user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Keep in mind that approximately 5% of the population in Saudi Arabia (about 1 million) are of the Catholic-christian faith.
Not a chance. And that right there is a major difference between the two religions and cultures.
Voted : No, and I will comment below
If Italy gave permission for it to be built, then thats that.
Just because it wouldn't be allowed in Mecca, doesn't automatically assume it was a bad idea to have one in Rome.
^Steel, so is that a no? Why should Western countries be so tolerant to Muslim nations where Christians are routinenly persecuted?
by aya on Sat Sep 02, 06 10:55pm
[+]
And the Catholics should burn out those Protestant heretics, too!
The Christian tenet states,'You Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me'.
So hardly tolerance.
Perhaps Islam is less hypocritical than Christianity?
I'm guessing no, they won't.
Muslims feel free to demand rights for their people in western countries but feel no need to reciprocate to non-muslims in their own countries.
Is this hypocrisy? Well, imagine if a christian preacher demanded that the saudis allow him to build churches all across their country but then demanded no mosques be built here. Would anyone have trouble calling him a hypocrite?
Voted : No, and I will comment below
"The Christian tenet states,'You Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me'." by Steelhamster on Sun Sep 03, 06 5:57am
Yes Steelhamster, CHRISTIANS should not love and worship other Gods, nor convert to other beliefs. This message is to Christians, not Muslims. If Muslims want to build a mosque that's got nothing to do with Christians and thier faith in their god.
Jesus said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." and then he said "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt 22:36-40), And then he said "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt 5:43)
Keep in mind too that the Christian God will take care of sinners and apostates upon their deaths. He doesn't instruct christians to kill people of other faiths as does Allah in Quran.
^And Steelhamster, can you point out one single act of love toward non-Muslims from the Quran, just one?
Voted : No, and I will comment below
"Why should Western countries be so tolerant to Muslim nations where Christians are routinenly persecuted?"
That comment seems to me like you're encouraging Christians to start acting like Muslim extremists. Which I'm fairly sure we don't want. The Islamic world is headed by people who are generally less open-minded than those of the Christian world. This is not to say that is the feeling of the majority, but building a cathedral in Mecca would do nothing but start unecessary violence.
And Jinn, Christianity was just as violent a reiligion as Islam is. Remember the Crusades? The Reconquista? Quoted directly from my Bible: Joshua 6:16-18 "'Shout! For the Lord has given you the city! The city and all that is in it are to be devoted to the Lord. Only the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared...'"
Joshua 8:1-3 "Then the Lord said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king..."
1 Samuel 30:8-9 "and David inquired of the Lord, "Shall I pursue this raiding party? Will I overtake them"
"Pursue them," he answered. "You will certainly overtake them and succeed in the rescue."
Admittedly, that last verse was regarding one of the few conflicts *not* started by the Israelites, but it is one of many in the Bible where God personally orders someone to do violence in his name.
The holy books of both Christianity and Islam have messages of peace and love, but also of violence and conquest. They were books written for their time.
"And Jinn, Christianity was just as violent a reiligion as Islam is. Remember the Crusades? The Reconquista?" by himself809 on Sun Sep 03, 06 12:55pm
Its both absurd and interesting that the Islamic apologists find it necessary to reach back several centuries to find justification for the violent acts of Muslims in the 21st century. This only serves to reenforce the truth that Islam is a practice of the middle ages that has no place in the modern humanity. While Christianity has adapted to the humanistic qualities that Jesus himself promoted. Also the acts of those calling themselves Christians in the middle ages DOES NOT mitigate the acts of Islamic terrorists. That is absurd!
However, both the Crusades and the Reconquista of hundreds of years ago were not about what the Bible teaches, it was simply the reconquering of land and territory taken by Muslims during periods of brutal Islamic expansionism, which is a mandated requirement tought by Muhammad in Quran and hadith.
Even the Spanish Inquisition itself had nothing to do with what the Bible teaches. True, Christians were and are capable of doing bad things to others, but that's just it, they were bad Christians not faithful ones. There is no justification in the Bible for any of those acts, but the opposite is true. True, the Catholic church was once very currupted by people in power and control of it, but they weren't being controled by the Gospel, and they were committing acts of violence in spite of what the Bible teaches, not because of what it teaches. In fact the Bible says "thou shalt not kill".
Your Bible quotes are nothing but stories, myths, legends and tales that took place long before Christ (god) came to earth. They are NOT TEACHINGS, nor instructions for Christians to follow and emulate. Jesus Christ is the model for "Christianity". And many years ago the Catholic Church itself told Christians not to take the old testament stories seriously.
Funny how the true fundamentalists in Christianity are the most peacful of all. In contrast to this the more Muslim one becomes, the more dangerous to non-Muslims they are.
You put words in my mouth. I never said I was justifying the acts of Islamic extremism. I was just pointing out that Christianity *was* as violent a religion as Islam *is*.
"it was simply the reconquering of land and territory taken by Muslims during periods of brutal Islamic expansionism"
True. However, retaking those lands in just as brutal a conquest is no more commendable. The argument over "who had Jerusalem first" is an argument with no answer. Using the fact that "the Jews/Christians had Jerusalem first" to justify the Crusades is to ignore the fact that Canaan was, in fact, taken by the Israelites under God's orders. This is *not*, however, to justify the eventual conquest of the lands by Muslims.
I was just pointing out that Christianity *was* as violent a religion as Islam *is*.
And this was important to point out because...?
By the way, Jerusalem belonged to the Jews and Christians long before Muhammad, the creator of Islam was born!
Because you think that I am an "Islam apologist." I was pointing out that I wasn't being absurd by justifying terrorism by those who call themselves Muslims because of
"the acts of those calling themselves Christians in the middle ages." You seem to believe that Islam, summed up, has caused much more violence than Christianity, summed up. This is what you believe, no?
"I was pointing out that I wasn't being absurd by justifying terrorism by those who call themselves Muslims because of
"the acts of those calling themselves Christians in the middle ages." by himself809 on Sun Sep 03, 06 3:24pm
Make up your mind. Now you admit you are justifying the acts of Islamic terrorism, and also claim it not to be absurd to do so???
"You seem to believe that Islam, summed up, has caused much more violence than Christianity, summed up. This is what you believe, no?" by himself809
What I know is that modern civilization and humanity itself, is under a very real and serious threat from Islam. I don't have any such fear, nor worry of other religions. No follower of other religions has a motive to kill me for not "believeing". Naturally the one that does is my enemy, a threat to my family, my friends, my nation and the world.
I guess then that sectarianism does not exist in Northern Ireland, nor do christians kill doctors and blow up hospitals, neither do they attack muslims in the Balkans.
I guess I must have had my eyes closed, as I was almost sure this was the case.
Oh and just because you asked so nicely, here are a few quotes...
"I do not serve what you worship; nor do you serve what I worship. You have your own religion and I have mine.'
Allah has revealed to me that you should adopt humility so that no one oppresses another. (Riyadh-us-Salaheen, Hadith 1589)
Even as the fingers of the two hands are equal, so are human beings equal to one another. No one has any right, nor any preference to claim over another. You are brothers. (Final Sermon of Muhammad)
Sorry, what I meant to say was that I *wasn't* trying to justify terrorism by using what those who called themselves Christians did in years past.
So, then, you think that the religion itself is that problem i.e. that the world would be better off without Islam?
STEELHAMSTER: "I guess then that sectarianism does not exist in Northern Ireland, nor do christians kill doctors and blow up hospitals, neither do they attack muslims in the Balkans. I guess I must have had my eyes closed, as I was almost sure this was the case."
No Steelhamster, your eyes are open but they might be only seeing what they want to see, either that or you have been listening to Islamic propagandists.
When a Christian kills someone, even if the feud is between two religious groups like in the case of North Ireland, it is never inspired by religion itself. In fact, the Northern Ireland conflict is about territory, autonomy, independence and self-rule, with one side that happens to be majority Catholic and the other Protestant. The IRA is the Irish Republican Army, not the Irish Catholic Army. This is NOT a conflict about religion. I repeat, nowhere in the Bible does it say to kill the people of other religious faiths and beliefs. However the Quran is replete with such exhortations. (I know them all) For a true Muslim all wars are religious wars.
Does the Bible have teachings that instruct Christians to kill others they don't like? If someone kills a doctor or blows up an abortion clinic, even if that person claims they are a Christian, they in fact are not being Christian at all, because the Bible, and Jesus himself teach the exact opposite. The entire Spanish Inquisition was not about Bible teachings. Christians are capable of bad things. But when they kill they are doing so in spite of what the Bible teaches, not because of it. Even if they think they are acting for god, ignorance of Christianity and the Bible does not legitimize acts of violence in the name of Christianity. If it were we would see hundreds of Christian terror attacks on abortion clinics every year. And yes the Muslims are doing exactly what the Quran teaches, so becareful of what you say.
And yes, Steelhamster, Muhammad had many other catchy phrases in his early stages. You have provided quotes from those early periods. When Muhammad was in Mecca and weak, he also said there is no compulsion in religion, but he obviously lied, didn't he? Because when he came to power in Medina he compelled people to convert to Islam, kill for him, wage war for him, and to pay the expected tithes, or die. The more powerful Muhammad became the more brutal he became. The teachings (you avoid) are there to prove it. Muslims and apologists often recite those early verses and stories to entice converts. Just like a used-car dealer will only speak of the finer qualities and outgoing features of the car you look at. Dishonesty is all it is.
Again, many people do not have all the facts regarding the Balkans. Because it is a huge topic I will condense this greatly. The war in Bosnia in 1991 started with the breakdown of the Serb-Croat-Muslim coalition. However, the much maligned Milosevic was far from being the only guilty party. It was the Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic, who had publicly declared that Islam could never be at peace with non-Islamic societies (another Islamic teaching), and thus broke from the coalition. Of course the world didn't hear about all the violence comitted by the rebel Muslims against Serb and Croat citizens. The story only became news worthy after the idiot but brutal leader Milosevic sent in his undisciplined but powerful army to quell the violence. However, was Milosevic following the teachings of Christianity? No. And did you know that this conflict brought in hundreds of Jihadists from elsewhere? They are still there, but many have also moved into other parts of Europe. By the way, the Mulsims in that area are the desendants of people who were forced into Islamic conversion by the brutal Islamic expansionist conquests of the Ottoman Empire.
Then what about the Muslims we know? Are they not being good Muslims then? I invite you to tell them that. Their perception of what Islam is or should be is probably much different that yours.
And can you please explain how the Inquisition wasn't religiously motivated?
Make "that" "than." I guess I just suck at typing today or something lol.
Okay himself109, I see what you were saying now. I have reread what you were trying to say. I understand that it didn't come out the way you intended.
Yes, Islam has no place in this world today. It is an ideology based on a very violent period. Its teachings are written by a man who convinced those that would listen, that he was a messenger from God, but no true holyman would have done what he did. Muhammad was the Hitler of his day. He had Charisma, he was power hungry, and he had a narcissistic personality. These are all the common traits of cult leaders. Too bad no one was around to stop Muhammad, so his lies and sayings and acts have lived on to become legendary among Muslims. If only Muslims would open their eyes, they would see that Muhammad was far from being a prophet from god. He was no more a prophet than David Koresh, Shoko Ashahara, Jim Jones or Charles Manson were. Islam must go!
"Islam must go!"
And *now* we reach the point of the seemingly never-ending conflict between different religious interpretations. One side starts the fight, the other continues it, then the other continues it, like a horrible, bloody game of tennis, whose players who never grow tired.
The roots of this problem lie in both Christianity and Islam, and can only be truly solved if they work together or eliminate each other. Let's hope it's the former.
Make the "they" "we," cause I'm Christian. I vow to make that the last typo of the night lol.
"Then what about the Muslims we know? Are they not being good Muslims then? I invite you to tell them that. Their perception of what Islam is or should be is probably much different that yours. by himself809 on Sun Sep 03, 06 9:14pm
I assume you are speaking about the so-called "moderate" muslims that reside in the west. Actually these are the most dangerous people in "infidel land". They are the weak believer Muslims. They are Muslims by name only. But they are the constant apologists for the violence committed by the true muslims. And the true muslims will use them and hide behind them as long as they keep saying things like "Islam is a peaceful religion" or "these terrorists have hijacked Islam" or "Islam does not permit the killing of innocent people". This is all bullcrap! When Islamic terrorists strike in the west, why is it these people are more interested in defending their precious Islam than they are in protesting the acts of their brothers? If they claim the terrorists are taking the quran's teachings out of context, then shouldn't it be their job and responsibility to tell us what the true context is????
Instead we here nothing but "you are persecuting us" or complaints about stereo-typing and racial profiling. They only worry about themselves, not the thousands of dead infidels.
The one Muslim I know does make it a point to condemn the actions of terrorists.
And who can really say what a "true" Muslim is beside a Muslim? IMO, these labels of "true" Muslims and "untrue" Muslims do nobody any good. The fact is that there is one group of Muslims intent on destroying the West, and one group intent on simply living life to the best of their ability, and both should be active in the resolution of the conflict. I agree with you that the second group should probably be more vocal in promoting what they believe Islam is. In their defense, though, you say that people don't know what the moderate Muslims believe Islam to be, yet you say, "they keep saying things like 'Islam is a peaceful religion' or 'these terrorists have hijacked Islam' or 'Islam does not permit the killing of innocent people.'" Are those things not a clarification of what "true context is"?
Himself, if you want to know the truth about Islam, do you honestly believe you are going to get a fair and unbiased explaination from a muslim? Of course not.
HIMSELF809: "And who can really say what a "true" Muslim is beside a Muslim? IMO, these labels of "true" Muslims and "untrue" Muslims do nobody any good."
Mr. Steelhamster, it was Muhammad that forever divided the people of the world into two seperate camps, Dar al Islam (Land of Islam) and Dar al Harb (Land of War).
Dar al Islam, "The House of Islam" or "Land of Islam." is a country in which the edicts of Islam are in full promulgation. Dar al Harb "The House of War" or "The land of warfare" is a country belonging to the infidels which has not been subdued by Islam. A country in which peace has not been proclaimed between Muslims and unbelievers.
The theological basis for Dar al Harb is the doctrine (found in the hadith as well as in the Quran) that the earth belongs to Allah and to his Messenger. In the Quran too Allah promises the world to his followers. This leads to the idea that jihad is a defensive war liberating what already belongs to Allah and to his Umma. Hence the Muslims by waging jihad are taking back what is theirs. Even the whole world.
Since the world belongs to the Umma, any power that prevents them from having it is by definition oppressive, and upsurping the Umma's rights.
In Islam "peace" is only achieved when the entire earth becomes Islamic. When Iran says they are developing nuclear technology for "peaceful purposes" they are not actually lying, but they are using taqiya (deception), which is permitted in jihad.
Sorry, In error I incorrectly addressed you as Mr. Steelhamster, instead of himself809
Voted : No, and I will comment below
Don't quite think it'd fly.
Voted : No, and I will comment below
Of course not. They recognize none but their own.
Voted : No, and I will comment below
they fight blindly for their belief
The truth of the matter is, that Saudi Arabia does not permit churches or any Christian place of worship to be built anywhere in their nation. In fact, no christian worship gatherings are allowed either, even in your own home.
"Its both absurd and interesting that the Islamic apologists find it necessary to reach back several centuries to find justification for the violent acts of Muslims in the 21st century."
I also find it interesting that you have conveniently forgotten about a few wars in the 20th century caused by Christians. Namely WW1, WW2 and the cold war, which i might add has a a grand total of 133.000.000 deaths.
"While Christianity has adapted to the humanistic qualities that Jesus himself promoted."
I don't see the gasing of 6,000,000 Jews humane personally. I wander if Jinn here can tell us how many wars apart from the war on terror have actually been caused by Islam and Muslims.
^ and how many people Muslims have killed in wars and attacks. You can go back to the very beginning of Islam if you want Jinn but I bet my bottom dollar that Christianity killed more people in the 10 years of WW1 and 2 combined than Islam has in it's 1600 years of existance.
And don't forget the 2,000,000 or so Vietnamese killed by the US and Hiroshima and Nakaski or the British colonists wiping out the aboriginals and the native Americans. Some how Islam pales in comparison to Christianity when it comes to violents doesn't it.
Ahhem..^ 2,000,000 is a number that combines both the civilian casualties killed by both US forces and North Vietnamese. As for the atomic bomb, WWII had prettym ,uch nothing to do with religion.
No but caused by nations of Christain faith. My point is people go on and on how violent Islam is when almost all conflicts in history were and are caused by nations of christian faith.
o alright then
"I bet my bottom dollar that Christianity killed more people in the 10 years of WW1 and 2 combined than Islam has in it's 1600 years of existance."
by Spartan.
Bad bet. What's the wager?
Good grief! What does the religion of Christianity and its doctine have to do with the wars of WWI and WWII?
Were you even awake during your history and Social Studies classes?
Hitler extended his rationalizations into a religious doctrine, underpinned by his criticism of traditional Catholicism. In particular, and closely related to Positive Christianity, Hitler objected to Catholicism's ungrounded and international character - that is, it did not pertain to an exclusive race and national culture. At the same time, and somewhat contradictorily, the Nazis combined elements of Germany's Lutheran community tradition with its Northern European, organic pagan past. Elements of militarism found their way into Hitler's own theology, as he preached that his was a "true" or "master" religion, because it would "create mastery" and avoid comforting lies. Those who preached love and tolerance, "in contravention to the facts", were said to be "slave" or "false" religions. The man who recognized these "truths", Hitler continued, was said to be a "natural leader", and those who denied it were said to be "natural slaves". "Slaves" – especially intelligent ones, he claimed – were always attempting to hinder their masters by promoting false religious and political doctrines.
Anti clericalism can also be interpreted as part of Nazi ideology, simply because the new Nazi hierarchy was not about to let itself be overode by the power that the Church traditionally held. In Austria, clerics had a powerful role in politics and ultimately responded to the Vatican. Although a few exceptions exist, Christian persecution was primarily limited to those who refused to accommodate the new regime and yield to its power. The Nazis often used the church to justify their stance and included many Christian symbols in the Third Reich (Steigmann–Gall). A particularly poignant exemplar is the seen in the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
^That.
oops forgot the quotation marks.
"Hitler and other Nazi leaders clearly made use of both Christian and Pagan symbolism and emotion in propagandizing the Germanic public, and it remains a matter of controversy whether Hitler believed himself a Christian, a heathen, or something else entirely. Some historians have typified Hitler as a neo-Pagan, whereas other writers have referred to Nazism's occasional outward use of Christian doctrine, regardless of what its inner-party mythology may have been. Many Nazi leaders subscribed either to a mixture of modern (pseudo-)scientific theories, as Hitler himself did, or to mysticism and occultism, which was especially strong in the SS. Central to both groupings was the belief in German racial superiority. The existence of a Ministry of Church Affairs, instituted in 1935 and headed by Hanns Kerrl, was hardly recognized by ideologists such as Alfred Rosenberg or by other political decision makers."
"Despite Germany's long history as the seat of the Holy Roman Empire and the birthplace of the Reformation, Christianity was in a decline during the rise of the Nazi Party. Some of the factors leading to this decline were the after affects of World War I which challenged "traditional" European viewpoints, the decline in political parties backed by the Catholic Church. The decline of the Centre Party Germany was an enabler for the rise of the Nazi Party."
"Many Christians believed Nazism to be a Christian movement. Even in the later years of the Third Reich, many Protestant and Catholic clergy persisted in believing that Nazism was in its essence in accordance with Christian precepts."
Thats what religion has to do with WW2, maybe you should have stayed awake during your classes so you wouldn't have asked such a silly question.
Voted : No, and I will comment below
The audacity of the religiously intolerant saudis to want a mosque beside the vatican is immense.
I was surprised to find that there is not a any Mosque in the Vatican city.
|
|
