doing these acts of terror instead of Americans in my example. Would you feel the need to search your grandmother or little sister at an airport like they might be a terrorist if it was only Male Anglo Saxon Christians perpetrating these crimes?

 

 

 

If this was the case, I would rise the security level on every types of people.

 

 

 

started because of the broken peace treaty from the first one.

 

 

 

Peace treaty which pretty much killed thousands of innocent civilians, including a lot of children.

 

 

 

When a country breaks a peace treaty that is an act of war. Hitler is the only other person I can think of in near history that so flagrantly violated a peace treaty. Do you think the world would have been a better place if England, France, the US, and Russia had enforced their treaty at that time when he first broke it?

 

 

 

Comparing Hitler to Hussein is like comparing Bush to Alexander the great. Hitler had publicly said what he'll take, he for sure had real intentions to get a lot of international power and so on. Hussein wanted strategic materials and his army wasn't nothing compared to the army of Germany just before WW2.

 

 

 

The best thing would have been to stop Hitler immediately as the history has shown.

[Ambassadar]

So old popes weren't real christians?

 

If any "Christian" leader advocates conversion at the point of a sword then no they aren't a real Christian.

 

 

 

 

 

Do we have real freedoms or just illusional freedoms?

 

Now you are just playing word games. Can you be an athiest openly and have equal protection under the law? Is a woman's testimony equal to a man's? Do you have the right to arm yourself? Do you have the right to pick whatever job you wish to do? Can you vote? Do you have a right to trial by jury? I don't think these things are illusions.

 

 

 

Sure we can play word games about fine points of the law but compare Finland to Afghanistan under the taliban and you tell me if you think you have more freedoms.

 

 

 

However what about peaceful cultures which have been demolished and converted into something else?

 

I never said anything about trying to change everyone to Western Culture. All I said is I felt Western Culture was a superior culture. If someone wants to be another culture and it doesn't involve enslaving or killing anyone then go for it.

 

 

 

Muslim invasion hasn't been as bad as chrstian invasion. Like I told you, it wasn't a must for non-arabs to become muslims.

 

Actually... Four years after the death of Mohammad this is what was happening...

 

AD 632ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[hohto]

If any "Christian" leader advocates conversion at the point of a sword then no they aren't a real Christian.

 

 

 

So you're telling me that old Popes weren't real christians.

 

 

 

 

 

Now you are just playing word games. Can you be an athiest openly and have equal protection under the law? Is a woman's testimony equal to a man's? Do you have the right to arm yourself? Do you have the right to pick whatever job you wish to do? Can you vote? Do you have a right to trial by jury? I don't think these things are illusions.

 

 

 

The best way to make people believe in something is to show them one part and hide the another. Is it freedom that you can't deny holocaust for example in Germany? You can deny whole ww2 but not holocaust. Is it freedom that woman priests are still a taboo in some branches of the christian church? Is it freedom that in presidential elections I can only vote for those who have been chosen by the parties?

 

 

 

Sure we can play word games about fine points of the law but compare Finland to Afghanistan under the taliban and you tell me if you think you have more freedoms.

 

 

 

We do have more freedoms, but like you said, I like playing word games ;p

 

 

 

You answered on quotes to some of my questions. I'll now put some quotes too.

 

 

 

During the ten years that Muhammad led his followers against the Meccans and then against the other Arab tribes, Christian and Jewish communities who had submitted to Muslim rule were allowed to worship in their own way and follow their own family law, and were given a fair degree of self-government

 

 

 

And if anyone of the MushrikÃÆÃâÃâûn (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of AllÃÆÃâÃââh) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of AllÃÆÃâÃââh (the Qur'ÃÆÃâÃâân), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not. (Quran 9:6)

 

 

 

Most of the new subjects were Christian or Jewish, and considered People of the Book. (After some argument, the Zoroastrians were considered People of the Book as well). Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians were called dhimmi, protected peoples. As noted above, they could worship, follow their own family law, and own property. People of the Book were not subject to certain Islamic rules, such as the prohibitions on alcohol and pork, but were subject to other restrictions.

 

 

 

They were not subject to forced conversion. In fact, under the first caliphs and the Ummayad dynasty, conversion was discouraged.

 

 

 

Then lets get to Bible...Instead of long quotes I'd ask you to read this link about the violence in bible. You can read almost every holy book in a way you want and find things which allow, cheer for or at least accept violence. In my opinion it's hypocritical to flame koran while you follow bible.

 

 

 

Even Grandmothers and little girls?

 

 

 

You were talking about freedom earlier. If you put people into different categories, you are throwing away one freedom. And also if you ask me, every person should be checked properly if there was a chance of something happening. No matter is it a 7-year-old girl, 28-year-old arab or my 72-year-old grandmother.

 

 

 

If Saddam had the money to rebuild his military and build scores of lavish Palaces then he had the money to help feed his people. He chose not to.

 

 

 

And your international sanctions didn't play a role? Drugs for example can't be created out of sand, infrastructure was bombed back to the stoneage and so on. Also the military of Iraq hasn't been anything too great after the gulf war. Might have been big, but not modern or motivated.

 

 

 

I guess I didn't make the point I was trying to convey clear enough. The point is when you allow people to flagrantly violate your peace treaties then it encourages and emboldens them and others to continue the same actions in the future and get bolder and bolder until it becomes apparent that when the peace treaty was originally broken it should have been dealt with because it would have been a lot easier to handle the situation at that point rather than later.

 

 

 

A peace threaty should be done in a way that doesn't totally aim for destroying the country. It's no wonder that WW1 peace treaty failed on Germany and yours on Iraq; they were unhumanly done. Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

 

UNICEF has put the number of child deaths to 500,000

 

Would you follow a peace treaty which causes half million child deaths? Heck that's almost 10% of our whole population. You can read more about your unhumane sanctions from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions for example. Please give me one good reason why Iraq should have followed that?

[Locke]

Is it freedom that in presidential elections I can only vote for those who have been chosen by the parties?

 

 

 

Sorry, but this just struck me as odd. Do you not have write-in ballots where you live?

[hohto]

Sorry, but this just struck me as odd. Do you not have write-in ballots where you live?

 

 

 

My point was that in last American elections you had to chose either Bush or Kerry. The ones which are more or less chosen by their parties. We at least had 7 in our last elections and all from different parties.

[Locke]

Sorry, but this just struck me as odd. Do you not have write-in ballots where you live?

 

 

 

My point was that in last American elections you had to chose either Bush or Kerry. The ones which are more or less chosen by their parties. We at least had 7 in our last elections and all from different parties.

 

 

 

That is absolutely incorrect. Not only was there more than just Bush or Kerry on the ballot but you also have the freedom to write in any candidate you want. I would ask you to please not claim to have knowledge about political systems you very clearly do not.

[highlanders]

Peope don't talk about the other religions because there's not a lot of people here who come from places where they practise those religions. I think it would be interesting to talk about the other religions, but not a lot of people got any knowledge to get a topic going. Besides, there is always that bunch of christians who are going to bring up christianism again. Forget about talking about other religions, they're taking all the space.

[Ambassadar]

 

So you're telling me that old Popes weren't real christians.

 

 

 

I already answered this. I'm not going to go through it Pope by Pope. If there were any "Christian" leaders ever anywhere at any time that said to convert people at the end of a sword then they weren't Christians. That goes completely against what Jesus taught.

 

 

 

Time for all your quotes now. Did you notice a recurring them of them. They were how non Muslims were supposed to be treated AFTER THEY WERE CONQUORED.

 

 

 

 

During the ten years that Muhammad led his followers against the Meccans and then against the other Arab tribes, Christian and Jewish communities WHO HAD SUBMITTED TO MUSLIM RULE were allowed to worship in their own way and follow their own family law, and were given a fair degree of self-government

 

 

 

How nice...

 

 

 

 

 

Most of the new subjects were Christian or Jewish, and considered People of the Book. (After some argument, the Zoroastrians were considered People of the Book as well). Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians were called dhimmi, protected peoples. As noted above, they could worship, follow their own family law, and own property. People of the Book were not subject to certain Islamic rules, such as the prohibitions on alcohol and pork, BUT WERE SUBJECT TO OTHER RESTRICTIONS.

 

 

 

 

Let's take a look at those restrictions of Dhimmi's in Muslim society.

 

 

 

The status of dhimmi was one of legal and social inferiority

 

Dhimmi communities were subjected to the payment of taxes in favor of Muslims ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã