Frank Turek:

 

 

 

http://crossexamined.org/

 

 

 

 

Lmao Christian kids are leaving the faith because they run into atheism and liberalism. This guy is brilliant, where does he come up with this stuff?

That excerpt I posted isn't isolated to that "rag." I read the same thing in a textbook provided by my school. (Note that I'm a product of the Canadian educational system, not American.) The only reason why I posted that is because it was readily accessible. But point is, that isn't made up by these authors.

 

 

 

Not to mention that you completely ignored my other argument vs. "inherently peaceful religion" - the Sunni/Shia split.

 

Frank Turek:

 

 

 

http://crossexamined.org/

 

 

 

 

Lmao Christian kids are leaving the faith because they run into atheism and liberalism. This guy is brilliant, where does he come up with this stuff?

 

 

 

Oh noes! The kids are READING BOOKS! How DARE they!?!?!

 

 

 

People like him are afraid of the population being educated so that they can form their own opinions about topics, so they have to use hate and fear to bring people to their literal translations and interpretations of the Bible/Qur'an/Torah. It's so sad. Yes, people are leaving the faith because of atheism. It has NOTHING to do with what they see as a twisted and backwards way of preaching what Jesus and Muhammad preached.

I think they should -just like any other kind of radicalism- just [bleep] off

 

honestly,is blowing yourself up,killing dozens of people a good way to convert people to your belief? :?

That excerpt I posted isn't isolated to that "rag." I read the same thing in a textbook provided by my school. (Note that I'm a product of the Canadian educational system, not American.) The only reason why I posted that is because it was readily accessible. But point is, that isn't made up by these authors.

 

 

 

Not to mention that you completely ignored my other argument vs. "inherently peaceful religion" - the Sunni/Shia split.

 

 

 

I didn't ignore it, it was an irrelevant argument because Islam IS inherently peaceful, just as Christianity is. I was arguing that Muhammad did not spread faith by violence, not that his later sons kept to how he preached.

 

 

 

Come to think of it, while it says that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible, it pays no mention to anything regarding demonizing them and denying them rights. I have also read translations that say it is not homosexual sex that is the sin, but ritualistic homosexual sex. That's something for another time, though.

 

 

 

My sources say the opposite, my sources have many awards for their work, with few criticisms. Armstrong's criticisms:

 

 

 

For Karen Armstrong history does not exist. It is putty in the hands of the person who writes about history. You use it to make a point, to do good as you see it. And whatever you need to twist or omit is justified by the purity of your intentions and Karen Armstrong always has the purest of intentions.

 

Karen Armstrong is not innocent, and manages to do a great deal of harm, careless or premeditated harm, to history. Too many people read that she has written a few books, and assume, on the basis of nothing, that she must know what she is talking about and some of the nonsense sticks. And perhaps an enraged professor or two bothers to dismiss her, but mostly this is how the vast public, in debased democracies, learns its history today

 

--Hugh Fitzgerald

 

 

 

He's the author of this:

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

I mean, really?

 

 

 

The other criticism is this:

 

 

 

The Israeli historian Efraim Karsh, head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College London, characterizes Armstrong's biography of Muhammad as "revisionist" and inaccurate. He calls her treatment of the controversial issue of the Banu Qurayza tribe in her Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time "a travesty of the truth".

 

 

 

To rectify this would require reading from more sources than just hers, which has been done.

When you let go of your inane attraction to authors, come back to me when you have arguments to these two points:

 

 

 

How Muhammad's action on invading Mecca can be considered self-defense

 

 

 

And if Islam is inherently peaceful, why did the Sunni/Shia, the two largest denominations of Islam, split occur causing bloodshed on both sides and still has connotations to modern times

When you let go of your inane attraction to authors, come back to me when you have arguments to these two points:

 

 

 

How Muhammad's action on invading Mecca can be considered self-defense

 

 

 

And if Islam is inherently peaceful, why did the Sunni/Shia, the two largest denominations of Islam, split occur causing bloodshed on both sides and still has connotations to modern times

Regaining what was first his/revenge on the traitors?

 

(just a guess)

I feel I should pay more attention to my own threads.

 

But, Muslims...yeah, it's a sense of gaining back something that they have felt that they have lost, and that thing (their religion, which defines EVERYTHING about them) is more precious than the lives of the people who are trying to destroy that for them.