Thread: Muslims are good people BULLSHIT!

Originally Posted by Edwin30

Fail, again.

I have yet to fail even once. And we may state this as a general rule: when someone participating in a discussion says "fail," or some other expression indicating "you lose, I win," that's a sure sign that the opposite is true.

If you cannot present arguments that hold up, personal insults and obnoxious assertions of nonexistent victory are no substitute.

The Quran, Sunnah of Mahomet and Shariah all require jihad.

But what jihad IS, remains open to interpretation. There is no point in saying otherwise; real-life actual Muslims are the ones who say this. Maybe they're just engaging in rationalizations because they don't want to engage in violence. Does it matter? The rationalizations obviously are possible. Islam can be a religion of peace. How do I know this? Because I know Muslims for whom it is. There's really no way to refute that.

Sure, you can say they are wrong, and that God really does command them to lop heads off infidels and convert by force. That's not going to convince me, because I'm not a Muslim myself and don't believe in their God. Nor do I think it will convince them.

And the fact that they even exist is proof that what you are saying in this thread is a falsehood.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Christians typically believe things that are not in the teachings of Christ, though. In fact, the central Christian mythos involving original sin, the sacrifice of Christ, the resurrection, and redemption are not in the teachings of Christ. None of the beliefs that often makes Christians intolerant are in the teachings of Christ. If one were to base a religion solely on the teachings of Christ, one would have something wonderful, but as is often the case with enlightened teachers, his teachings were incomprehensible to those who weren't ready to understand them. "He that has an ear, let him hear." Most Christians, like most people, have no ears.

The resurrection is not the teaching of Christ? You're kidding right?

Where do you get these crazy ideas DT? Would you care to elaborate? You do realize Christ referred to the Old Testament on numerous occasions, right?

You are always making the statement "Most Christians". Do you have any evidence to back those claims up? Of course you don't, because it's not true.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

No problem.

Originally Posted by countryboy

The resurrection is not the teaching of Christ? You're kidding right?

Where do you get these crazy ideas DT? Would you care to elaborate? You do realize Christ referred to the Old Testament on numerous occasions, right?

You are always making the statement "Most Christians". Do you have any evidence to back those claims up? Of course you don't, because it's not true.



No problem.

As though he had personally interviewed MOST Christians.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Obviously, the Muslims I have known disagree. Your entire argument here, Edwin, rests on the assertion that Muslims HAVE to engage in violence, that they MUST believe this, and that ALL Muslims tend to religious violence based on these passages in the Koran and other sacred text. Obviously, that is not the case. Obviously, there is enough ambiguity here that Muslims who are so inclined can live peaceful lives and justify that religiously, even condemning religious violence and terrorism, which most Muslims do.

Just as obviously, those passages CAN be interpreted so as to call for violence. Islam isn't necessarily a religion of peace. But it can be one, if its followers wish. I have known Muslims who did wish that, and for them it was a religion of peace. Clearly, there are Muslims in the world for whom that is not the case.

This does not make Muslims anything other than human, with the full range and complement of human virtues and vices.

Ah such lucky muslims, having you to carry their banner and all!

Originally Posted by countryboy

The resurrection is not the teaching of Christ? You're kidding right?

No, I'm not kidding. There's no point in Jesus' teaching recorded in the Gospels, before he was crucified, in which he even talks about being resurrected. Certainly he never expressed the idea that Christians have about it even in the parts of the Gospels that supposedly occurred after the resurrection.

You do realize Christ referred to the Old Testament on numerous occasions, right?

Sure. But the Old Testament also doesn't contain the Christian ideas of original sin, the sacrifice of Christ, and redemption. It has some ideas that are vaguely related, but not those themselves. Simply put, there is no evidence at all that Jesus taught the following:

1) That all are condemned to Hell by original sin.
2) That he himself had come to be the sacrifice of atonement whereby original sin and the sins of individuals alike are wiped out.
3) That following a religion founded in his name would invoke this sacrifice and expiate sin.
4) That his resurrection is a sign of this promise on the part of God.

There is also no clear evidence from the Gospels that Jesus believed himself to be the incarnation of God as Christians think of that; the closest one can come is a statement like "I and my Father are one," which has a mystical interpretation and does not necessarily mean what Christians think it does. Similar statements about the unity of man and God have been made many times by others, and there is no obvious reason to believe that Jesus meant anything different.

Jesus' teachings are in fact quite mystical. I refer you in particular as an example to Luke 17:20-21.

Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

Here we have a clear reference to the Kingdom of God being, not a place or an alternate reality, but a state of being, something internal either to the individual or to the society. Keep that in mind, and a lot of his parables and other teachings become much clearer.

You are always making the statement "Most Christians". Do you have any evidence to back those claims up? Of course you don't, because it's not true.

Sure it's true. I'm saying no more than that most Christians are not spiritually enlightened people. As such, they're not in a position to easily understand what Jesus was talking about.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

As though he had personally interviewed MOST Christians.

Do I need to? Is spiritual enlightenment such a common occurrence that we may reasonably attribute it to over a billion people, who are to begin with selected for its opposite by belief in an authoritarian organized religion? What I'm saying here is only common sense. It's the alternative that would require evidence.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Do I need to? Is spiritual enlightenment such a common occurrence that we may reasonably attribute it to over a billion people, who are to begin with selected for its opposite by belief in an authoritarian organized religion? What I'm saying here is only common sense. It's the alternative that would require evidence.

Before you can know what 'most' of anything does, you have to at least have made some systematic contact with it.

You are just another bigot. I guess you think you can slip past that one based upon who your object of hate is, but a bigot is a bigot regardless. I mean try saying that 'most blacks' like turnip greens and water melon and see what happens.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Before you can know what 'most' of anything does, you have to at least have made some systematic contact with it.

You are just another bigot.

Oh, please. Do you even understand what it is I'm saying about "most Christians"? Evidently not, because you seem to think it's some sort of insult.

All I'm saying is that most Christians aren't enlightened beings. Most of them aren't Jesus or the Buddha. Do you really think that's particularly insulting? Or particularly controversial? Are you going to claim to the contrary?

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Oh, please. Do you even understand what it is I'm saying about "most Christians"? Evidently not, because you seem to think it's some sort of insult.

All I'm saying is that most Christians aren't enlightened beings. Most of them aren't Jesus or the Buddha. Do you really think that's particularly insulting? Or particularly controversial? Are you going to claim to the contrary?

You can't know what 'most Christians' are or are not unless you have met them. And then I wager that you still wouldn't know. You are too bigoted.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

If you cannot present arguments that hold up, personal insults and obnoxious assertions of nonexistent victory are no substitute.

Coming from someone who cannot present arguments. Too funny.

But what jihad IS, remains open to interpretation.

First, you lamely tried to argue jihad was not a tenet of Islam. FAIL.

now, having been demolished, you revert to the lame default position that jihad is open to interpretation. FAIL.

Jihad is military holy war, spelled out in the Quran.

Quran 2:216...

Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.

Jihad is holy war spelled out in the Sunnah of Mahomet...

Sahih Bukhari V1B2N25:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." The questioner again asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" He replied, "To perform Hajj (Pilgrim age to Mecca) 'Mubrur, (which is accepted by Allah and is performed with the intention of seeking Allah's pleasure only and not to show off and without committing a sin and in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet).

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

No, I'm not kidding. There's no point in Jesus' teaching recorded in the Gospels, before he was crucified, in which he even talks about being resurrected. Certainly he never expressed the idea that Christians have about it even in the parts of the Gospels that supposedly occurred after the resurrection.



Sure. But the Old Testament also doesn't contain the Christian ideas of original sin, the sacrifice of Christ, and redemption. It has some ideas that are vaguely related, but not those themselves. Simply put, there is no evidence at all that Jesus taught the following:

1) That all are condemned to Hell by original sin.
2) That he himself had come to be the sacrifice of atonement whereby original sin and the sins of individuals alike are wiped out.
3) That following a religion founded in his name would invoke this sacrifice and expiate sin.
4) That his resurrection is a sign of this promise on the part of God.

There is also no clear evidence from the Gospels that Jesus believed himself to be the incarnation of God as Christians think of that; the closest one can come is a statement like "I and my Father are one," which has a mystical interpretation and does not necessarily mean what Christians think it does. Similar statements about the unity of man and God have been made many times by others, and there is no obvious reason to believe that Jesus meant anything different.

Jesus' teachings are in fact quite mystical. I refer you in particular as an example to Luke 17:20-21.



Here we have a clear reference to the Kingdom of God being, not a place or an alternate reality, but a state of being, something internal either to the individual or to the society. Keep that in mind, and a lot of his parables and other teachings become much clearer.



Sure it's true. I'm saying no more than that most Christians are not spiritually enlightened people. As such, they're not in a position to easily understand what Jesus was talking about.

DT, you seriously need to read the Bible, maybe even take a basic course in Christian theology. You speak as if you are knowledgeable on the subject. Clearly you are spreading misinformation, or even disinformation. Do you really think that is an honorable way to conduct yourself?

So your "most Christian" comments are true because you say so? Sorry, that's not how it works. Evidence please.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Oh, please. Do you even understand what it is I'm saying about "most Christians"? Evidently not, because you seem to think it's some sort of insult.

All I'm saying is that most Christians aren't enlightened beings. Most of them aren't Jesus or the Buddha. Do you really think that's particularly insulting? Or particularly controversial? Are you going to claim to the contrary?

Muslims are enlightened? You mean, like the ridiculous Islamic belief that Abraham, Jesus and Moses were Muslims, even though they lived hundreds and even thousands of years before Mahomet was born and Islam invented?

The Islamic world is the most backward culture on the planet. Islamic countries are last in education, literacy, scientific research, healthcare, productivity and industrial development.

One third of all Arabs--over 100 million--are illiterate. Half of all Arab women are illiterate.

Thanks, though, for the laugh.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

All I'm saying is that most Christians aren't enlightened beings. Most of them aren't Jesus or the Buddha.

Christ's message is for everyone, you don't need to be "spiritually enlightened" to understand it. That's silly. What does a subjective term like "spiritual enlightened" even mean? :rolleyes:

So let me see if I understand what you are trying to say. Jesus said to spread his message to all the lands, but presented it in such a way that you need to be Jesus, or Buddha to understand the message. Do you realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds?