Jesus vs Muhammad

[Khatmandude]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='579164' date='Oct 27 2007, 07:06 PM']Ikota, why don't you refute anything he says with evidence? If you don't have the time or you don't think argueing with Lawman is worth it, then why do you even bother posting in this thread.[/quote]

Fair question. Let me start off by saying that 90% of what Lawman posts is out of context and another 9.9% is just flat out wrong. There are scholars who study the context of everything that was revealed and analyze why it was revealed and when you do so, you realize there is wisdom in it. It would be very easy to take something from here and there and post it on this site to further your argument. Now, why don't I correct everything he posts? Well, consider the length of his posts. Now, as 99.9% of the post is inaccurate......well you do the math.......that's alot of time. Second, there is no intent on his part to actually discuss anything.......he thinks he's (well actually CARM and related sites) cracked the code on the evilness of Islam. There is no willingness to consider other views. The manipulative and deceptive nature of his posting from day 1 has led me to believe there is an ulterior motive to his posting....again, no desire whatsoever to "discuss". Most people realize this. There is also a lack of understanding and reading comprehension on his part that really doesn't need refuting.

Now, you know what a Muslim's life is supposed to be like? Well, nothing like what Lawman would decieve you to believe. I am obligated to be the best person I can be and consider others' feelings and convenience before mine.....regardless of their faith or lack of. Lawman would have you believe that I am supposed to kill all those who aren't Muslims and I am forbidden to take them as friends. Muhammad used to walk down a particular street while in a certain town. There was an elderly non Muslim woman who would throw garbage at him each and everyday and he became accustomed to her treatment...........then one day she wasn't there to throw garbage at him so he worried about her and knocked on the door of her home. Someone besides her opened the door and informed Muhammad that she was gravely ill. He asked the person if he could visit her on pretty much her deathbed and this act struck her so profoundly, her hate for him turned into love and admiration for him. This is an example of how a Muslim should live their daily lives. I prefer to let my actions show how a Muslim should act instead of trying to correct everything Lawman posts. That impacts many more people than sitting here on a message board to argue at no avail with someone who doesn't want to see anything except what they have already seen. I go about my everyday life and activities and try to act how I have been taught to act. I make mistakes at times because I am human. I try to learn from my mistakes. I don't judge people because I myself am human. If I am in a position to help someone, I have to do so regardless of their faith or lack of. I have to uphold justice and even if my own mother commited a crime, I would be obligated to testify against her. If a Muslim wronged a non Muslim, I take the side of the wronged. This is true Islam.....it isn't a religion, it's a way of life. Does anyone honestly think that over a billion people in the world would follow a teaching which is unjust and violent? Does anyone know any Muslims? What are they like? Words on a messageboard don't mean much.

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='IKOTA' post='579258' date='Oct 28 2007, 01:43 AM']Fair question. Let me start off by saying that 90% of what Lawman posts is out of context and another 9.9% is just flat out wrong. There are scholars who study the context of everything that was revealed and analyze why it was revealed and when you do so, you realize there is wisdom in it. It would be very easy to take something from here and there and post it on this site to further your argument. Now, why don't I correct everything he posts? Well, consider the length of his posts. Now, as 99.9% of the post is inaccurate......well you do the math.......that's alot of time. Second, there is no intent on his part to actually discuss anything.......he thinks he's (well actually CARM and related sites) cracked the code on the evilness of Islam. There is no willingness to consider other views. The manipulative and deceptive nature of his posting from day 1 has led me to believe there is an ulterior motive to his posting....again, no desire whatsoever to "discuss". Most people realize this. There is also a lack of understanding and reading comprehension on his part that really doesn't need refuting.

Now, you know what a Muslim's life is supposed to be like? Well, nothing like what Lawman would decieve you to believe. I am obligated to be the best person I can be and consider others' feelings and convenience before mine.....regardless of their faith or lack of. Lawman would have you believe that I am supposed to kill all those who aren't Muslims and I am forbidden to take them as friends. Muhammad used to walk down a particular street while in a certain town. There was an elderly non Muslim woman who would throw garbage at him each and everyday and he became accustomed to her treatment...........then one day she wasn't there to throw garbage at him so he worried about her and knocked on the door of her home. Someone besides her opened the door and informed Muhammad that she was gravely ill. He asked the person if he could visit her on pretty much her deathbed and this act struck her so profoundly, her hate for him turned into love and admiration for him. This is an example of how a Muslim should live their daily lives. I prefer to let my actions show how a Muslim should act instead of trying to correct everything Lawman posts. That impacts many more people than sitting here on a message board to argue at no avail with someone who doesn't want to see anything except what they have already seen. I go about my everyday life and activities and try to act how I have been taught to act. I make mistakes at times because I am human. I try to learn from my mistakes. I don't judge people because I myself am human. If I am in a position to help someone, I have to do so regardless of their faith or lack of. I have to uphold justice and even if my own mother commited a crime, I would be obligated to testify against her. If a Muslim wronged a non Muslim, I take the side of the wronged. This is true Islam.....it isn't a religion, it's a way of life. Does anyone honestly think that over a billion people in the world would follow a teaching which is unjust and violent? Does anyone know any Muslims? What are they like? Words on a messageboard don't mean much.[/quote]

Thank you for your post...this was pretty much all I was looking for from you.

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='579197' date='Oct 27 2007, 09:23 PM']Thanks for the kind thoughts. I'm sorry to disappoint, but like everyone else, I'm just another person trying to go through life the best way I can. I've done plenty of "refuting" and have also done plenty of "making-fun-of," too. I'm no saint, so if that diminishes your view of me, then you are entitled to that view.

Underlying it all is a bit of seriousness, however: In my opinion, the "Lawman's" of the world spill a lot of needless blood. And they do it in a sanctimonious manner--convinced they are right despite a lot of evidence to the contrary. It is this fundamental disregard for Life in general that I despise, and what drives my "intolerance" of an intolerant fool.


Noted. You ask a fair question.[/quote]

It does'nt diminsh my view of you at all. I was just hoping for your true insight here. Even though your exasperation for Lawman is evident. Honestly, I am intersted in a true discussion of this topic is all.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='579289' date='Oct 28 2007, 06:46 AM']...I was just hoping for your true insight here. ... Honestly, I am intersted in a true discussion of this topic is all.[/quote]

Okay, I'll try, though it may not be the sort of reply you had in mind.

The title of the thread is Jesus vs. Muhammad. Sounds kinda pugilistic, doesn't it? So, implicit in the intent of this thread is a combative divisiveness that may or may not be acceptable to people. It is not acceptable to me. I would ask, why not entitle the thread: "Jesus and Muhammad." One could still perform some comparison and contrast, but the intent might be slightly different--making the quest for some common features between them to be the goal, instead of Lawman's implicit (and dumbfounded) intent to drive some kind of silver dagger into the heart of Islam. Die! Dracula! Die!

In any case, my interest in this matter is not on the same plane which Lawman wishes to pursue the topic. What interests me is ecumenicism, as I have expressed here and elsewhere. It seems to me that the essential question facing global cultures today is best stated as: On what common, principled basis can various cultures collaborate and create the sort of world which functions to the benefit of all?

Before I get philosophical/theological, a personal note: I grew up as an Episcopalian, in a working class neighborhood populated by a lot of actual Holocaust survivors and also a fair amount of Roman Catholic Cuban refugees. The kids I roamed with, played ball with, fought for (like brothers) and against (again, like brothers) were a fairly diverse lot. The differences in our faiths did not stop us from being normal kids. Later, but still in my formative years, I was happy to count among my friends both a Shia from Iran and a Sunni from Saudi Arabia. The nominal Shia (as he was not super-religious, much like many people we know in our own culture today) was a refugee of sorts--his family had put him on a flight out of Iran literally just a few days before the Shah fell. The Sunni was fairly devout and a distant member of the ruling royal family.

Here, via this board, Ikota once stepped up and helped me in a minor, but important manner, and did so with a kind of grace and respect that surpasses what I can normally muster. I'm morally indebted to him, not as a matter of vulgar payback, but more as a matter of learning from his example and trying to emulate it.

All this should offer a little insight as to why, as a personal matter, I've chosen to participate in this thread the way I have. Combined with what I said in my previous post regarding my distaste for the mindless blood-spillers of the world, this forms most of the picture. But not all.

Here's the rest.

Not counting what he may have muttered under his breath, Lawman has characterized my views in three ways that I can remember: as a secular humanist, as an agnostic, and as a Deist. Of these claims, two are in the ballpark and one is simply flat out mistaken.

The mistaken view, first. As anyone who has read my posts over the past knows, and who also knows the roots of both Gnosis and it's evil twin, agnosticism, this claim is simply not tenable. I consistently defend Reason and have explicitly rejected the shared premise of both the Gnostic gospels and modern day agnosticism: skepticism and unknowability at the core of the relation between individual humans and the Creator. I know this may be tedious, but it is important. I insist upon a relation between the individual and God that is congruent with the filioque clause of the Nicene creed and the Greek concept of homoousious it is based upon--the notion of consubstantiality. Gnosticism posits a fundamental "unknowability" or non-consubstantiality in defining the relation between man and God. Later, the concept of agnosticism comes from the perspective of a sort of reductivist, materialist view of the world, but also posits a skeptical relation between man and God (and in many cases, rejecting the notion of any God of any kind whatsoever.)

As a side note: It's this materialist, agnostic view which animates much of the tempest-in-a-teapot debate about Intelligent Design and Evolution. As I suggested elsewhere, the whole Dawkins vs. Supernatural debate may be susceptible to a better solution, were the debate framed differently. It certainly would remove inconsistent absurdities such as the Intelligent Designer side using the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which is, in fact, a materialist conception) against the very side that promulgated it.

Closer to the mark: secular humanist. I don't mind this appelation so much, even if it isn't totally accurate. I'll concede that according to the lights of those who insist on an anthropomorphic God that my views may seem secular, because I do reject the notion of a Colonel Sanders-in-the-Sky kind of diety. If I am a humanist, and I think I am, it is closer to the kind of humanism expounded by Erasmus and his crowd--which may be closer to theomorphic than secular, even with regard to science.

Also close but no cigar: Deist. This is troublesome to me, to say the least. The term seems to fit my views, at least as seen by others, except for this qualification--It's an Enlighment period term which rests, too, on the supposition of a kind of materialist view of the universe which I do not think to be the case. My objections to the appelation are similar to my rejection of Empiricism as an epistemology: crappy foundational notions with regard to substance, causality, and the implications empiricist epistemology has for both science and theology. (It's divisive.) (Wanna headache? Read Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.")

So, now, what is left that might fill the picture better? My "true insight", which you requested, fwiw, cannot be accounted for by the above, although they might come close.

What role does science and philosophy have when it comes to theology? Are they distinct and antigonistic to theology, or are they complementary and essential?

Does a human body contain a soul? Or, does a human soul contain a body? What is it that defines a human spirit? How might one measure it?

In general, the monotheisms of the world value the spirit/soul above the body. That's a commonality worth a conversation. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have all produced great scientists. That's a commonality worth a conversation. Philosophers of all three have asked very similar, and profound, questions about the nature of the universe, and God. That's a commonality worth a conversation.

And perhaps most important, all three preach, at their core, a form of what Christians call agape--charity--sacred love. That's a commonality worth a conversation.

Agape is not Eros, of course, and all three religions make that distinction. And, if Paul is right in I Corinthians 13, and I personally think he is, then without love, all is diminished.

[quote]Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.[/quote]

Creativity and Reason are the tools by which God endowed humanity in his image. We participate, with God, in the unfolding of the universe. Our apprehension of God's blessing in this regard is expressed through science and Reason, as well as art and music at the highest levels, congruent with--at least to the extent that we can possibly make them--our most profound regard for God's love, and the kind of love we return in kind, as our responsibility and as our pleasure.

Now some people think that in order for the above to be true, then God must perforce be anthropomorphic. I assert that that is not the case. I think that the insistence on an anthropomorphic God is indicative of a limited understanding of Creation. Just as the insistence that Christianity's God, or Judaism's God, or Islam's God is better/more true than the others is also suggestive of a limited imagination. And, as everyone ought to know, imagination is not the same thing as creativity.

Fortunately, all three religions have healthy advocates within, who understand that the commonalities between the faiths, on precisely these kinds of issues, outweigh, by far, any cultural origins which might have been a proximate cause for the way in which such questions were (and are) shaped and asked.

One last comment: Agape is not butterfly love, it's not sentimental love. It's tough love. It demands a kind of ruthlessness which none of us can conform to all the time. Those among us who axiomatically insist on principles which lead to uncomformity with God's love must be marginalized. Otherwise, you end up with the Four Horsemen.

[|Bunghole|]

Wow, great post. I didn't realize that I am closer to your line of thinking than I thought with regards to these matters, albeit with a lesser degree of understanding due to a lack of deep education on these topics.
Oh yeah, and:

[b]"...Lawman's implicit (and dumbfounded) intent to drive some kind of silver dagger into the heart of Islam. Die! Dracula! Die!"[/b]

LOL!

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='579337' date='Oct 28 2007, 10:41 AM']Okay, I'll try, though it may not be the sort of reply you had in mind.

The title of the thread is Jesus vs. Muhammad. Sounds kinda pugilistic, doesn't it? So, implicit in the intent of this thread is a combative divisiveness that may or may not be acceptable to people. It is not acceptable to me. I would ask, why not entitle the thread: "Jesus and Muhammad." One could still perform some comparison and contrast, but the intent might be slightly different--making the quest for some common features between them to be the goal, instead of Lawman's implicit (and dumbfounded) intent to drive some kind of silver dagger into the heart of Islam. Die! Dracula! Die!

In any case, my interest in this matter is not on the same plane which Lawman wishes to pursue the topic. What interests me is ecumenicism, as I have expressed here and elsewhere. It seems to me that the essential question facing global cultures today is best stated as: On what common, principled basis can various cultures collaborate and create the sort of world which functions to the benefit of all?

Before I get philosophical/theological, a personal note: I grew up as an Episcopalian, in a working class neighborhood populated by a lot of actual Holocaust survivors and also a fair amount of Roman Catholic Cuban refugees. The kids I roamed with, played ball with, fought for (like brothers) and against (again, like brothers) were a fairly diverse lot. The differences in our faiths did not stop us from being normal kids. Later, but still in my formative years, I was happy to count among my friends both a Shia from Iran and a Sunni from Saudi Arabia. The nominal Shia (as he was not super-religious, much like many people we know in our own culture today) was a refugee of sorts--his family had put him on a flight out of Iran literally just a few days before the Shah fell. The Sunni was fairly devout and a distant member of the ruling royal family.

Here, via this board, Ikota once stepped up and helped me in a minor, but important manner, and did so with a kind of grace and respect that surpasses what I can normally muster. I'm morally indebted to him, not as a matter of vulgar payback, but more as a matter of learning from his example and trying to emulate it.

All this should offer a little insight as to why, as a personal matter, I've chosen to participate in this thread the way I have. Combined with what I said in my previous post regarding my distaste for the mindless blood-spillers of the world, this forms most of the picture. But not all.

Here's the rest.

Not counting what he may have muttered under his breath, Lawman has characterized my views in three ways that I can remember: as a secular humanist, as an agnostic, and as a Deist. Of these claims, two are in the ballpark and one is simply flat out mistaken.

The mistaken view, first. As anyone who has read my posts over the past knows, and who also knows the roots of both Gnosis and it's evil twin, agnosticism, this claim is simply not tenable. I consistently defend Reason and have explicitly rejected the shared premise of both the Gnostic gospels and modern day agnosticism: skepticism and unknowability at the core of the relation between individual humans and the Creator. I know this may be tedious, but it is important. I insist upon a relation between the individual and God that is congruent with the filioque clause of the Nicene creed and the Greek concept of homoousious it is based upon--the notion of consubstantiality. Gnosticism posits a fundamental "unknowability" or non-consubstantiality in defining the relation between man and God. Later, the concept of agnosticism comes from the perspective of a sort of reductivist, materialist view of the world, but also posits a skeptical relation between man and God (and in many cases, rejecting the notion of any God of any kind whatsoever.)

As a side note: It's this materialist, agnostic view which animates much of the tempest-in-a-teapot debate about Intelligent Design and Evolution. As I suggested elsewhere, the whole Dawkins vs. Supernatural debate may be susceptible to a better solution, were the debate framed differently. It certainly would remove inconsistent absurdities such as the Intelligent Designer side using the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which is, in fact, a materialist conception) against the very side that promulgated it.

Closer to the mark: secular humanist. I don't mind this appelation so much, even if it isn't totally accurate. I'll concede that according to the lights of those who insist on an anthropomorphic God that my views may seem secular, because I do reject the notion of a Colonel Sanders-in-the-Sky kind of diety. If I am a humanist, and I think I am, it is closer to the kind of humanism expounded by Erasmus and his crowd--which may be closer to theomorphic than secular, even with regard to science.

Also close but no cigar: Deist. This is troublesome to me, to say the least. The term seems to fit my views, at least as seen by others, except for this qualification--It's an Enlighment period term which rests, too, on the supposition of a kind of materialist view of the universe which I do not think to be the case. My objections to the appelation are similar to my rejection of Empiricism as an epistemology: crappy foundational notions with regard to substance, causality, and the implications empiricist epistemology has for both science and theology. (It's divisive.) (Wanna headache? Read Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.")

So, now, what is left that might fill the picture better? My "true insight", which you requested, fwiw, cannot be accounted for by the above, although they might come close.

What role does science and philosophy have when it comes to theology? Are they distinct and antigonistic to theology, or are they complementary and essential?

Does a human body contain a soul? Or, does a human soul contain a body? What is it that defines a human spirit? How might one measure it?

In general, the monotheisms of the world value the spirit/soul above the body. That's a commonality worth a conversation. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have all produced great scientists. That's a commonality worth a conversation. Philosophers of all three have asked very similar, and profound, questions about the nature of the universe, and God. That's a commonality worth a conversation.

And perhaps most important, all three preach, at their core, a form of what Christians call agape--charity--sacred love. That's a commonality worth a conversation.

Agape is not Eros, of course, and all three religions make that distinction. And, if Paul is right in I Corinthians 13, and I personally think he is, then without love, all is diminished.



Creativity and Reason are the tools by which God endowed humanity in his image. We participate, with God, in the unfolding of the universe. Our apprehension of God's blessing in this regard is expressed through science and Reason, as well as art and music at the highest levels, congruent with--at least to the extent that we can possibly make them--our most profound regard for God's love, and the kind of love we return in kind, as our responsibility and as our pleasure.

Now some people think that in order for the above to be true, then God must perforce be anthropomorphic. I assert that that is not the case. I think that the insistence on an anthropomorphic God is indicative of a limited understanding of Creation. Just as the insistence that Christianity's God, or Judaism's God, or Islam's God is better/more true than the others is also suggestive of a limited imagination. And, as everyone ought to know, imagination is not the same thing as creativity.

Fortunately, all three religions have healthy advocates within, who understand that the commonalities between the faiths, on precisely these kinds of issues, outweigh, by far, any cultural origins which might have been a proximate cause for the way in which such questions were (and are) shaped and asked.

One last comment: Agape is not butterfly love, it's not sentimental love. It's tough love. It demands a kind of ruthlessness which none of us can conform to all the time. Those among us who axiomatically insist on principles which lead to uncomformity with God's love must be marginalized. Otherwise, you end up with the Four Horsemen.[/quote]

Excellent post! Thank you for the time you put into this post. I fall very close in line with your views most of the time, and this is one of them. I am protestant and I am also a "realist." Without religious tolerance and understanding this world is headed for a place that I believe none of us want to live in.

[LoyalFanInGA v2.0]

Homer,

You need to lecture somewhere...anywhere.
Share some of that knowledge.

[LoyalFanInGA v2.0]

[quote name='Lawman' post='577161' date='Oct 23 2007, 08:51 PM']I can't believe you brought something up along the lines of the spanish inqusition. The catholic church was after the Jews property and wealth.[/quote]

I'll give you partial credit, but still a failing grade, overall.

To quote a prophet,

[quote name='Lawman' post='579104' date='Oct 27 2007, 12:19 PM']By your post, it is clearly evident that your knowledge base on such a subject is limited; as well as my own. The difference between us is that you (and others) are inundated with"Political Correctness".[/quote]

The Reconquista was a seven and a half century struggle by Christians to drive Muslim rulers from the Iberian peninsula (present day Spain and Portugal) beginning in the early 700s and ending in the late 1400s. The Moors called this land Al-Andalus. Southern Spain is still known today as Andalusia where you can see Catholic churches built on the foundations of Muslim mosques built on the ruins of Roman temples.

When the Catholic monarchs King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella gained control of Spain they chose Christianity to unite their kingdom and created the Spanish Inquisition. The Pope gave the rulers permission to conduct their Inquisition, but had no authority over the Spanish Inquisition. The King, not the Church, appointed the Inquisitor Generals and members of the Counsel Suprema. The members of the Tribunals were also appointed. The Inquisition only had authority over Christians, so the King declared everyone in Spain would convert to Christianity or get out. If you left, the Church didn't get your possessions, the Crown did.

After conversion, you were now under the authority of the Inquisition. Not only converted Jews were persecuted, but converted Protestants and Muslims (their former rulers) were persecuted as well. Later, the Pope officially condemned the Spanish Inquisition. Ferdinand responded by accusing the Pope of being blinded by political correctness.

The Reconquista was originally a war of conquest to regain land and kick out the Muslims. Later, it became a religiously justifiable war of liberation. This way of thinking gave birth to the Crusades to liberate Jerusalem from Muslim control. "We'll kick their asses out of Spain and we'll kick their asses out of Jerusalem because GOD IS ON OUR SIDE."

During the Crusades the Church espoused the idea of remission of sin. In other words, if you served or died in the cause of the Church your place in Heaven was assured. Sound familiar? Kind of like a Jihad? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Ferris Bueller?

The interaction with the Muslim culture led to advances in science, medicine, mathematics, religion, architecture, art, engineering, the trades (masonry, carpentry, agriculture and irrigation, etc) back in Europe of the Dark and Middle Ages. Like falling dominoes, this led to the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, the Age of Enlightenment, blah, blah, blah. This is to answer your query of Homer from the 'Armband' thread. I don't have confidence you'll figure it out yourself.

So fast forward from 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella, and the Spanish Inquisition to early 1600s England. The Puritans wanted to "purify" the Church of England of Catholic rites. The King said, "Hey, I'm not listening to your Puritanical, politically correct bullshit. I don't answer to you fuckers, nor Parliament, nor the Pope. I only answer to God. And all you sum' bitches are going to believe what I believe or you can leave."

This led to the Puritan's colonization of New England, the Quakers in Pennsylvania, and Catholics in Maryland (along with other religious groups sprinkled here and there.) Maryland passed the Toleration Act of 1649 legally protecting the right to practice the religion of one's choice...so long as it was a form of Christianity. Tough shit if you chose a non-Christian religion; better move south or west if you want to practice something else. Later, the Catholic churches in Maryland were burnt to the ground by Protestants. A Protestant protestor commented, "All this politically correct talk of tolerance is intolerable. What's next? Probably want me to free my slaves! I've got tobacco crops to bring in, dammit." The religious refugees seeking a life free from persecution colonized the New World only to persecute each other anew while still FOB (fresh off the boat.)

Now fast forward to 2001 and the birth of our own God Warrior, Lawman, who after much research and deliberation has concluded that 1.3 billion Muslims aren't practicing a religion, but an ideology. Reminds me of Reverend Cotton Mather who believed in witchcraft. This is the same Lawman, who after much weeping and gnashing of teeth doesn't know the difference between 'accept' and 'except'; or how to use the Quote function. Ninja please.

Lawman states Islam claims to be the one true religion.

Isn't the New Testament an accurate account of the gospel of Jesus Christ, His Words, and His Plan for all nations?

[quote]Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:6[/quote]

If you don't believe in Jesus you're not going to Heaven. That's kind of an exclusive club, don't you think? Kind of sucks for my 2 year old daughter who isn't old enough to believe in a concept as complex as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. How many born again Christians have you bumped into walking the streets of Mecca, Timbuktu, New Deli, Tokyo, Beijing, Nairobi, etc?

[quote]He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mark 16:16[/quote]

So if you believe, but you're not baptized...you're damned, too? Kind of sucks for my 13 year old son who believes in Jesus Christ, but isn't baptized because I decided he can choose to be baptized on his own if he desires. I don't run a religious boot camp at my house. I try to teach my kids to think for themselves so they can make a well informed decision which is right for them.

[quote]Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matthew 5:38-39[/quote]

What part of "turn the other cheek" involves waterboarding? Do you seriously think that isn't torture? Is you definition of torture physically or psychologically induced stress which doesn't cause permanent harm? I could rip out your fingernails one by one with a pair of pliers. In 8-12 weeks they will grow back good as new with no permanent damage. Don't you think that is torture?

[quote]And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?
For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad.
If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Mark 4:21-23[/quote]

[quote]No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.
The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.
Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.
If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.
Luke 11:33-36[/quote]

Those who can hear, will hear His Word.
Those who can see, will see His Light.
Both are self-evident and will be manifested.
It isn't your job to pry my eyelids open.

[img]http://outofmygord.com/images/clockwork.jpg[/img]

[quote]And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:15[/quote]

[quote]Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Matthew 28:16-20[/quote]

Jesus gave the Great Commission to his apostles. Not to Lawman...such hubris.

[url="http://www.letgodbetrue.com/questions/great-commision.htm"]Great Commission Fulfilled?[/url]

[quote]What is commonly known as the Great Commission is the command that Jesus gave to his disciples just before he ascended up into heaven: "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15).

Many today believe that this command of our Lord's still awaits fulfillment. It is widely taught that this command was given to all believers, and that all Christians are responsible to carry the gospel to every man, woman, and child in the world.
But the Bible does not teach this false application of Jesus' words at all!
First, notice that Jesus gave this command only to the eleven disciples (v.14). (See also Matthew 28:16-20; Acts 1:1-8.) Nowhere in the Bible are New Testament believers taught that they must go into all the world and preach the gospel to every person.
Second, the eleven disciples were specially empowered by the Holy Spirit with miraculous signs and abilities so that they might accomplish Jesus' command (Mark 16:17-20; Acts 2:1-4; Acts 3:1-7).
Third, the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ accomplished the mission during their lifetimes in the first century A.D. Notice what Mark 16:20 plainly states:
"And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen."
The Apostle Paul confirms the fulfillment of the Great Commission in Colossians 1:23:
"… the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven."
Notice what the Apostle Paul also said in Romans 16:26:
He stated that the gospel of Jesus Christ was "made known to all nations for the obedience of faith."
And so we see by the testimony of Scripture, the Great Commission that Jesus gave to the eleven disciples in Mark 16:15 was fully accomplished by His apostles during their lifetimes in the first century A.D. The Great Commission has been fulfilled![/quote]

[LoyalFanInGA v2.0]

I apologize to those of you who scrolled through that ^^^ only to find more here.

Seems I exceeded the number of quotes permitted in a single post.

Continued...

[quote]But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Matthew 6:6-7[/quote]

I say unto thee, get thy ass back into thy closet.

[quote name='Lawman' post='579104' date='Oct 27 2007, 12:19 PM']Why I am doing this, is due to an identified threat that recieves very little attention.[/quote]

Thanks for shining the light on the underbelly of this important, but highly neglected topic. In the past 6 years since 9/11 I haven't heard a PEEP about Islam.

[quote name='Lawman' post='579104' date='Oct 27 2007, 12:19 PM']Example: When you see a figure given of insurgents (or taliban) killed in a operation; it would be safe to double that figure.[/quote]
Body counts aren't accurate? You're shittin' me!
Bung, does your Dad know this?
[quote]And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Numbers 31:7-18[/quote]

Now that's partying like a rock star!

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='578340' date='Oct 25 2007, 07:05 PM']I thought the reason you started this thread was because I was paddling your little un-Christian fanny in the "Armband" thread.[/quote]
I thought the purpose was for Lawman to prove he is 1/3 crazy.