US embassies attacked

I did not say that a particular religion openly promotes pedophilia but within the catholic Christian and other religions it is prevalent and yes i know that this happens in every day to day life but these people (priests etc) are the people that are supposed to be of a higher spiritual and morale standard to the rest of us they do say that they are the earthly representatives of God or so they say and therefore should be held at a greater standard they are constantly telling the us how we the people the children of god should be living our lives in a good and morale way that is pleasing to him, i think not this coming from a bunch of depraved hypocrites for their actions speak volumes, are you serious about religion denying scientific fact? the bible can be disproved scientifically time and time again.

Christian religions go in to uneducated countries and destroy their customs and cultural beliefs filling their heads with hell fire and brimstone, if you use contraception you will go to hell so the poor uneducated people out of fear have children that they can not feed or look after some die of disease some die of starvation some get Sold or taken into slavery not to mention stds.

Buddhism? OK the Dalai Lama and his disciples sit up their in their palace like royalty, no jobs doing nothing for the peasants while the poor starving peasants bow down and grovel to them worshiping and bringing them food, sure the Dali Lama talks allot of nice words.
 
I wanted to add some happy to the serious thread and I quite liked this

http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI

edit:
Example from the link
 
I don't really think that is an idol at all. He was still going to kill a man over a religious war.
 
A major point in Christopher Hitchen's book "God is not great" is that factions involved in violence are not labelled correctly or consistantly.
He uses the examples of NI and Bosnia/Serbia to show this.
 
I agree with that, but that isn't the perception on the international stage, that's the problem.

In regards to that book, I have a lot of holes to pick in it, but that isn't for this thread.
 
How do you know it was a "religious war". What if it was an early Islamic state in Mecca and Medina defending against the tribes of Quraish who didn't like this new religion, and Hazrat Ali was only defending himself (as it is anyone's right to) when attacked?

Would that be different?
 
Start a new thread, point me in the right direction, and I'll happily respond, but me going through this post on religion in general would derail the thread way too much and go into a different branch to what is currently on topic.
 
Amen.


Snarf



As for the IRA/Catholic connection, that is really not a good example to use. They are/were a political organisation first and foremost (particularly the Civil War era IRA), and the Catholic/Protestant dichotomy gets banded around as the lowest common denominator, making it all nice and simple so no-one need look any further.
 
If he was defending himself I honestly don't think he would wait. It wounds more like slaughter.

EDIT: As an aside, I would like to read the context.
 
@Razgriz in response to your post http://www.ihav.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1074671024&postcount=137 with the Sam Harris videos, my intial post about objective sources, and http://www.ihav.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1074671028&postcount=141 this post covers it. I'm not going to nitpick through two videos totalling around 8 minutes. I'm not sure if you're watching the videos either I'm not sure what exactly you would like me to address, was it the "conquering the world" part? If so my post talking about Sayyid Qutbs book Milestones would explain that aspect, as would the history of Islam, the Rashidun, and the book the letters of the Prophet, I won't go over it again, but would encourage instead of you taking my word on it, take a look at the sources instead of taking Sam Harris's point of view on it. Osama Bin Laden is giving a plausible view of the faith? Again, wrong, go back to the book Milestones, Wahabism. Have a read of an English Qur'an yourself. There isn't much point in me going through verses and giving you context, I've done that before in different threads. It's just too long winded.

@Gsham, I asked what you would like to discuss, so you can word the topic of the thread instead of me wording it in a fashion you may not like, so please go ahead and do so if you want to continue that sub topic.

@Llama, sorry yes it was the lowest denominator, but the most relevant in terms UK, international knowledge I could think of on the spot. It can be and has been argued that Al-Quadea etc, the attacks in Libya are also political in nature and not something one in the same or orchestrated by the same people, Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb-Ut-Tahrir, Hizbullah or otherwise. Thing is media would have most people believe that Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya all are one and the same because they fall under "dictators", Islam or the War on Terror. (Cold War anyone?)
 
Which is exactly why we shouldn't tacitly accept such ways of thinking by re-producing them. (anyway, this is a different conversation for another day!)
 
You think that only Muslims blow up buildings? Really?

Have you actually read any of the posts made by other people, or are you just going to keep repeating the same ill-thought-out ideas ad-nauseum?
 
I forget the exact names but there are a couple of good books on the "rise of Islam", history and "first battles of Islam" the Rashidun and so on.

Hazrat Ali was a follower of Muhhumad so similar in the sense of Disciples of Christ. So at the same time. During those original times, there were little to no battles or wars fought aggressively (there are a couple of provoked examples where they could be seen as the aggressors). Mostly defensively, this is where the term Jihad "struggle" originated, and this was at the time the Qur'an was still being formed. I think the particular battle in question is Uhud, I may be wrong, but IIRC, this is the one where Hazrat Ali played a prominent role, it may be the battle of Badr which was a bigger battle/war but that mostly makes light of Abu Bakr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Uhud
 
In the name of God yes. That is in recent history.
-----

Yes I have read the posts of the others who have contributed to this thread.

The conversation has advanced somewhat, I have been given some good material to look at which is great and I will look at it but amazingly I cannot do it by the time I reply to a new comment.


"ill-thought-out ideas ad-nauseum?"

Really?

All I have said is that I do not think warriorofanart was right to say who is and who was not a true Muslim, he dencounced that members of Al Shibab and ETA were.

Then CZ has come in and said something different.

My other point is and has been that, Islam does not claim to be a religion of peace but a lot of Apologists want to make this claim. I have shown some material by others, notably Sam Harris. Who through his research shows examples of were Islam is not peaceful at its core.

Apart from that I don't see much else areas of disagreement.
Though the Apostasy issue I do not think has been dealt with yet.
 
I don't think it's widely known these days that the IRA used to have a Shankhill Battalion that was made up of Protestants.
 
One of my main questions which I do not think was answered.

Is were, WOA and you CZ, see Islams place in a world view? Were is it going as a religion.

Do you see it as having no desire for the whole world to be Islamic?

Raz
 
All religions want to propagate and take over the minds of everyone. That is their function.
You are trying to make out that Islam is some special case. In fact it behaves almost like every other religion.

The Bear.
 
Back
Top