Interesting Statement by Annie2

Annie,

Do I have to keep reminding you on the "Glorious" Chapter of Joshua in The Holy Bible?  

Hadith material is full of stories like all of those in the Bible. There is no record of Prophet and Muslims attacking and raiding any people in the night, so you can please disregard that hadith.

Andalus wrote: Aquinian wrote: Andalus wrote: Aquinian wrote: Andalus wrote: Aquinian wrote: Well, to be frank, the Quran came 600 years after the time of Christ and yet it reads much like the Old Testament.  To paraphrase, "If this happens, stone this person."  "If that happens, pay this person 50 shillings."  I do not wish to blaspheme the Quran, but it is a regressive text, in terms of philosophical brilliance. You have made some errneous assumptions. 1) So if the Revelation to Moses came centuries after Noah, then the revelation to Moses is false because it was not the same as that to Noah, and soe not follow the philosophical specualtion of how Gd must work. 2) Perhaps we should compare your "philisophical assumptions" with your own theology. -Gd gives a series of commands to Moses -Christians have these commands in their bible, and the one (Jesus) they follow also followed them.  -Christianity is not given commands. They have now moved beyond Gd's law, and without any guidance, they have the "option" to create their own laws, 99% of the time is compeltely out of "convenience". This not an evolved progresion, this is called "pie in the sky" theology based upon the speculation of man. Aquinian wrote: Your faith should not read like a how-to manual - through the love of God, you should know what is right. So too bad for Moses, and Noah, and Jesus huh? A crack head ont he street gets a free ride with Gd but not Moses. Now thats certainly rational! So according to you, a religous manual should not read at all, excapet for a few ambiguous ideas, we can just be free to do whatever the heck we want! Nice. Sign me up! Aquinian wrote:   Christ uses figurative language, but it's not rocket science trying to figure it out.  Actually, rocket science is a lot easier than using the texts that your church has based its foundations on. Your texts support such a wide range of views about Jesus and his very nature. Not like rockte science? You are correct. Rocket science is way easier. This is due to the lack of any solid substance concerning what Jesus actually said and believed. Your faith is defined by men who never actually new him.   Aquinian wrote: I have a difficult time comprehending how the brilliance of Christ, the apostles, and Paul regressed so much with the texts of Muhammad.   I have always had a difficult time figuring out how people were duped into following "pie in the sky" theology that has no bases in the Hebrew Scriptures. Regression: Moses taught a law, followed the law, and told people they were able to follow it. Paul said the law was not important. The churc said we are incapable of following the law. Moses used the mitzvah to walk close to Gd. Paul taught that we only need to feel Gd. All of the prophets brought men close to Gd's law. Paul took men away from it. Moses taught to worship Gd alone, with any notion of a triune Gd. Paul set the foundations for one of the most wicked innovations ever: A Gd with three aspects. Moses brought forth truth. Paul distorted and even lied about the Hebrew Scriptures. Aquinian wrote:   600 years after Christ and he still couldn't get past the idea of "eye for an eye."  Jesus does away with it in favor of a higher understanding of how we treat our neighbor.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Actually, Christians inserted portions such as the adulteress woman. It is an added addition. Christian were left with nearly no guidance from Jesus, so they simply interpolated their own ideas and forged them into their own books. So the ideas that Jesus abolished the laws are based upon a fabrication, and trying to read personal conjecture into ambiguous verses. The Ebionites, Christians who rejected Paul, and thought of him as a lunatic, still followed the law, completely. How much of the commands thats houdl be followed was uncertain to your own eraly founders, who debated this. It required so much debate because of the lack of supporting evidence from Jesus. Aquinian wrote:  You would think Muhammad would have attempted to take something from the beauty of Christ's message. The Prophet addressed the core messages from the time of Jesus and beyond. What you mean is that he did not address what the church thought. aquinian wrote: Even if Jesus did say "I am God," you still wouldn't believe.  Irrelevant. The charge is this: You claim Jesus is Gd. An extraodinary claim. So I look for extraordinary evidence from yoru text. And it doeas not give the evidence required for the claim. Whether or not I believe it or not, is not relevant. Aquinian wrote:  He says that if you have seen Him, then you have seen the father.  What else do you need?  This kind of denial only indicates that you do not wish to say what you really think: Jesus' words in John are really not his words.  Say that instead of making this claim that Jesus had to say what you want him to say. You , like your church fathers, are forcing a single interpretation. Keep in mind that your complaint of a religion that has a "how to book", also carries with it "explicit" statements that define the faith, and defined what Gd wants you to do. Your book is full of implicit statements, and 99% of your proof texts are based upon implicit statements. The reason the church relies so heaviy on "implicit" statements is the very nature of such statements. This is from a reputable on line dictionary: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va =explicit Explicit 1 a : fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent <explicit instructions> b : open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality <explicit books and films> 2 : fully developed or formulated <an explicit plan> <an explicit notion of our objective> 3 : unambiguous in expression <was very explicit on how we are to behave> 4 of a mathematical function : defined by an expression containing only independent variables This is in contrast to "implicit". 1 a : capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed : IMPLIED <an implicit assumption> b : involved in the nature or essence of something though not revealed, expressed, or developed Your faith relies too heavily on implicit statments, and this alone should be unsettling to anyone searching for the truth of Gd. This goes to the heart of the complaint that my brothers and sisters are bringing up. Your beliefs do not rest on anything "explicit". "Explicitness" is at the heart of Islam and to a lesser degree in Judaism. In fact, visiting Christians in Mecca once debated with the Prophet (saw) and in the debate they tried to argue from implicit statements in the Quran. The Problem for the Christian delegation was that the implicit are definded by the many explicit. Aquinian wrote: Does God have to be what you want him to be?  Does he have to be one person in one God or can he be three persons in one God if it is his will? Thats a good question you should meditate on. Your high level of use and dependency on "implicit" statements should cause you to deeply think and ask this very question. Aquinian wrote: Simplicity is not always the answer (negate Occam's Razor) - the brilliance of Christian thought and theology indicates that clearly, as well as the numerous advances made by Christian civilization in the past 2000 years. So chaos and ambiguity is the answer? Your faith has been redefining itself for 2000 years, with no hope of end in sight, because your faith lacks any texts that have any real information to define your way of life and who Gd is. Christian civilization has not been proof of "brilliance" that stands out. For the first 1000 years, one could find nothing but ignorance, disease, illiteracy, corruption amongst the clergy, and a completely backward society. Christendom took over a 1000 years to start forming any real civilization, and then by the age of enlightenment, western thinkers began a series of arguments that deflated church theology setting the course for darwinism and athiesm. In effect, the church put all of its eggs in the aristotilean basket, and when CHristendom did achieve learning, it came back to bight them and discredit their theology.  I disagree completely with your characterization of the Christian faith, but no surprise there. I'd say your main claim, in all of that redundant text, is that Christianity is based on implicit claims from a Bible that was created by individuals who had no intent to accurately represent Christ's words. No. My claim is that the Christian faith is too dependent upon implicit verses for "extraordinary" ideas. The NT was put together by men who had no real clue as to the historical Jesus, due to the fact that they had no real connection through any verifiable chain of narrators or document that would allow them to truly discern fact from fiction. The men who composed your NT simply used narratives, four amongst hundreds, that best represented their theological position, not necessarily the historical Jesus. To futher their positions, they fudged their MSS (this is a fact) so that Gd's word would look closer to their ideas, and they chose implicit text (they a lot to choose from) to further prove their claims. Aquinian wrote:   This is clearly false.  We have the actual words of Christ and his direct disciples, and we know what he said - it was written down and passed on just like your Koran.  Actually you don't. You have four written copies, of copies, of copies of oral narratives, from amongst hundreds of other narratives, without even the slightest clue as to the author, narrators, or historical validity. You simply pass along your trust to "faith". And even after 300 years from the birth of Jesus, your doctors were still hashing out basics like the "nature of Christ". Why after 300 years were their various sects that could not agree on something as basic as "who is Jesus"? Because they were without any real facts and they knew it, and they had to find their conjecture hidden in the implicit verses of the hundreds of narratives circulating. Aquinian wrote:    Muslims have some notions of Christ but have no idea why they believe what they believe about him.  They certainly do not rely on Christ's words in the Bible because his words go against the faith of Islam, as I have proven. I would say that Islamic Theology goes against much of Christian creative interpolating with the use of "implicit" statements. In other words, saying that your bible says Jesus is Gd, and when one looks at the passage, it is in the NT, and it is an extremely vague and ambiguous passage that requires circular reasoning in order to render as such due to the fact that there is nothing explicit which can define the implicit verse. We have only Christian belief and faith to guide us on the proof verses and nothing else. Islamic theology simply makes claims about Jesus that not onle make sense, but are also consistant with all other men of Gd. Aquinian wrote: Seeing as how the middle east has failed to enter into its own enlightenment period yet, I would vouch for the west's movement into higher thinking during the Rennaissance.  You are now trying to superimpose western history onto the rest of the world. Entering an age of enlightement would assume that there was an age of darkness, and that the doctrine was problematic. In your history, the church, and the faith that it rested upon did not work socially, as the holy ghost was never their to write holy law on the hearts of men. It was the age when men took reason, that they used philosophy to destroy the doctrine of the church. This brought Christendom out of the dark ages. Islamic civilization has reached a low point, but due to its inital high points, one cannot claim tha the doctrine is the cause. Islam is in need of a "re-enlightenment" that occure nearly 1100 years ago. Aquinian wrote:  You are claiming that the enlightenment undermined the theology of the church, and yet the Catholic Church is the second largest church in the world, next to the church of Muhammad.  Interesting. So the age of enlightenment undermined church theology (that is factual), but it is the second largest church! So what does that tell you? Are you saying that because it is the second largest church, that it must be correct? Or that the age of enlightenment was wrong? Aquinian wrote:  Christianity is still the largest religion in the world, with many of its newest adherents coming from strongholds of Islam such has Africa. Judaism was the smallest religion in the world during the temple period, yet it was the correct faith accoridng to your bible. Since the pagan faiths were larger, in your rational, then they should have been the correct faith? As far as the droves of Muslims becoming Christians and the growth of the church in Africa...well...this is not something I would brag about. 1) The claim is exagerrated. 2) The adherents are 99.9% of the time desperate people trying to escape poverty. Targeting adherents that are in a desperate situation in life is not something I would be very proud of. Use it if you like, but I would rather show you adherents who made a choice out of thinking, and not out of hunger. Aquinian wrote:     To say that the enlightenment undermined the theology of Catholicism or Christianity at all is a complete fabrication - it clarified it.  The age of enlightenment castrated the church! Thats why it has little relevance in the governmental processes of today, in which it exists in "secualr societies". The age of enlightnement not only undermined your theology, but it also removed it from power as anyone could see that the theology was problematic. Aquinian wrote:   Muslims point to the simplicity of their faith and somehow believe that it makes it more correct.  This is, as I said, an interpretation of Ockham's razor gone wrong. Christ says that you shall know the tree by its fruit.  When the fruit of Islam brings so much suffering for so many people, including women who are abused and mistreated by a male elite, children who are indoctrinated into hatred of the Jews, teens who willingly blow themselves up to kill Jews, fundementalists who encourage violence and a return to the middle ages (simplicity for sure), torture and mutilation of those who oppose them, court trials for religious converts, and many many other clear indicators of suffering, one must only conclude that the tree is dying. Interesting little list. This is also evidence of your ignorance about Islam. I will not go through each claim. I would happy to go point by point? Now lets talk about "fruits". 1) Since you believe that Jesus is Gd, then we can know his fruits when he had his chosen people slaughter babies. Now that is a tasy fruit ay? Or no? 2) The Church force converted the people of Europe to Christianity at the edge of a sword. Good fruit? 3) The Church committed atrocities against the natives of the Americas. 4) The Church persecuted Jews, and threw them, along with Muslims, out of SPain, and stole their money. Thats a tasty fruit! 5) The church promoted ignorance and growth for over a 1000 years. How fruity! 6) It was Christian America that first introduced policies of "terrorism" to promote a policy of "containment of communism" at all costs. What is the name of that fruit? It seems the Christian west were excellent teachers to the modern day PLO and Hamas. 7) The Christian US armed regimes such as Sadaam Hussein and even helped with with WMD. They continue to put into power the state of Israel and turn a blind eye to the terrible treatment it emplys against Christian and Muslim arabs. As usual for many Christians, you suffer from "plank in your eye" syndrom.   Aquinian wrote: I would prefer an "enlightenment" that advances and clarifies the views of humanity through science and reason rather than a fundementalist dogma that dominates its people rather than sets them free. I would prefer a religion that provides solid answers and solutions such that I did not require an age of enlightenment. I would prefer a religion that inspired great innovations in science and math, and encouraged people to learn and read. I prefer a religion that has texts that provide me a with a solid enough foundation so that I would not have to traget the weakest and most desperate of society in order to find converts. It seems I found a bargain! The difference with Christianity is that the faith does not condone, in any possible way, the killing of innocent human beings.  It does not condone recriprocal treatment.  Anytime that Christians have killed the innocent or acted reciprocally to their brothers, they have been in clear violation of the words of Christ.  These are moments when they deviated from their beliefs. Two Points: 1) Yes Aquinian. This is the typical Christian apologetical shuffle. This shuffle has the following dance moves: People who were Muslim killed other people. Therefore, Islam is evil People who are Christians killed other people. They were not true or real Christians so Christianity is pure.  2) Islam does not teach the killing of innocents. While we are on this subject, could you please explain to me what the babies did that Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit, had murdered as told in the Torah? How were they not innocent? Aquinian wrote: On the contrary, when Muslims become more indoctrinated in their faith, you find that they become avid fundementalists who favor more and more extreme violence against those who oppose them.   I am "fully" indoctrinated. As are millions of Muslims. I do not see the mass violence. Your claim is that of a "phobic". Please provide evidence. Not cheap blanket statements. I did notice that you skipped over the deviant behavior of your brethern over the last 2000 years though.   Aquinian wrote:   The Koran outlines the killing of those who oppose Islam.  The murder of innocent people is supported by the theology of the Quran, and yet you tell me that Christians bear poor fruit.  There is not doubt that Christians have been wrong.  It is due in no part to their faith's teachings. 1) Please provide examples. 2) You are doing the shuffle again. No one here is that stupid not to see the dance moves. Seriously. It is a double standard that missionaries have been using for the last 2000 years. No one buys it. Aquinian wrote:    You cannot say the same about Islam. It seems you cannot say anything about Islam that has substance. You are providing charges and assertions that are nothing but cheap shots and baseless accusations, generalizations, etc, etc.   Aquinian wrote: So, what if the rational and simple teachings of Islam are correct and you are truly winning the argument?  Defending a theology that supports the murder of innocent people is certainly something to be proud of. another assertion. What teaching are you speaking of? Is it like the one where Jesus orders the slaughter of babies? Or is it another one?

You asked for evidence:

I realize you and your ilk would never do these things or think of doing them.  But for every one of the Muslim Clerics that amk gave in his petition post, there are many many more Muslim Clerics that advocate violence.  I showed a post about these Muslim Clerics, which I'm sure you read.

You can mention things that happened 500-600 years ago, or you can live in the present.  The west is largely peaceful - the middle east is largely not.  The west is largely christian - the middle east is almost 100% muslim.

Also, what of Palestine?  Is it okay for them to kill Israelis through Jihad?  That situation seems to fit the requirements for Jihad, does it not?

By and large, Muslims believe that Israel is an occupier in Arab lands and that Jihad is justified against Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/2063363.stm

60% of Palestinian Muslims believe suicide bombings against Jews are okay in that article.  The number was as high as 80% at one point.  Would that number change much if we looked at another state in the middle east?  Probably not, right?

Just look at this statistic (unbelievable)

UK poll: 37% of Muslims in Britain think British Jews are a "legitimate target" (TimesOnline)

This is in the west!

Violence.  This is not a small faction of Muslims.  There are massive numbers in the middle east who believe that Israel is an occupier and the only way to stop the Jews is to kill them.  They support Jihad against the Jews.  They kill civilians, women and children.  These actions are supported by a vast number of Palestinian Muslims today and it is something that all Muslims should consider: is murder of Jews okay when we are defending Islamic lands?

Aquinian wrote: Andalus wrote: Aquinian wrote: Andalus wrote: Aquinian wrote: Andalus wrote: Aquinian wrote: Well, to be frank, the Quran came 600 years after the time of Christ and yet it reads much like the Old Testament.  To paraphrase, "If this happens, stone this person."  "If that happens, pay this person 50 shillings."  I do not wish to blaspheme the Quran, but it is a regressive text, in terms of philosophical brilliance. You have made some errneous assumptions. 1) So if the Revelation to Moses came centuries after Noah, then the revelation to Moses is false because it was not the same as that to Noah, and soe not follow the philosophical specualtion of how Gd must work. 2) Perhaps we should compare your "philisophical assumptions" with your own theology. -Gd gives a series of commands to Moses -Christians have these commands in their bible, and the one (Jesus) they follow also followed them.  -Christianity is not given commands. They have now moved beyond Gd's law, and without any guidance, they have the "option" to create their own laws, 99% of the time is compeltely out of "convenience". This not an evolved progresion, this is called "pie in the sky" theology based upon the speculation of man. Aquinian wrote: Your faith should not read like a how-to manual - through the love of God, you should know what is right. So too bad for Moses, and Noah, and Jesus huh? A crack head ont he street gets a free ride with Gd but not Moses. Now thats certainly rational! So according to you, a religous manual should not read at all, excapet for a few ambiguous ideas, we can just be free to do whatever the heck we want! Nice. Sign me up! Aquinian wrote:   Christ uses figurative language, but it's not rocket science trying to figure it out.  Actually, rocket science is a lot easier than using the texts that your church has based its foundations on. Your texts support such a wide range of views about Jesus and his very nature. Not like rockte science? You are correct. Rocket science is way easier. This is due to the lack of any solid substance concerning what Jesus actually said and believed. Your faith is defined by men who never actually new him.   Aquinian wrote: I have a difficult time comprehending how the brilliance of Christ, the apostles, and Paul regressed so much with the texts of Muhammad.   I have always had a difficult time figuring out how people were duped into following "pie in the sky" theology that has no bases in the Hebrew Scriptures. Regression: Moses taught a law, followed the law, and told people they were able to follow it. Paul said the law was not important. The churc said we are incapable of following the law. Moses used the mitzvah to walk close to Gd. Paul taught that we only need to feel Gd. All of the prophets brought men close to Gd's law. Paul took men away from it. Moses taught to worship Gd alone, with any notion of a triune Gd. Paul set the foundations for one of the most wicked innovations ever: A Gd with three aspects. Moses brought forth truth. Paul distorted and even lied about the Hebrew Scriptures. Aquinian wrote:   600 years after Christ and he still couldn't get past the idea of "eye for an eye."  Jesus does away with it in favor of a higher understanding of how we treat our neighbor.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Actually, Christians inserted portions such as the adulteress woman. It is an added addition. Christian were left with nearly no guidance from Jesus, so they simply interpolated their own ideas and forged them into their own books. So the ideas that Jesus abolished the laws are based upon a fabrication, and trying to read personal conjecture into ambiguous verses. The Ebionites, Christians who rejected Paul, and thought of him as a lunatic, still followed the law, completely. How much of the commands thats houdl be followed was uncertain to your own eraly founders, who debated this. It required so much debate because of the lack of supporting evidence from Jesus. Aquinian wrote:  You would think Muhammad would have attempted to take something from the beauty of Christ's message. The Prophet addressed the core messages from the time of Jesus and beyond. What you mean is that he did not address what the church thought. aquinian wrote: Even if Jesus did say "I am God," you still wouldn't believe.  Irrelevant. The charge is this: You claim Jesus is Gd. An extraodinary claim. So I look for extraordinary evidence from yoru text. And it doeas not give the evidence required for the claim. Whether or not I believe it or not, is not relevant. Aquinian wrote:  He says that if you have seen Him, then you have seen the father.  What else do you need?  This kind of denial only indicates that you do not wish to say what you really think: Jesus' words in John are really not his words.  Say that instead of making this claim that Jesus had to say what you want him to say. You , like your church fathers, are forcing a single interpretation. Keep in mind that your complaint of a religion that has a "how to book", also carries with it "explicit" statements that define the faith, and defined what Gd wants you to do. Your book is full of implicit statements, and 99% of your proof texts are based upon implicit statements. The reason the church relies so heaviy on "implicit" statements is the very nature of such statements. This is from a reputable on line dictionary: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va =explicit Explicit 1 a : fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent <explicit instructions> b : open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality <explicit books and films> 2 : fully developed or formulated <an explicit plan> <an explicit notion of our objective> 3 : unambiguous in expression <was very explicit on how we are to behave> 4 of a mathematical function : defined by an expression containing only independent variables This is in contrast to "implicit". 1 a : capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed : IMPLIED <an implicit assumption> b : involved in the nature or essence of something though not revealed, expressed, or developed Your faith relies too heavily on implicit statments, and this alone should be unsettling to anyone searching for the truth of Gd. This goes to the heart of the complaint that my brothers and sisters are bringing up. Your beliefs do not rest on anything "explicit". "Explicitness" is at the heart of Islam and to a lesser degree in Judaism. In fact, visiting Christians in Mecca once debated with the Prophet (saw) and in the debate they tried to argue from implicit statements in the Quran. The Problem for the Christian delegation was that the implicit are definded by the many explicit. Aquinian wrote: Does God have to be what you want him to be?  Does he have to be one person in one God or can he be three persons in one God if it is his will? Thats a good question you should meditate on. Your high level of use and dependency on "implicit" statements should cause you to deeply think and ask this very question. Aquinian wrote: Simplicity is not always the answer (negate Occam's Razor) - the brilliance of Christian thought and theology indicates that clearly, as well as the numerous advances made by Christian civilization in the past 2000 years. So chaos and ambiguity is the answer? Your faith has been redefining itself for 2000 years, with no hope of end in sight, because your faith lacks any texts that have any real information to define your way of life and who Gd is. Christian civilization has not been proof of "brilliance" that stands out. For the first 1000 years, one could find nothing but ignorance, disease, illiteracy, corruption amongst the clergy, and a completely backward society. Christendom took over a 1000 years to start forming any real civilization, and then by the age of enlightenment, western thinkers began a series of arguments that deflated church theology setting the course for darwinism and athiesm. In effect, the church put all of its eggs in the aristotilean basket, and when CHristendom did achieve learning, it came back to bight them and discredit their theology.  I disagree completely with your characterization of the Christian faith, but no surprise there. I'd say your main claim, in all of that redundant text, is that Christianity is based on implicit claims from a Bible that was created by individuals who had no intent to accurately represent Christ's words. No. My claim is that the Christian faith is too dependent upon implicit verses for "extraordinary" ideas. The NT was put together by men who had no real clue as to the historical Jesus, due to the fact that they had no real connection through any verifiable chain of narrators or document that would allow them to truly discern fact from fiction. The men who composed your NT simply used narratives, four amongst hundreds, that best represented their theological position, not necessarily the historical Jesus. To futher their positions, they fudged their MSS (this is a fact) so that Gd's word would look closer to their ideas, and they chose implicit text (they a lot to choose from) to further prove their claims. Aquinian wrote:   This is clearly false.  We have the actual words of Christ and his direct disciples, and we know what he said - it was written down and passed on just like your Koran.  Actually you don't. You have four written copies, of copies, of copies of oral narratives, from amongst hundreds of other narratives, without even the slightest clue as to the author, narrators, or historical validity. You simply pass along your trust to "faith". And even after 300 years from the birth of Jesus, your doctors were still hashing out basics like the "nature of Christ". Why after 300 years were their various sects that could not agree on something as basic as "who is Jesus"? Because they were without any real facts and they knew it, and they had to find their conjecture hidden in the implicit verses of the hundreds of narratives circulating. Aquinian wrote:    Muslims have some notions of Christ but have no idea why they believe what they believe about him.  They certainly do not rely on Christ's words in the Bible because his words go against the faith of Islam, as I have proven. I would say that Islamic Theology goes against much of Christian creative interpolating with the use of "implicit" statements. In other words, saying that your bible says Jesus is Gd, and when one looks at the passage, it is in the NT, and it is an extremely vague and ambiguous passage that requires circular reasoning in order to render as such due to the fact that there is nothing explicit which can define the implicit verse. We have only Christian belief and faith to guide us on the proof verses and nothing else. Islamic theology simply makes claims about Jesus that not onle make sense, but are also consistant with all other men of Gd. Aquinian wrote: Seeing as how the middle east has failed to enter into its own enlightenment period yet, I would vouch for the west's movement into higher thinking during the Rennaissance.  You are now trying to superimpose western history onto the rest of the world. Entering an age of enlightement would assume that there was an age of darkness, and that the doctrine was problematic. In your history, the church, and the faith that it rested upon did not work socially, as the holy ghost was never their to write holy law on the hearts of men. It was the age when men took reason, that they used philosophy to destroy the doctrine of the church. This brought Christendom out of the dark ages. Islamic civilization has reached a low point, but due to its inital high points, one cannot claim tha the doctrine is the cause. Islam is in need of a "re-enlightenment" that occure nearly 1100 years ago. Aquinian wrote:  You are claiming that the enlightenment undermined the theology of the church, and yet the Catholic Church is the second largest church in the world, next to the church of Muhammad.  Interesting. So the age of enlightenment undermined church theology (that is factual), but it is the second largest church! So what does that tell you? Are you saying that because it is the second largest church, that it must be correct? Or that the age of enlightenment was wrong? Aquinian wrote:  Christianity is still the largest religion in the world, with many of its newest adherents coming from strongholds of Islam such has Africa. Judaism was the smallest religion in the world during the temple period, yet it was the correct faith accoridng to your bible. Since the pagan faiths were larger, in your rational, then they should have been the correct faith? As far as the droves of Muslims becoming Christians and the growth of the church in Africa...well...this is not something I would brag about. 1) The claim is exagerrated. 2) The adherents are 99.9% of the time desperate people trying to escape poverty. Targeting adherents that are in a desperate situation in life is not something I would be very proud of. Use it if you like, but I would rather show you adherents who made a choice out of thinking, and not out of hunger. Aquinian wrote:     To say that the enlightenment undermined the theology of Catholicism or Christianity at all is a complete fabrication - it clarified it.  The age of enlightenment castrated the church! Thats why it has little relevance in the governmental processes of today, in which it exists in "secualr societies". The age of enlightnement not only undermined your theology, but it also removed it from power as anyone could see that the theology was problematic. Aquinian wrote:   Muslims point to the simplicity of their faith and somehow believe that it makes it more correct.  This is, as I said, an interpretation of Ockham's razor gone wrong. Christ says that you shall know the tree by its fruit.  When the fruit of Islam brings so much suffering for so many people, including women who are abused and mistreated by a male elite, children who are indoctrinated into hatred of the Jews, teens who willingly blow themselves up to kill Jews, fundementalists who encourage violence and a return to the middle ages (simplicity for sure), torture and mutilation of those who oppose them, court trials for religious converts, and many many other clear indicators of suffering, one must only conclude that the tree is dying. Interesting little list. This is also evidence of your ignorance about Islam. I will not go through each claim. I would happy to go point by point? Now lets talk about "fruits". 1) Since you believe that Jesus is Gd, then we can know his fruits when he had his chosen people slaughter babies. Now that is a tasy fruit ay? Or no? 2) The Church force converted the people of Europe to Christianity at the edge of a sword. Good fruit? 3) The Church committed atrocities against the natives of the Americas. 4) The Church persecuted Jews, and threw them, along with Muslims, out of SPain, and stole their money. Thats a tasty fruit! 5) The church promoted ignorance and growth for over a 1000 years. How fruity! 6) It was Christian America that first introduced policies of "terrorism" to promote a policy of "containment of communism" at all costs. What is the name of that fruit? It seems the Christian west were excellent teachers to the modern day PLO and Hamas. 7) The Christian US armed regimes such as Sadaam Hussein and even helped with with WMD. They continue to put into power the state of Israel and turn a blind eye to the terrible treatment it emplys against Christian and Muslim arabs. As usual for many Christians, you suffer from "plank in your eye" syndrom.   Aquinian wrote: I would prefer an "enlightenment" that advances and clarifies the views of humanity through science and reason rather than a fundementalist dogma that dominates its people rather than sets them free. I would prefer a religion that provides solid answers and solutions such that I did not require an age of enlightenment. I would prefer a religion that inspired great innovations in science and math, and encouraged people to learn and read. I prefer a religion that has texts that provide me a with a solid enough foundation so that I would not have to traget the weakest and most desperate of society in order to find converts. It seems I found a bargain! The difference with Christianity is that the faith does not condone, in any possible way, the killing of innocent human beings.  It does not condone recriprocal treatment.  Anytime that Christians have killed the innocent or acted reciprocally to their brothers, they have been in clear violation of the words of Christ.  These are moments when they deviated from their beliefs. Two Points: 1) Yes Aquinian. This is the typical Christian apologetical shuffle. This shuffle has the following dance moves: People who were Muslim killed other people. Therefore, Islam is evil People who are Christians killed other people. They were not true or real Christians so Christianity is pure.  2) Islam does not teach the killing of innocents. While we are on this subject, could you please explain to me what the babies did that Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit, had murdered as told in the Torah? How were they not innocent? Aquinian wrote: On the contrary, when Muslims become more indoctrinated in their faith, you find that they become avid fundementalists who favor more and more extreme violence against those who oppose them.   I am "fully" indoctrinated. As are millions of Muslims. I do not see the mass violence. Your claim is that of a "phobic". Please provide evidence. Not cheap blanket statements. I did notice that you skipped over the deviant behavior of your brethern over the last 2000 years though.   Aquinian wrote:   The Koran outlines the killing of those who oppose Islam.  The murder of innocent people is supported by the theology of the Quran, and yet you tell me that Christians bear poor fruit.  There is not doubt that Christians have been wrong.  It is due in no part to their faith's teachings. 1) Please provide examples. 2) You are doing the shuffle again. No one here is that stupid not to see the dance moves. Seriously. It is a double standard that missionaries have been using for the last 2000 years. No one buys it. Aquinian wrote:    You cannot say the same about Islam. It seems you cannot say anything about Islam that has substance. You are providing charges and assertions that are nothing but cheap shots and baseless accusations, generalizations, etc, etc.   Aquinian wrote: So, what if the rational and simple teachings of Islam are correct and you are truly winning the argument?  Defending a theology that supports the murder of innocent people is certainly something to be proud of. another assertion. What teaching are you speaking of? Is it like the one where Jesus orders the slaughter of babies? Or is it another one?   You asked for evidence: 9 November 2005 - 2005 Amman bombings, over 60 killed and 115 injured, in a series of coordinated suicide attacks on Hotels in Amman, Jordan. Four attackers including a husband and wife team were involved. 23 July 2005 - Bomb attacks at Sharm el-Sheikh, an Egyptian resort city, kill at least 64 people. 7 July 2005 - Multiple bombings in London Underground, 53 dead killed by four suicide bombers. 4 February 2005 - Muslim militants attacked the Christian community in Demsa, Nigeria, killing 36 people, destroying property and displacing an additional 3000 people. 11 March 2004 - Multiple bombings on trains near Madrid, Spain. 191 killed, 1460 injured. (alleged link to Al-Qaeda) 16 May 2004- Casablanca Attacks - 4 simultaneous attacks in Casablanca killing 33 civilians (mostly Moroccans) carried by Salafaia Jihadia. 12 October 2002 - Bombing in Bali nightclub. 202 killed, 300 injured. 24 September 2002 - Machine Gun attack on Hindu temple in Ahmedabad, India. 31 dead, 86 injured.[19][20] 7 May 2002 - Bombing in al-Arbaa, Algeria. 49 dead, 117 injured 9 March 2002 - Caf� suicide bombing in Jerusalem; 11 killed, 54 injured 3 March 2002 - Suicide bomb attack on a Passover Seder in a Hotel in Netanya, Israel. 29 dead, 133 injured 11 September 2001 - 4 planes hijacked and crashed into World Trade Center and The Pentagon by 19 hijackers. Nearly 3000 dead. 13 October 2000 - USS Cole bombing from a small boat by suicide bombers. Seventeen sailors were killed and 39 were injured. 7 August 1998 - Embassy bombing in Tanzania and Kenya. 225 dead. 4000+ injured 25 June 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing, 20 killed, 372 wounded. 26 February 1993 - First World Trade Center bombing. 6 killed. 18 April 1983 - Embassy in Lebanon bombed. 63 killed.

I asked for evidence of your thesis: Islam teaches the murder of innocents. You failed to provide it and instead gave me a list of acts attributed to some who happened to be Muslim. This is a far different realm than what I asked for, and what you actually claimed.

I can give you a list that will send you into disdain that records the acts of Christians committing atrocities. Of course you would do the usual shuffle and simply claim that they were not really Christian. This list was simply a distraction that stems from your inability to produce substance that backs yoru claim.

Aquinian wrote: I realize you and your ilk would never do these things or think of doing them.  But for every one of the Muslim Clerics that amk gave in his petition post, there are many many more Muslim Clerics that advocate violence.  I showed a post about these Muslim Clerics, which I'm sure you read.

I asked for your proof from what you claimed. You are once more pointing to someone who claimes to be a representative of Islam and then quoting what he says. You are still far from the course of your claim.

Aquinian wrote: You can mention things that happened 500-600 years ago, or you can live in the present.  The west is largely peaceful - the middle east is largely not.  The west is largely christian - the middle east is almost 100% muslim.

I can give exampels of violence by Christians till this century.

Actually it wasn't. Europe was at constant war with itself up until the 20th century. The British and French wanted to spread around the discord, they took their attention to the Muslim world, and even referred to it as the "big game". After the Christians helped create fitnah in Muslim lands, they put forth the very sect of Islam that has influenced the violent methodology of the very people you use as a means to smear Islam. Study your history hypocrite, as you will find that it was the "fitnah" from your own culture that has produced the very regimes that you are trying to use as examples to paint Islam as evil.

Aquinian wrote:   Also, what of Palestine?  Is it okay for them to kill Israelis through Jihad?  That situation seems to fit the requirements for Jihad, does it not?

What of it? Christians took someone elses land, and then gave it away to someone else (charity with someone elses wealth is such a gracious act!) while throwing families off their land to make way for Europeans, the benefactors. What of it? Was that ok?

What of the Jewish terrorist groups who used terrorism to achieve their goal of having land? One Israel's prime ministers was a wanted terrorist! What of the people they killed? What of it?

What of the Kurds that died from Christian technology (WMD), thanks to a Christian president? What of it?  What about the thousands of Iraqis that have died as Christian policy makers try to clean up the first mess they made? What of that? (and westerners demand credit for the toppeling of Sadaam Hussein...freaken clueless cows...mindless cows that move in a herd to the beat of the media) 

Your questions and reasoning are simply convoluted.

Aquinian wrote: By and large, Muslims believe that Israel is an occupier in Arab lands and that Jihad is justified against Israel. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/2063363.stm

And what?

Count me as one of them.

Aquinian wrote: 60% of Palestinian Muslims believe suicide bombings against Jews are okay in that article.  The number was as high as 80% at one point.  Would that number change much if we looked at another state in the middle east?  Probably not, right?

Although yet another red herring which defies your orignial thesis, I will briefly touch on it. (I am now guessing that you are unable to back your claim?)

1) Most Christian think it is ok that Zionist Jew have taken Arab land, thrown Arab familes off of their familial lands, and placed then in ghettos. What of it?

2) Most Christians think it is OK of the method in which the Jews have occupied the land, and treated the Arabs. What of it?

Jesus would agree yes? After all he allowed the Jews to execute babies as a way to cleanse the land to prepare it for the chosen people in the Torah. What of it?

3) Most Christians think it is OK that Israeli Jews have violated any notion of Nuclear proliferation in the middle east, and have illegally stoeln this technology. What of it?

4) Most Christians think it is OK that the Israeli AF killed over 40 US sailors and wounded more, in their attempt to sink the USS Liberty. Nothing was ever done about it, and it was swept under the table.

Aquinian wrote: Just look at this statistic (unbelievable) UK poll: 37% of Muslims in Britain think British Jews are a "legitimate target" (TimesOnline) This is in the west!

And you continue to deflect from your original claim. "This Muslim thinks this".."that Muslim thinks that"....."this Muslim said this".....

This is called generalizing from the particular. This does not prove your thesis: Islam teaches the killing of innocents. Your mind is twsited with dubious notions, and you are unable to bring forth any proof. I can trade lists of atrocities by the Church all day long. This is the rhetoric of the ignorant.

As far as your "red herring": Since the Jews, with the aid of the west, have displaced civilians from their homes, and wiped out villages from the face of the map, then I ask you, what should they think? I tell you what, why don't you live in their shoes for a few months, and then come back and asl this question.

I suppose with the history of the church, the idea of resisting and trying to defend your home is alien, given the church's quick recognition of the Nazis and their constant apeasement to them.

Aquinain wrote:    Violence.  This is not a small faction of Muslims.  There are massive numbers in the middle east who believe that Israel is an occupier and the only way to stop the Jews is to kill them.

Another red herring. Aquinian, you are utrning out to be a dud. You made a claim, and now you are unable to back it up. Irraitonal generalizations do not provide you with anything.

And what if Muslims believe the Jews are occupiers? They are. Because they beleive that does not mean Islam teaches the killing of violence. Please stay focused and try and prove your claims. Not change the toic and throw out red herrings.

Aquinian wrote:  They support Jihad against the Jews.  They kill civilians, women and children.

Christians support the jihad of Jews against Arabs! They kill civilians, women, and children. ANd lets not forget, Jesus also ordered the massacre of babies according to your bible. You always skip thst fact. I wonder why? What of it?

Aquinian wrote: These actions are supported by a vast number of Palestinian Muslims today and it is something that all Muslims should consider: is murder of Jews okay when we are defending Islamic lands?

It seems you have turned this into a strawman. The topic is not about the secular state of Israel, it was about your claim that Islam teaches the killing of innocents. You have a great deal of trouble paying attention. THis has been a great waste of time as your only point is that you think it is OK for Christains to support the Israeli treatment of Arabs, and that Arabs should just sit back and take it to appease Christians. That has to be one of the most ignorant thoughts I have come across.

Here is a question: Is the killing of invaders ok in the defence of your lands? Is the massacre of babies ok as long as Jesus says it is ok? Is Christian violence some how piouse and pure?

lol, you may be right, David.  All I know is, Andalus said that he supports the Jihad against Israel.  That's all I needed to know.

I think it's important to realize who this man is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni

Husayni met with Hitler and discussed the removal of Jews from Palestine, with full knowledge of how Hitler was removing them from Europe (murdering them in cold blood and without provocation).

Because the arabs collaborated with Hitler, they lost all rights to their land.  That's what happens in a war.  If Hitler had won, the arabs would have gotten what they wanted: annihilation of the Jews.

The Jews now have Israel because 6 million of their people were murdered.  Oh, but I'm sure the holocaust "really didn't happen" right?  I hope to God you don't say that.

So, once and for all: when you lose in a war, you lose.  Your land can be taken and there's nothing you can do about it.

Now, we have this idea of Jihad against Israel, but that's nonsense.  The Muslims will never ever beat Israel.  Israel has the bomb.  Israel has a real military.  I would be surprised if any of the arab countries ever tried to nuke Israel because they would be annihilated.

But to get to the point: jihad against Israel is an offensive gesture, not a defensive one.  Allah allowed the Jews a homeland because of the actions of arab Muslims; namely, their support for the holocaust.

Notice, Israel gives the Palestinians land just recently and what do the stupid bastards do?  They kidnap an Israeli soldier.  Disgusting.

Andalus, by saying you support the jihad against Israel, you are saying that you support suicide bombings.  The only weapon of Palestinians is suicide bombing.  Throwing rocks at soldiers does nothing.  So, if you support suicide bombings and you are a fully indoctrinated Muslim, as you have claimed, then suicide bombings must be okay in the theology of Islam.

If suicide bombings of women and children are okay in the theology of Islam, then Islam is a violent religion.  If suicide bombings are not okay in the theology of Islam, then Islam is not a violent religion.  Which is it?  In order to have Islam be a religion of peace, you must concede the following: the jihad against Israel is being carried out incorrectly.  No suicide bombings should occur.  If you agree with suicide bombings, then Islam is not a religion of peace.

I notice that you immediately reverted to arguments against Israel and the jews when I made arguments against the Palestinians, but that in no way proves me incorrect about your faith.  You have much the same philosophy as the CIA:

Deny everything, admit nothing, and make counter-accusations.  Your consistent counter accusations against Christianity have no relevance.  Your religious beliefs are the ones that we are arguing about.  If Islam does not condone violence, why is the jihad against Israel so violent?  Why the killing of women and children?

The killing of the first born in the Old Testament passover is the work of God.  I suggest that you not question why God did it.  Who are you to question the methods of God?  Only God can judge who lives or dies.

God also killed the entire earth except for Noah during the floods.  Why would you question it?  It is God's will: you should submit.

We do not take it upon ourselves to decide who lives or dies.  That is God's will.  I find it interesting how you think that because Jesus is God and God killed human beings, you think you are capable of deciding who should die and who should live.

You attempt to make yourself like God when you claim that Jesus' perception of who should die is equivalent to yours.  His perception is much greater because he is God and I thank you for acknowledging that.

In conclusion, we have make some startling realizations here:

Man is not capable of deciding who should die.  However bloody or violent the method of God killing man, only God can make the judgement.

Those who claim that they have the right to jihad and kill Israelis are making themselves into gods.  They are deciding who lives or dies.

As any good Muslim should, I suggest that you submit to Allah and accept his judgement rather than make your own judgements upon your brother.