70 replies to this topic

[Jake]

Would you stick your hand in a lion's mouth and not expect to lose an hand? People should just leave them alone, stop meddling with their affairs, and stop grouping Muslims into one terrorist bunch, because generalizing never does any good. It's unrealistic to think you can provoke a group of people, and not expect a backlash. I'm staying the Hell away from the Middle East. Muslims don't come knocking at my door preaching their religion. Muslims actually don't bother me at all. I leave them alone, they leave me alone. It's not that hard to grasp that concept.

I agree people should leave their country alone. Generalizing is never good but in this case a good percentage of it can be true. I wish I could stay away from the Middle East for my whole life... you say they don't preach their religion and they don't bother you, they leave you alone... the exact opposite. They are everywhere and they bother me with their bad smell, their accent and the way they impose their shit everywhere. It isn't hard to grasp that concept.

[esilim]

+1



Would you stick your hand in a lion's mouth and not expect to lose an hand? People should just leave them alone, stop meddling with their affairs, and stop grouping Muslims into one terrorist bunch, because generalizing never does any good. It's unrealistic to think you can provoke a group of people, and not expect a backlash. There was that Virginia Tech guy, provoked to Hell and back, and guess what? He snapped. He killed people who never did a thing to him, but that's what happens when you piss people off beyond what they can take. For the Muslims, it's much easier to go nuts because they have their own fanatics telling them to, for the sake of their religion. I knew a Muslim who said the American who named that teddybear Mohamed should be whipped or executed for such sacrilege. I didn't understand the horrendously messed up line of thinking there. Does that inspire me to go to a Muslim country and "tame the heathens"? Absolutely not. I'm staying the Hell away from the Middle East. Muslims don't come knocking at my door preaching their religion. Muslims actually don't bother me at all. I leave them alone, they leave me alone. It's not that hard to grasp that concept.

Is it possible that you're that historically ignorant? Islam didn't evolve. Muslims violently conquered, raped, burned, and pillaged 1/3 of the known world. And it's not like they ever stopped either. There are hundreds of millions of raped and murdered innocents whose memories are mocked by your last two sentences.
And it's nice to see others getting blamed for what evil people do. So much for personal responsibility.

[Ladida]

Is it possible that you're that historically ignorant? Islam didn't evolve. Muslims violently conquered, raped, burned, and pillaged 1/3 of the known world. And it's not like they ever stopped either. There are hundreds of millions of raped and murdered innocents whose memories are mocked by your last two sentences.
And it's nice to see others getting blamed for what evil people do. So much for personal responsibility.

Name one religion which didn't do the same. In that respect, Islam is no different. If you want to point out the atrocities committed by the followers of Islam, don't neglect to remember the brutalities committed by the others. Or is it possible that you're that historically ignorant? Must I point out the rising number of boys speaking out about being raped by priests (and this is happening presently)? And the people in the Vatican simply turning a blind eye to it, and even simply moving the priest to another church? That's probably ok though, because at least they aren't Muslims, right? There are sick people everywhere, all using religion to further their agenda. Islam just has not evolved to be as tolerant as the other religions have as yet, which is why they're still doing what pretty much everyone's religious ancestors were doing before. But you probably think your religion was always pure, and therefore much superior to Islam, which is clearly populated by heathens.

[esilim]

Name one religion which didn't do the same. In that respect, Islam is no different. If you want to point out the atrocities committed by the followers of Islam, don't neglect to remember the brutalities committed by the others. Or is it possible that you're that historically ignorant? Must I point out the rising number of boys speaking out about being raped by priests (and this is happening presently)? And the people in the Vatican simply turning a blind eye to it, and even simply moving the priest to another church? That's probably ok though, because at least they aren't Muslims, right? There are sick people everywhere, all using religion to further their agenda. Islam just has not evolved to be as tolerant as the other religions have as yet, which is why they're still doing what pretty much everyone's religious ancestors were doing before. But you probably think your religion was always pure, and therefore much superior to Islam, which is clearly populated by heathens.

There is actually no other religion that has done the same as Islam. You're just regurgitating historically ignorant "common knowledge."

[Ladida]

There is actually no other religion that has done the same as Islam. You're just regurgitating historically ignorant "common knowledge."

Lol @ historically ignorant, because clearly History is a myth.

[Waser Lave]

Islam just has not evolved to be as tolerant as the other religions have as yet, which is why they're still doing what pretty much everyone's religious ancestors were doing before. But you probably think your religion was always pure, and therefore much superior to Islam, which is clearly populated by heathens.

Surely the question is then why they haven't evolved to be as tolerant as other religions?

[esilim]

Lol @ historically ignorant, because clearly History is a myth.

I'm saying that you don't actually know the history. While many religions have had followers who are intolerant of others and fought wars against them and killed them, only one world religion in history has ever spread their religion by force of violence. It's an historical fact, that you can't simply wish away by saying "everyone does that."

And there is no amount of repetition of an untruth that can magically turn it into a truth.

[Ladida]

I'm saying that you don't actually know the history. While many religions have had followers who are intolerant of others and fought wars against them and killed them, only one world religion in history has ever spread their religion by force of violence. It's an historical fact, that you can't simply wish away by saying "everyone does that."

And there is no amount of repetition of an untruth that can magically turn it into a truth.

You sir, are jumping all over the place.

Muslims violently conquered, raped, burned, and pillaged 1/3 of the known world. And it's not like they ever stopped either. There are hundreds of millions of raped and murdered innocents whose memories are mocked by your last two sentences.

I don't believe you mentioned anything about conversion here.

Therefore my statement still stands. You have failed at refuting it.

Surely the question is then why they haven't evolved to be as tolerant as other religions?

Probably because they live in such closed societies, making it near impossible for other influences to enter and bring about change.

only one world religion in history has ever spread their religion by force of violence.

http://www.localhist...rg/iceland.html

Woops. Perhaps you should have Googled harder.

& this.

http://www.hereticat...info/_jews.html

[Waser Lave]

Probably because they live in such closed societies, making it near impossible for other influences to enter and bring about change.

Now you're in a chicken vs the egg situation, are their societies so closed because they're so intolerant or are they so intolerant because their societies are so closed?

[Ladida]

Now you're in a chicken vs the egg situation, are their societies so closed because they're so intolerant or are they so intolerant because their societies are so closed?

I'd say it probably started off with the rules and values in the countries, whether it was forced upon the people or not. This is purely speculation of course, but perhaps when other countries and cultures became known to them, the people in control didn't like it very much. Maybe those external views were giving the common countrymen ideas that maybe things could be different. That would inevitably lead to loss of control for the people in power, and hence they stamped it out. Along with that, they instilled a mindset into their people that other cultures are bad and wrong and should not be followed. The Middle East would probably be much different, if they didn't have people preaching hatred and intolerance, simply to continue controlling their people.

[esilim]

I'd say it probably started off with the rules and values in the countries, whether it was forced upon the people or not. This is purely speculation of course, but perhaps when other countries and cultures became known to them, the people in control didn't like it very much. Maybe those external views were giving the common countrymen ideas that maybe things could be different. That would inevitably lead to loss of control for the people in power, and hence they stamped it out. Along with that, they instilled a mindset into their people that other cultures are bad and wrong and should not be followed. The Middle East would probably be much different, if they didn't have people preaching hatred and intolerance, simply to continue controlling their people.

No, your statement is that if you leave them alone, they'll leave you alone. Which is contradicted by the entire history of the religion.

[Ladida]

No, your statement is that if you leave them alone, they'll leave you alone. Which is contradicted by the entire history of the religion.

This was in response to burning their book to incite violence. If the book hadn't been burned, the senseless killing of UN workers wouldn't have happened. Hence, if the book hadn't been burned (if they had been left alone), the UN workers would still be alive today (they'd have left them alone).

Stop taking the words out of context.

[esilim]

The conversation had clearly moved on to the nature of Islamic violence in general.
Since your statement was just a repetition of a very popular, historically uninformed, error, you probably thought that it was past question.
Not only was it questionable, but in fact it was inaccurate.
I hope that you are aware that it is actually possible that you might be wrong.

[Ladida]

The conversation had clearly moved on to the nature of Islamic violence in general.
Since your statement was just a repetition of a very popular, historically uninformed, error, you probably thought that it was past question.
Not only was it questionable, but in fact it was inaccurate.
I hope that you are aware that it is actually possible that you might be wrong.

I've been involved in this discussion since it was posted (see first page). Naturally my posts, unlike yours, reflect what the original topic was about. You clearly took one of my posts (which was based on the board topic), and tried to prove your own unrelated point with it. This = debate fail.

I have indeed studied History at the University level, notably the History of a country called Guyana. It was invaded by the Spanish and Portuguese, and they forcibly placed the indigenous people, known as Amerindians, in missions and converted them to Christianity. They also tortured and killed the ones who refused. Even the ones placed in the missions were treated cruelly, and they did their best to escape. This information directly contradicts your assertion that the only religion that ever tried to convert people using force and violence is Islam, and proves its completely false.

I do hope you're aware that you are wrong in this case.

Edited by Ladida, 18 April 2011 - 11:05 AM.

[esilim]

Guyana was colonized/invaded by the Dutch and then the British. Even in the case of countries that were invaded by Spain or Portugal, again these are all countries, not religions. Religions and religious motives were subsidiary to the national motives. It wasn't as if the Vatican (which is also evil) was invading. Islam is the only religion that has ever spread itself through violent conquest. Since you have studied history at university, you can go back to your history professor with a list of the world religions and ask, in each case, how and when they spread.

[Ladida]

Guyana was colonized/invaded by the Dutch and then the British.

I said invaded.

"Immediately after the territorial discoveries were made by Columbus, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella petitioned Pope Alexander IV to recognise the "new" lands as Spanish possessions. At that time, the Pope's declaration was regarded as the supreme law in the Christian world, and it was important for Spain to win papal recognition of its discoveries, particularly at the same time when Portuguese explorers were reaching lands in Africa and Asia. The Portuguese had also approached the Pope to recognise their African "discoveries" as their legal possessions."
"The Paravianas...eventually found themselves in the Takutu area near the then unmarked border with Brazil. There they were rounded up by the Portuguese and forcibly moved to mission settlements in the Amazon."

The Portuguese forced Christianity on the indigenous people. The Dutch came to Guyana after the Portuguese and Spanish, because of the fantastic story of El Dorado told by a certain Spaniard. If you're truly interested in History, you could give this a read: http://www.guyana.or...yana_story.html There is a lot more to the history of this little country than what Google returns.

Islam is the only religion that has ever spread itself through violent conquest.

I would assume the Crusades mean nothing to you.

Religion has gone hand-in-hand with conquests, where religious empires would try to expand and also convert. I have yet to find any evidence of the Moors/Muslims invading another area simply to convert the people, without it being tied to conquering that specific area. However, as you made the claim in a previous post, perhaps you could link the evidence. Please don't link an article about "Muslim conquests", for those were empire expansions by Muslims, where they also forced conversions.

I realized hours ago that it's pointless debating with someone who has deemed that Islam is the only evil religion in the world. I've proven my points in every post, whereas you have simply made baseless statements, without any evidence. I do appreciate this getting my post count up, but it's rather tiresome conversing with someone who refuses to back his claims.

The only religious group I've met who seem to be trying to convert people without taking over are the Mormons who periodically end up on my doorstep.

In closing, I really do suggest you give this a read: http://en.wikipedia....rced_conversion

Edited by Ladida, 18 April 2011 - 11:56 PM.

[esilim]

I said invaded.

"Immediately after the territorial discoveries were made by Columbus, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella petitioned Pope Alexander IV to recognise the "new" lands as Spanish possessions. At that time, the Pope's declaration was regarded as the supreme law in the Christian world, and it was important for Spain to win papal recognition of its discoveries, particularly at the same time when Portuguese explorers were reaching lands in Africa and Asia. The Portuguese had also approached the Pope to recognise their African "discoveries" as their legal possessions."
"The Paravianas...eventually found themselves in the Takutu area near the then unmarked border with Brazil. There they were rounded up by the Portuguese and forcibly moved to mission settlements in the Amazon."

The Portuguese forced Christianity on the indigenous people. The Dutch came to Guyana after the Portuguese and Spanish, because of the fantastic story of El Dorado told by a certain Spaniard. If you're truly interested in History, you could give this a read: http://www.guyana.or...yana_story.html There is a lot more to the history of this little country than what Google returns.


I would assume the Crusades mean nothing to you.

Religion has gone hand-in-hand with conquests, where religious empires would try to expand and also convert. I have yet to find any evidence of the Moors/Muslims invading another area simply to convert the people, without it being tied to conquering that specific area. However, as you made the claim in a previous post, perhaps you could link the evidence. Please don't link an article about "Muslim conquests", for those were empire expansions by Muslims, where they also forced conversions.

I realized hours ago that it's pointless debating with someone who has deemed that Islam is the only evil religion in the world. I've proven my points in every post, whereas you have simply made baseless statements, without any evidence. I do appreciate this getting my post count up, but it's rather tiresome conversing with someone who refuses to back his claims.

The only religious group I've met who seem to be trying to convert people without taking over are the Mormons who periodically end up on my doorstep.

In closing, I really do suggest you give this a read: http://en.wikipedia....rced_conversion

Yes, the Crusades! Wars conducted by many Christian countries to free what few people were left after 500 years of unresisted Muslim conquest. And now, somehow, the historical bludgeon with which to beat up anyone who suggests that the Muslims are unique in their approach to the spread of religion. An astounding level of historical ignorance is required simultaneously by an astounding number of people for us to maintain the view that they are an example of how Roman Catholicism is just as bad as Islam. This is another problem with the wikipedia generation. All an error needs to become truth is for enough people to nod their heads or to repeat it. Never mind what the facts say.

One would think that looking at the facts might dispel the ignorance. North Africa, for 500 years, was almost 100% Christian. Then, through the bloodiest genocide in human history it was "converted" to Islam, with forcible rape of most of the remaining population used as a means to pollute the blood lines and "eliminate" remaining "unbelievers." Only in Egypt, where the Nile supported a more spread out farming community was submission even accepted as a substitute. Of course, the couple thousand secularists in Egypt that have facilitated the attempted retake of control by the MB there may finally enable the Muslims to finish the job. This is why the Copts in Egypt are actually hoping to be "oppressed" by a powerful military dictatorship, rather than have "democracy." They know what rule by the majority will mean for them.

Roman Catholicism has its own problems, having for hundreds of years attempted to assert authority over the civil state in Europe. But the primary propagation technique in Roman Catholicism has historically been syncretism, not rape and murder. This, of course, offends Protestants who see syncretism as a form of compromise, but the Papists are happy enough to compromise on doctrine if it will increase their sphere of influence.

I'm sorry that you're getting tired. I'm happy to continue instructing. You don't seem to learn well, though.

[Ladida]

Yes, the Crusades! Wars conducted by many Christian countries to free what few people were left after 500 years of unresisted Muslim conquest. And now, somehow, the historical bludgeon with which to beat up anyone who suggests that the Muslims are unique in their approach to the spread of religion. An astounding level of historical ignorance is required simultaneously by an astounding number of people for us to maintain the view that they are an example of how Roman Catholicism is just as bad as Islam. This is another problem with the wikipedia generation. All an error needs to become truth is for enough people to nod their heads or to repeat it. Never mind what the facts say.

One would think that looking at the facts might dispel the ignorance. North Africa, for 500 years, was almost 100% Christian. Then, through the bloodiest genocide in human history it was "converted" to Islam, with forcible rape of most of the remaining population used as a means to pollute the blood lines and "eliminate" remaining "unbelievers." Only in Egypt, where the Nile supported a more spread out farming community was submission even accepted as a substitute. Of course, the couple thousand secularists in Egypt that have facilitated the attempted retake of control by the MB there may finally enable the Muslims to finish the job. This is why the Copts in Egypt are actually hoping to be "oppressed" by a powerful military dictatorship, rather than have "democracy." They know what rule by the majority will mean for them.

Roman Catholicism has its own problems, having for hundreds of years attempted to assert authority over the civil state in Europe. But the primary propagation technique in Roman Catholicism has historically been syncretism, not rape and murder. This, of course, offends Protestants who see syncretism as a form of compromise, but the Papists are happy enough to compromise on doctrine if it will increase their sphere of influence.

I'm sorry that you're getting tired. I'm happy to continue instructing. You don't seem to learn well, though.

I have nothing more to say to you other than to read the links posted.

[Gen]

Just jumping into the discussion, "kinda" late. That pastor didn't burn a book, he burned a symbol of the Islamic religion, which means something for them. I bet that if it was different, and a muslim burned the bible, that pastor would be pissed in the same way.
I've studied Islamism about 4 years ago, and I remember about my teacher saying about holy books. Everyone has a different interpretation. At the Koran, they teach you that you should never obligate someone to join islamism, and you should fight the Jihad, which is an emotional war, when you fight your worse feelings, like hatred, and achieve an interior peace with yourself.
At the same time, there are people who understands the jihad as the fight against everyone else who isn't muslim. All because most holy books (won't say all because I don't know all) use riddles and metaphors.
One example in the Bible is the Apocalypse. While many people think its the end of the world, especially because of the texts that are contained there, the truth is, Apocalypse means, in latin, unveil. It has nothing to do with the end of the world...

Back into the recent posts at the topic, I always thought that the catholic church was on top of killing people for being of another religion. But this has always happened, because religion means power, and when a whole nation or a huge group of nations share the same religion, its a lot easier to make contact and get influence, getting closer to each other. Especially because religion has a lot of impact on culture.

[Sweeney]

That pastor didn't burn a book, he burned a symbol of the Islamic religion, which means something for them.

So that justifies over ten murders?

Bullshit.

[Jake]

But you probably think your religion was always pure, and therefore much superior to Islam, which is clearly populated by heathens.

I like to think that all religion is bullshit, but at least christians, catholics etc. live in more civillized areas. The Muslims and their Islam are obviously doing something wrong in the world or they would at least have kept 10% of the pace of the rest. But sadly, here we are... people hate them and they hate everyone else. Boom for Allah.

Just jumping into the discussion, "kinda" late. That pastor didn't burn a book, he burned a symbol of the Islamic religion, which means something for them. I bet that if it was different, and a muslim burned the bible, that pastor would be pissed in the same way.

Symbol; schmimble. It got printed in a building by some fat hairy smelly guy who gets paid less than minimum wage in my country. You are absolutely correct, if muslims destroyed a bible, pastors would be pissed. But once again they live in civillized communities and even if they were to riot and eventually kill 10 people, (at least those people would be muslim targets, not random uninvolved
) they would be punished for their involvement and crimes. What happened to those murderes of the Islam? I doubt they were caught, questioned or even looked for. Fuck the middle east.