Islam is Evil
Dave
to his representative on earth. The word for peace in Arabic is
"solh."
- The history of Islam, from its very conception, accompanied war,
violence, treachery, terror and ruthlessness. Islam is completely
intolerant of any alternate or opposing viewpoints.
- In Iran, Khomeini himself in one day ordered the execution of over
30,000 opposition people, all in the name of the purification of
Islam. This concern about Islamic purity prevents any chance of
peaceful coexistance.
- Islam is against freedom and democracy. Islam thrives by suppression
and oppression, because it is afraid of giving people a choice.
Denying choice is one of the central ideas of Islam. Islam prevents
'sin' by eliminating all sources of temptation and free choice.
- Islam predicts its own destruction. This is the Jihad.
Johannson
gal...@hotmail.com says...
everywhere waiting to strike.
http://www.time.com/time/europe/eu/magazine/0,9868,181702,00.html
"The Hate Club" article is 3 pages long, but worth
reading. This situation is global, the USA is just
one of their many targets.
abu abui
Ed Stash
"abu abui" <" aa"@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3BE3181F...@aol.com...
Whodunnit
cause violence and when things don't go your way you justify it with some
man made excuse to fight which is the jihad. islamic belief is oppressive
and therefore should wiped out. It should not be a fight against terrorism
but a fight against islam. (Same difference) Good to see the Americans
fucking your oppressive taliban bruthas up.
"abu abui" <" aa"@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3BE3181F...@aol.com...
Barbi Satin
"Dave" <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5591d176.01110...@posting.google.com...
commited horrors on the world. The one thing all religions have in common is
that they are all the one true religion.
Whodunnit
"abu abui" <" aa"@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3BE3181F...@aol.com...
abu abui
Michelle Malkin
wrote:
>What is the one true religion?
None of them.
Maximus
"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@home.com> wrote in message
news:6a57uts7c7tpukhul...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2001 22:57:23 -0000, "Whodunnit" <gps...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >What is the one true religion?
>
> None of them.
>
I disagree. The one true religion is Christianity. I believe that 100,000
%.
Maximus
"Barbi Satin" <jk...@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:rpFE7.9661$S4.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> commited horrors on the world. The one thing all religions have in common
is
> that they are all the one true religion.
>
Sure, there have certainly been cases of other extremists, not just Islam.
Christians have also killed in the name of their religion in past. This is
wrong. One of the ten commandments says, "Thou shall not kill". It does
not get any clearer than this. One point to remember though - however you
interpret it, the sword and warfare are an intrinsic part of the Islamic
faith. This is a dramatic contrast to the Christian faith. Even Islamic
aoplogists will admit the use of the sword in Islam, but will always justify
these intances were for defensive purposes only.
Bill Levinson
> - The word Islam does not mean peace. It means submission to God and
> to his representative on earth. The word for peace in Arabic is
> "solh."
>
> - The history of Islam, from its very conception, accompanied war,
> violence, treachery, terror and ruthlessness. Islam is completely
> intolerant of any alternate or opposing viewpoints.
Take a look at the Old Testament, and all the smiting that went on.
The Koran, of which I've read about 25%, has some nasty stuff about
cutting off hands. Then again, the OT calls for execution of witches
and even rebellious children. (This was in an era in which unwanted
infants were discared to die, e.g. in ancient Greece.)
I think most (99%) modern Jews, Christians, and Moslems have put that
kind of stuff well behind them. The wackoes (Al Qaeda, PLO, Hamas,
Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Taliban) have not.
>
> - In Iran, Khomeini himself in one day ordered the execution of over
> 30,000 opposition people, all in the name of the purification of
> Islam. This concern about Islamic purity prevents any chance of
> peaceful coexistance.
Kho-maniac was about as Muslim as the Spanish Inquisition was
Christian.
> - Islam is against freedom and democracy. Islam thrives by suppression
> and oppression, because it is afraid of giving people a choice.
> Denying choice is one of the central ideas of Islam. Islam prevents
> 'sin' by eliminating all sources of temptation and free choice.
Wacko fundamentalist "Islam" yes, mainstream Islam no. The Muslim
value system is quite similar to the Judeo-Christian system. Even the
theology is similar, the only difference I've seen between Islam and
Christianity (so far) is that Islam does not believe in Jesus'
divinity. It does acknowledge Jesus, along with Jews like Moses, as
prophets.
-Bill
Michelle Malkin
And, i disagree with you. How about if we just agree to disagree?
Curious
Maximus <max...@legion.com> wrote in message
news:gSKE7.125314$YL3.36...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
hmmm. Well if you look up the deffiniton of kill when it comes to Exodus
20:13, it means murder. True there are different types of killing. Some
people kill because they are not all together in the head (insanity). Some
kill for revenge. Some kill because they are at risk of death themselves or
their loved ones are at risk of death( called protection). Some kill by
accident (whether it be a car accident, drugs, acts of war, etc...). Some
kill because they do not like that person or their race, (which is murder).
Some kill because they see they are entitled to punishing other killers
(such as the electric chair, gas, injection, etc...) Some kill for the sake
of greed or envy (which is murder) and some kill because they are led to
believe those that they are killing is the right thing to do when it is not
and sometimes because it is the right thing to do. Sometimes people are
killed in the process of eliminating the enemy though they are not the
targeted ones which falls under killing by accident. True there has been
cases of Christians killing for the wrong cause and most of that was
centuries ago. Christians as a whole are not murders and will try and take
every possible step in preventing death. When it comes to religons,
Christianity is the most kind hearted belief there is. If "Thou Shall not
kill" were to be taken literally then the Father Himself would be breaking
His own laws. Before you start judging Christians, you need to learn all
there is to know including Hebrew and Greek text and differentiating the
true meanings of these words. The Father alone will decide what is
justifiable killing and murder and accident. Even true murderers can be
forgiven if they truely repent, believe in the Son Jesus and change their
ways. If osama bin laden was to have some kind of miraculious change and
then repent and make it known to all includinging his followers, and start
following the true Christian way, he would be forgiven by the Father. This
doesn't mean that he would not die though. His wrongfull actions will be
punished as all Christians wrongfull acts will not go on unnoticed and
unpunished. Death is his only outcome on his sittuation but it would be
better to die on earth for your actions and be forgiven by the Father, than
to die on earth and have no forgivness at all.
Curious
Stefan C. F.
Before we get started, I just have to ask: Are you yet another
Christian trying to insult and discredit the competition, are you just
an asshole trying to start a fight, or perhaps both? You'll excuse me
if I make a few assumptions about your religgious stance (and the
state of your mother's virtue, since she's quite obviously had
relations with at least one goat.)
On 2 Nov 2001 10:44:57 -0800, gal...@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote:
>- The word Islam does not mean peace. It means submission to God and
>to his representative on earth. The word for peace in Arabic is
>"solh."
How to speak Australian...
<hold up a picture of a fat man having sexual relations with a pig>
Christian, Australian for Pigfucker.
>- The history of Islam, from its very conception, accompanied war,
>violence, treachery, terror and ruthlessness.
Real the old testament.
> Islam is completely
>intolerant of any alternate or opposing viewpoints.
Watch the 700 Club.
>- In Iran, Khomeini himself in one day ordered the execution of over
>30,000 opposition people, all in the name of the purification of
>Islam.
The Inquisitions, for starters.
>This concern about Islamic purity prevents any chance of
>peaceful coexistance.
The charter of acceptable behavior for students at Bob Jones
University comes to mind.
>- Islam is against freedom and democracy.
Government sponsored school prayer, eliminating the freedom of
religion.
>Islam thrives by suppression
>and oppression, because it is afraid of giving people a choice.
How very Catholic of them.
>Denying choice is one of the central ideas of Islam. Islam prevents
>'sin' by eliminating all sources of temptation and free choice.
>
>- Islam predicts its own destruction. This is the Jihad.
Revelations.
So basically, Pigfucker.... May I call you Pigfucker? I know it's
usually a fairly casual term of endearment, but I really feel THAT
close to you after having spent this much time on you, Pigfucker...
Anyway, your entire argument seems to be that Islam sucks because it's
done all the same shit your Savior-kabob worshipping faith has done.
I assume that pisses you off because yours is supposed to be special
or something. I must say, I'm terribly disapointed that I've spent
this much time on you, only to find out that it's an old pot calling
the kettle black thing. I really thought I meant more to you than
that, Pigfucker...
--Stefan C. F. I'd get a number, but I don't play well with others.
"There is no talent so ardently supported, nor generously rewarded,
as the ability to convince parasites they are victims." -Tomas Sowell
Racists___Religions
1.Church is "two bodies, one Black Christian, one white
Christian-separate and divided.
2.Sudras (Untouchables Hindus)
Hindu Church is "two bodies, one Brahmin Hindu , one Untouchable Hindu
separate and divided.
The holocaust was sponsored by "Christians".
American slavery was "justified" by "Christians".
Please visit:
Sudras (Untouchables Hindus) Holocaust Museum
http://www.dalitstan.org/holocaust/
Fight White Power
Fight Brahmin Hindu Power
Fight Imperialism
Fight Racism
Jeff Graham
The One True Religion is the worship of Guinubis. I believe that a
commission percent.
--
Jeffrey L. Graham - a.a.# 1946 - BAAWA Bard, Islamic Atheist®
ULC Imam, Saint and High priest
EAC Dept of Hymn Parodies
High Priest of Guinubis
ICQ 55638228
"Look at the moon in the sky,not the one in the lake. You've learned the Name of Allah, now seek the reality it refers to"
(Rumi)
http://jeff_9921.tripod.com/templeofguinubis/
http://jeff_9921.tripod.com/religioushumour/
Personal replies may be posted to alt.fan.jeffrey-graham (if your server doesn't carry it, ask for it).
John Hattan
And I disagree with you. The one true religion is Shatnerology. I
believe that 100,000,000,000%
I win!
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
Michelle Malkin
<jeffrey...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Nov 2001 04:40:01 GMT, "Maximus" <max...@legion.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@home.com> wrote in message
>>news:6a57uts7c7tpukhul...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 2 Nov 2001 22:57:23 -0000, "Whodunnit" <gps...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >What is the one true religion?
>>>
>>> None of them.
>>>
>>
>>I disagree. The one true religion is Christianity. I believe that 100,000
>>%.
>>
>The One True Religion is the worship of Guinubis. I believe that a
>commission percent.
Don't forget that Guinubis is supposed to do lunch with Si and Am,
Maeve and Nirfir, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Hopalong Rabbity and
that big Carrot next Thursday. Topic of discussion: THE ONE TRUE
RELIGION. Ambrosia is optional.
Maximus
"Curious" <Cur...@justwondering.web.net> wrote in message
news:b4PE7.6946$yl.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
>Before you start judging Christians, you need to learn all
>there is to know including Hebrew and Greek text and differentiating the
>true meanings of these words.
Take it easy. I was not trying to judge Christians. I am a Christian! I
got kind of lost as to the central point of your response, but I was just
making a basic observation that Christians have killed in the name of their
religion in the past, and IMHO this is a violation of the commandment Though
shall not kill. Anyway, the main point I was trying to address in my
prevous post was that warfare and the sword are inherent parts of Islam,
whereas in Christianity they are not.
Max
Maximus
Zacharias. It is a comparrison of religions, and an excellent defence of
the uniqueness of Jesus and the Christian message.
Max
"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@home.com> wrote in message
news:h2d8utk8vvaari53s...@4ax.com...
Michelle Malkin
>You may want to pick up a copy of the book, "Jesus Among Other Gods" by Ravi
>Zacharias. It is a comparrison of religions, and an excellent defence of
>the uniqueness of Jesus and the Christian message.
>
>Max
>
Sounds interesting, though I doubt very highly that it achieves this
goal. Still, it doesn't hurt to study the other side's arguments. It
looks like this book was written as an attempt to convert Hindus,
Muslims and Buddhists. Why can't Christians leave followers of other
religions alone? Muslims, too, for that matter.
>"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:h2d8utk8vvaari53s...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2001 08:15:22 -0500, Jeff Graham
>> <jeffrey...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 03 Nov 2001 04:40:01 GMT, "Maximus" <max...@legion.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@home.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:6a57uts7c7tpukhul...@4ax.com...
>> >>> On Fri, 2 Nov 2001 22:57:23 -0000, "Whodunnit" <gps...@hotmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >What is the one true religion?
>> >>>
>> >>> None of them.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>I disagree. The one true religion is Christianity. I believe that
>100,000
>> >>%.
>> >>
>> >The One True Religion is the worship of Guinubis. I believe that a
>> >commission percent.
>>
>> Don't forget that Guinubis is supposed to do lunch with Si and Am,
>> Maeve and Nirfir, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Hopalong Rabbity and
>> that big Carrot next Thursday. Topic of discussion: THE ONE TRUE
>> RELIGION. Ambrosia is optional.
>>
>>
>>
>
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
aa atheist list #1 ULC list #3 SMASH member
aa Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG!
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
http://questioner.www2.50megs,com/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/hypatiab7.html
Snow Eagle
>>>> >What is the one true religion?
>>>>
>>>> None of them.
I agree. All religions are bullshit, for me to piss on.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
William Barwell
Maximus <max...@legion.com> wrote:
>You may want to pick up a copy of the book, "Jesus Among Other Gods" by Ravi
>Zacharias. It is a comparrison of religions, and an excellent defence of
>the uniqueness of Jesus and the Christian message.
You may want to check out the New Testament.
In Matthew 16:27-8 and Matthew 25:31-45, Jesus tells us he will
preside over judgment day itself and the end of the world.
(Matthew 24:3).
When? In this generation (Matthew 24:36, also Luke 24, Mark 13),
in the lifetimes of "Some standing here..", Matthew 16:27-8,
in the lifetime of the high priest at Jerusalem, Matthew 26:64,
Matthew 24:31.
Jesus prophecied he'd preside over the end of the physical
world and Judgment day itself some 1930 years ago and was
dead wrong. And so much for the book of Revelations also.
Being utterly wrong about all of this, Christianity
thus can only be called a failed religion. Its no better than
the lies of Mohammed we call Islam.
Its so obvious when you read these few verses one wonders how
the avergae jerk Christian has managed to avoid seeing the falasity
of Christianity for nearly 1900 years now.
But maybe that tells us a lot about the low status Christianity
gives to truth and thinking and rationality.
Not that Islam is any better.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote:
>"Maximus" <max...@legion.com> wrote:
>
>>"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@home.com> wrote in message
>>news:6a57uts7c7tpukhul...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 2 Nov 2001 22:57:23 -0000, "Whodunnit" <gps...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >What is the one true religion?
>>>
>>> None of them.
>>
>>I disagree. The one true religion is Christianity. I believe that 100,000
>>%.
>
>And I disagree with you. The one true religion is Shatnerology. I
>believe that 100,000,000,000%
>
>I win!
We win, but winning a smoking ruin is no prize.
William Barwell
Maximus <max...@legion.com> wrote:
>
>"Barbi Satin" <jk...@cvn.net> wrote in message
>news:rpFE7.9661$S4.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Dave" <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5591d176.01110...@posting.google.com...
>> >>>>Every religion is evel when taken to an extreme. All of them have
>> commited horrors on the world. The one thing all religions have in common
>is
>> that they are all the one true religion.
>>
>
>Sure, there have certainly been cases of other extremists, not just Islam.
>Christians have also killed in the name of their religion in past. This is
>wrong. One of the ten commandments says, "Thou shall not kill". It does
>not get any clearer than this.
Then its off to Canaan to kill all the Canaanites.
"Leave none that breathe".
Its plain alright. "Thous shalt not kill" is strictly intra-tribal.
All others' asses are up for grabs.
This is why the biblical 'morality' is substandard and
must be rejected. Killing for religion is an old habit
for Christians and Islam, and they get this idea from the
OT.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!
One point to remember though - however you
abu abui
William Barwell
Bill Levinson <wlev...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>gal...@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote in message news:<5591d176.01110...@posting.google.com>...
>> - The word Islam does not mean peace. It means submission to God and
>> to his representative on earth. The word for peace in Arabic is
>> "solh."
>>
>> - The history of Islam, from its very conception, accompanied war,
>> violence, treachery, terror and ruthlessness. Islam is completely
>> intolerant of any alternate or opposing viewpoints.
>
>Take a look at the Old Testament, and all the smiting that went on.
>The Koran, of which I've read about 25%, has some nasty stuff about
>cutting off hands. Then again, the OT calls for execution of witches
>and even rebellious children. (This was in an era in which unwanted
>infants were discared to die, e.g. in ancient Greece.)
>
>I think most (99%) modern Jews, Christians, and Moslems have put that
>kind of stuff well behind them. The wackoes (Al Qaeda, PLO, Hamas,
>Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Taliban) have not.
Christian America accepts the deaths of over 1 million
Iraq innocents, and has accepted the illegal bombing
of Iraqs water and sewer systems that has caused many of
these deaths.
Bush and Clinton both were bible thumping Christians.
So is the current idiot in the White House, GW Bush, reformed
drunk, and low grade Christian.
Saudi Arabia, long the seat of Wahabism has long supported
Bin Laden and similar groups and paid lots of money to
these sort and put out huge sums of money for masadras to
spread this sort of low grade religion that preaches violent jihadism.
Pakistan and other governments buy into this also, they have
aided and abetted jihadism, Wahabism or Wahabism style particularism.
Pakistan pretends that jihaidis are "freedom fighters",
same as Washington pretends that 1 million dead Iraqis is
fighting terrorism.
There is no moral difference between the two, none at all,
its all evil.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!
>
>>
Dave
>
> Before we get started, I just have to ask: Are you yet another
>
The basis of Islam is always to blame someone else. Any temptation of
any sort is "evil" and therefore all temptations are declared illegal.
There is no "sin" that cannot be blamed on a temptation. The only
happy Islamic is one who is bound in chains to keep him from sinning,
and even then he will sit and curse those who might possibly tempt him
with a hacksaw.
This is why the Islamics are ranting about America. In their assinine
view anyone who is not under the thumb of some ignorant fat mullah is
their enemy.
Maximus
to label Christianity as false. Perhaps you should start up your own
religion. Call it the Church of the Ignorant Fool. Abu Abui and Michelle
Malkin can be your first disciples. They seem up to the task, and you are
most well spoken to lead the crusade.
Max
"William Barwell" <wbar...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:5156B618AB9F7588.493EC556...@lp.airnews.net...
Michelle Malkin
>fool
Who is the bigger fool - the one who believes in one kind of religious
nonsense or the one who believes in another kind of religious
nonsense?
William Barwell
Maximus <max...@legion.com> wrote:
>I read your other posts too, and you seem a little extreme in your attempts
>to label Christianity as false.
I simply point out the sad little truths Christianity has utterly
ignored for 1900 years.
That certainly is not extreme. The extremism of Christianity
over history is well known. No need for me to reiterate
that here.
Jesus promises his folowers they can work grand miracles.
Not true.
Jesus promises us that he'd preside over judgment day and the
end of the world 1930 years ago, didn't happen.
Sorry your religion isn't true, but hey, that's
your problem, not mine.
Perhaps you should start up your own
>religion. Call it the Church of the Ignorant Fool.
Sorry, I am not ignorant. You are, but then,
that's your choice, I set the truth before you and
you don't want truth. You want silly assed religious
nonsense.
Lets look again at those claims jesus made about miracles.
Youare ignorant now, but after you read this, you won't have
that excuse.
***************************************************************
Testing the Bible FAQ
Christianity is one of the few religions that can actually
be tested scientifically. Testing claims is the very essence
of science and is why science works so well. Testing discards
errors. The New Testament represents Jesus as making claims that
can readily be tested. Below are four NT texts that are testable,
and that fail such testing, showing that Christianity cannot be
true.
*******************************************************************
Mark 11:22-3
22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have Faith in God.
23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto
this mountain, be thou removed, and be thou cast into the
sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe
that these things he saith shall come to pass; he shall have
whatsoever he saith.
Jesus promises obvious and spectacular miracle working abilities
to those who "shall not doubt in his heart". But it does not work.
Nobody gets "whatever he saith" merely from lacking doubt.
Nobody moves mountains or similar such tricks.
********************************************************************
Matthew 21:21
21 And all things, whatsoever you ask in prayer, believing,
you shall recieve.
Nobody gets all they ask in prayer, as promised by Jesus.
*********************************************************************
John 14:12-14
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me,
the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works shall
he do; because I go unto my Father.
13 And whatever ye shall ask in my name, that I will do, that
the Father may be glorified in the son.
14 If ye ask anything in my name, I will do it.
Nobody changes water to wine, finds his tax money in a fish,
feeds thousands with a few fishes and loaves, walks on water.
Much less betters these works. Nobody gets "whatever ye shall
ask" despite this promise, even asking in the name of Jesus.
***********************************************************************
Matthew 18:18-19
19 Verily I say unto you, if two of you shall agree on earth
as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done
for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am
in the midst of them.
No two Christians get "any thing they shall ask" despite this
solemn promise from Jesus.
***********************************************************************
These are easily testable and unmistakable promises from
Jesus, alledged son of God, as found readily in the New
Testament. These promises are not attainable. Thus Jesus
was wrong, the New Testament is wrong, all of Christianity
is based on errors. If one cannot trust the solemn promises
of Jesus that can readily be tested, obviously, nobody can
trust those not so readibly testable, such as the existance
of heaven or the claim only through Jesus can one get there.
Seeing how badly readily testable claims of Jesus fail, it is
safe to assume all other promises are equally false, equally
erroneous.
Christianity is simply another superstition, nothing more.
These simple verses, easily tested, prove it.
William C. Barwell 4-6-96
************************************************************************
Dave
> gal...@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote:
> > - The history of Islam, from its very conception, accompanied war,
> > violence, treachery, terror and ruthlessness. Islam is completely
> > intolerant of any alternate or opposing viewpoints.
>
> Take a look at the Old Testament, and all the smiting that went on.
> The Koran, of which I've read about 25%, has some nasty stuff about
> cutting off hands. Then again, the OT calls for execution of witches
> and even rebellious children. (This was in an era in which unwanted
> infants were discared to die, e.g. in ancient Greece.)
Get a grip. Hands are being cut off _today_ in Islamic countries.
> Wacko fundamentalist "Islam" yes, mainstream Islam no. The Muslim
> value system is quite similar to the Judeo-Christian system. Even the
> theology is similar, the only difference I've seen between Islam and
> Christianity (so far) is that Islam does not believe in Jesus'
> divinity.
"Mainstream Islam" is a farse -- it only exists where Islam is not the
dominant religion. Once Islam gains enough followers and enough
political power it becomes fundamentalist.
pluther
> - The word Islam does not mean peace. It means submission to God and
> to his representative on earth. The word for peace in Arabic is
> "solh."
"Solh" may mean peace in Arabic, but the most commonly used word
for peace is "salam" (as in the traditional greeting "Salam alaikum" =
"Peace be upon you")
In Arabic, the vowels are frequently changed in a word with changes
in gender, number, case, etc. I can't cite the entire etymology of the
word, but the root would SLM. So, "Islam" and "Salam" would be essentially
the same word, just different useage.
> - The history of Islam, from its very conception, accompanied war,
> violence, treachery, terror and ruthlessness. Islam is completely
> intolerant of any alternate or opposing viewpoints.
And it's also the most peaceful, tolerant, and open religion I've
ever met. Like anything, it depends on who you ask. It's
certainly in general much more tolerant than Christianity, for
example.
> - In Iran, Khomeini himself in one day ordered the execution of over
> 30,000 opposition people, all in the name of the purification of
> Islam. This concern about Islamic purity prevents any chance of
> peaceful coexistance.
Like any religion, many evil things have been done in it's name. As a
person of mostly European descent, that's whose history I know best, and
I can make large lists of the evils done in the name of it's most common
religion for the last 1500 years....
> - Islam is against freedom and democracy. Islam thrives by suppression
> and oppression, because it is afraid of giving people a choice.
> Denying choice is one of the central ideas of Islam. Islam prevents
> 'sin' by eliminating all sources of temptation and free choice.
The fundamentalists within it are certainly opposed to freedom and
democracy, just like the fundamentalists in any other religion. Even
Hinduism has its fundamentalists who want to deny choice to other
people and force everyone to worship their gods, and you can't get much
more fundamentally tolerant than hinduism...
> - Islam predicts its own destruction. This is the Jihad.
I think you have been misinformed. The Jihad is many things to many
people, but I've never heard it said outside of Jack Chick comics that
it is about the destruction of Islam...
-Pat
pluther
The sword isn't part of Christianity? What do you think Jesus meant when
he told those who don't have a sword to sell their cloak to buy one? (Or
something like that, I don't have the exact quote handy, but I'm sure a
christian or an atheist should be able to provide it :-)
Also, "Thou shalt not kill" has been interpreted, re-written, etc., for many
centuries by various Christians. In the 12th century, they claimed it only
was an injunction against killing other Christians. In the last couple of
decades, it's become increasingly popular among the more radical set to say
that, since the Hebrew word used in Exodus implies killing another human,
it should really be read "Thou shall not 'murder'", which they then claim
means that any kind of killing of other humans that's not currently legally
classified as "murder" is OK.
Christians and Muslims have both written very lengthy list of quotes from the
other one's holy books "proving" that theirs is the more correct, tolerant,
peaceful religion. That theirs has always had an enlightened view of equality
among men, rights for women, freedom for all, etc., than the other one. I'm
sure you can find these on the net if you search...
-Pat
Bored With the Boring Again
>You tell us. i'm sure the evil one is islam
>
>Whodunnit wrote:
>
>> What is the one true religion?
NO religion. All religions are about equally fucked up, especially
the ones that originated in the Middle East.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight | "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
Awarded title of "Defacto CLuM" by "kansan" 2001-05-12
======
Remove god to respond.
======
At one point in time, many of us actually had Jesus as
our personal lord and saviour. Unfortunately, we later
had to dismiss him for incompetence, gross negligence,
misconduct and consistent failure to show up for work.
======
Religious people believe IN god.
The religious right believes they ARE god.
======
"Hey, who needs a conscience when jeezuz died for our sins?"
-- Ahriman
Racists___Religions
Jeff Graham
<jeffrey...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Nov 2001 04:40:01 GMT, "Maximus" <max...@legion.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@home.com> wrote in message
>>news:6a57uts7c7tpukhul...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 2 Nov 2001 22:57:23 -0000, "Whodunnit" <gps...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >What is the one true religion?
>>>
>>> None of them.
>>>
>>
>>I disagree. The one true religion is Christianity. I believe that 100,000
>>%.
>>
>The One True Religion is the worship of Guinubis. I believe that a
>commission percent.
That should be "a kazillion percent". Damn spellchecker "fixed" it for
me...
YOELK
Pssst. What the previous poster just tried to said to you is there is no
commandment
'Though shell not kill'. The accurate (translation of ) the commandment is
"Though shall not murder".
Killing (other then murder) is not banned by the 10 commandements, and
sometimes it is required,
for instance stonning to death those who do not observe the sabbath.
FYI,
------
YOELK
.
Herbert S Daly
"Curious" <Cur...@justwondering.web.net> wrote in message
news:b4PE7.6946$yl.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
> >
> > "Barbi Satin" <jk...@cvn.net> wrote in message
> > news:rpFE7.9661$S4.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Dave" <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:5591d176.01110...@posting.google.com...
> > > >>>>Every religion is evel when taken to an extreme. All of them have
> > > commited horrors on the world. The one thing all religions have in
> common
> > is
> > > that they are all the one true religion.
> > >
> >
> > Sure, there have certainly been cases of other extremists, not just
Islam.
> > Christians have also killed in the name of their religion in past. This
> is
> > wrong. One of the ten commandments says, "Thou shall not kill". It
does
> > not get any clearer than this. One point to remember though - however
you
> > interpret it, the sword and warfare are an intrinsic part of the Islamic
> > faith. This is a dramatic contrast to the Christian faith. Even
Islamic
> > aoplogists will admit the use of the sword in Islam, but will always
> justify
> > these intances were for defensive purposes only.
> >
>
> 20:13, it means murder. True there are different types of killing. Some
> people kill because they are not all together in the head (insanity). Some
> kill for revenge. Some kill because they are at risk of death themselves
or
> their loved ones are at risk of death( called protection). Some kill by
> accident (whether it be a car accident, drugs, acts of war, etc...). Some
> kill because they do not like that person or their race, (which is
murder).
> Some kill because they see they are entitled to punishing other killers
> (such as the electric chair, gas, injection, etc...) Some kill for the
sake
> of greed or envy (which is murder) and some kill because they are led to
> believe those that they are killing is the right thing to do when it is
not
> and sometimes because it is the right thing to do. Sometimes people are
> killed in the process of eliminating the enemy though they are not the
> targeted ones which falls under killing by accident. True there has been
> cases of Christians killing for the wrong cause and most of that was
> centuries ago. Christians as a whole are not murders and will try and take
> every possible step in preventing death. When it comes to religons,
> Christianity is the most kind hearted belief there is. If "Thou Shall not
> kill" were to be taken literally then the Father Himself would be breaking
> His own laws. Before you start judging Christians, you need to learn all
> there is to know including Hebrew and Greek text and differentiating the
> justifiable killing and murder and accident. Even true murderers can be
> forgiven if they truely repent, believe in the Son Jesus and change their
> ways. If osama bin laden was to have some kind of miraculious change and
> then repent and make it known to all includinging his followers, and start
> following the true Christian way, he would be forgiven by the Father. This
> doesn't mean that he would not die though. His wrongfull actions will be
> punished as all Christians wrongfull acts will not go on unnoticed and
> unpunished. Death is his only outcome on his sittuation but it would be
> better to die on earth for your actions and be forgiven by the Father,
than
> to die on earth and have no forgivness at all.
>
> Curious
Over the centuries Christianity and Islam have each shed untold rivers of
blood in their quest for power, influence and domination. Now they want to
fight each other again! The God of us all help us!
HerbD
Andy
Killing of people or Murder?
"YOELK" <jk...@shani.net> wrote in message
news:newscache$pbd9mg$3aa$1...@lnews.actcom.co.il...
Dave
> gal...@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote:
> >
> > - The word Islam does not mean peace. It means submission to God and
> > to his representative on earth. The word for peace in Arabic is
> > "solh."
>
> "Solh" may mean peace in Arabic, but the most commonly used word
> for peace is "salam" (as in the traditional greeting "Salam alaikum" =
> "Peace be upon you")
>
> In Arabic, the vowels are frequently changed in a word with changes
> in gender, number, case, etc. I can't cite the entire etymology of the
> word, but the root would SLM. So, "Islam" and "Salam" would be
> essentially the same word, just different useage.
The difference between 'peace' and 'submission' is a point of
confusion. The only was to obtain peace is to submit.
> > - The history of Islam, from its very conception, accompanied war,
> > violence, treachery, terror and ruthlessness. Islam is completely
> > intolerant of any alternate or opposing viewpoints.
>
> And it's also the most peaceful, tolerant, and open religion I've
> ever met. Like anything, it depends on who you ask. It's
> certainly in general much more tolerant than Christianity, for
> example.
You're judging this based on your own aquaintances. They were being
kind. Tolerance is not apparent in the Qu'ran or the fatawas.
> > - Islam is against freedom and democracy. Islam thrives by suppression
> > and oppression, because it is afraid of giving people a choice.
> > Denying choice is one of the central ideas of Islam. Islam prevents
> > 'sin' by eliminating all sources of temptation and free choice.
>
> The fundamentalists within it are certainly opposed to freedom and
> democracy, just like the fundamentalists in any other religion.
>
Yes but clearly it goes much deeper than that. Islam proposes a
reversion to something like Old Testament law. There is little respect
for anything except submission to authority and the purification of
the spirit.
Yang
>
>"Barbi Satin" <jk...@cvn.net> wrote in message
>news:rpFE7.9661$S4.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Dave" <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5591d176.01110...@posting.google.com...
>> >>>>Every religion is evel when taken to an extreme. All of them have
>> commited horrors on the world. The one thing all religions have in common
>is
>> that they are all the one true religion.
>>
>
>Sure, there have certainly been cases of other extremists, not just Islam.
>Christians have also killed in the name of their religion in past. This is
>wrong. One of the ten commandments says, "Thou shall not kill". It does
>not get any clearer than this. One point to remember though - however you
>interpret it, the sword and warfare are an intrinsic part of the Islamic
>faith. This is a dramatic contrast to the Christian faith. Even Islamic
>aoplogists will admit the use of the sword in Islam, but will always justify
>these intances were for defensive purposes only.
Some Christians still do today. For example, the KKK or Christian
Identity. The thing about religion is that the "true" meaning of it
depends on whoever is buying it. The only way to know if Christianity
is *more* violent than Islam is to put Christians in the same
historical circumstances as Muslims and see how they act.
Yang
>"Mainstream Islam" is a farse -- it only exists where Islam is not the
>dominant religion. Once Islam gains enough followers and enough
>political power it becomes fundamentalist.
And how is that different from Bible Belt Alabama or Fundamentalist
Hindu India?
Yang
>
>"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:6a57uts7c7tpukhul...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 2 Nov 2001 22:57:23 -0000, "Whodunnit" <gps...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >What is the one true religion?
>>
>> None of them.
>>
>
>I disagree. The one true religion is Christianity. I believe that 100,000%.
Believe all you want.
Hooda Gest
"Yang" <eac...@mailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3be64b9e...@news.service.uci.edu...
The ballot box, a secular government and constitution, and education. I
can't vouch for India but the US has these and that's what keeps us from
beoming the Christian equivalent of an "Islamic Republic" (nothing but an
intolerant theocracy).
pluther
> > gal...@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote:
> > >
> > > - The word Islam does not mean peace. It means submission to God and
> > > to his representative on earth. The word for peace in Arabic is
> > > "solh."
> >
> > "Solh" may mean peace in Arabic, but the most commonly used word
> > for peace is "salam" (as in the traditional greeting "Salam alaikum" =
> > "Peace be upon you")
> > In Arabic, the vowels are frequently changed in a word with changes
> > in gender, number, case, etc. I can't cite the entire etymology of the
> > word, but the root would SLM. So, "Islam" and "Salam" would be
> > essentially the same word, just different useage.
> The difference between 'peace' and 'submission' is a point of
> confusion. The only was to obtain peace is to submit.
I think that last sentence is more Christian dogma than Muslim, though
both may believe it. The point is, it really does mean "peace" even
if anyone believes that the only way to have peace is to submit (to the
will of god, presumably)
> > > - The history of Islam, from its very conception, accompanied war,
> > > violence, treachery, terror and ruthlessness. Islam is completely
> > > intolerant of any alternate or opposing viewpoints.
> >
> > And it's also the most peaceful, tolerant, and open religion I've
> > ever met. Like anything, it depends on who you ask. It's
> > certainly in general much more tolerant than Christianity, for
> > example.
>
> You're judging this based on your own aquaintances. They were being
> kind.
Exactly my point when I said "it depends on who you ask". There are over
a billion Muslims. Some are friendly. Some are tolerant. Some are assholes.
You take any group of a billion and you're going to find this mix.
Most I've met are peaceful, tolerant, friendly, and intelligent people.
Even after I've told them I'm an atheist. The same can be said for most
Hindus, Jews, Wiccans, and Satanists I've met. The same can also be said
for perhaps half the Christians I know.
> Tolerance is not apparent in the Qu'ran or the fatawas.
Sure there is. The Quran says that Jews and Christians who closely follow
their own beliefs are just as good as Muslims who follow theirs. It's a huge
complex book. I haven't read it all, but I'm sure it's just as full as
(apparent, if you wish) errors and contradictions as any other holy book.
Think of where, in the Christian New Testament, Jesus says to turn the other
cheek and later, love your enemy, in the same book in which he says that he
comes to bring not peace but a sword.
Among the fundamentalists, certainly tolerance is a bad word. Just as it
is among the fundamentalist christians. Watch the 700 club sometime, if you
can stomach it. I've seen Robertson say that Jesus does not call on
[christians] to be tolerant, he calls on them to be ever-vigilant in the "war
against sin" and expects them to be intolerant of "perversion, witchcraft,
and the occult".
Most of our big religious leaders like Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, and Pat
Robertson would be right at home in the Taliban. They agree on probably
99% of what they want. Yet they'd be perfectly willing to kill each other
over that remaining 1%.
> > > - Islam is against freedom and democracy. Islam thrives by suppression
> > > and oppression, because it is afraid of giving people a choice.
> > > Denying choice is one of the central ideas of Islam. Islam prevents
> > > 'sin' by eliminating all sources of temptation and free choice.
> >
> > The fundamentalists within it are certainly opposed to freedom and
> > democracy, just like the fundamentalists in any other religion.
> Yes but clearly it goes much deeper than that. Islam proposes a
> reversion to something like Old Testament law. There is little respect
> for anything except submission to authority and the purification of
> the spirit.
This is only true among the fundamentalists. The vast majority of muslims
are just as liberal as the vast majority of Christians. It's only the
fundamentalists among them that want a complete reversion to old testament
style laws, just as it's only the Christian fundamentalists in the United
States who fight for reversion to old-testament style laws. Unfortunately,
there are nations in the middle-east where their equivalent to Falwell et al
have actually achieved their goals. Afghanistan is one of the worst in this
regard, while in the United States, they've been limited to such things as
outlawing equal rights for gay people, and getting school boards to seriously
debate teaching christian doctrine as science.
-Pat
JIMMY
BASTARDS...
JIMMY
NOUGH SAID
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
[piggybacking]
>"YOELK" <jk...@shani.net> wrote in message
>news:newscache$pbd9mg$3aa$1...@lnews.actcom.co.il...
>> Maximus <max...@legion.com> wrote in message
>> news:IxUE7.127431$YL3.37...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>> > Take it easy. I was not trying to judge Christians. I am a Christian! I
>> > got kind of lost as to the central point of your response, but I was just
>> > making a basic observation that Christians have killed in the name of their
>> > religion in the past, and IMHO this is a violation of the commandment Though
>> > shall not kill. Anyway, the main point I was trying to address in my
>> > prevous post was that warfare and the sword are inherent parts of Islam,
>> > whereas in Christianity they are not.
So the Crusades, the Inquisitions and the 30 Years' War weren't all
about killing people?
--
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
YOELK
murder,
worse then simple murder.
But you got the point, people who believe in the 10 commandments may murder
and believe that it is OK, or even even required. And I am talking
about actual things that happened, not only in theory.
By that, I am not justifying what happened at the WTC, on the contrary. I
say
that we have to be more careful in judging people by their beliefs.
It is not what principles do people have, but how they implement them
that is important.
-----
YOELK
Andy <xx@xxx> wrote in message news:tub6du...@corp.supernews.com...
Gully Foyle
wrote:
}What is the one true religion?
}
I guess it's the side with the most nukes.
XXIII
_________________________________________________________________
To email me remove the Z after the @ in my email address.
_________________________________________________________________
IDIOT, n.
A member of a large and powerful tribe whose
influence in human affairs has always been dominant
and controlling. The Idiot's activity is not confined to
any special field of thought or action, but "pervades
and regulates the whole." He has the last word in
everything; his decision is unappealable. He sets the
fashions and opinion of taste, dictates the limitations
of speech and circumscribes conduct with a
dead-line.
Ambrose Bierce
_________________________________________________________________
Al-Kaf'r
but to Western minds, these people are no less ignorant. To Western
minds that are oriented in logic and fairness, Islamic teaching
appears clearly intolerant and illogical. In particular, Arabic
behavior is most curious, since it appears to be based primarily in a
system of avoiding the loss of face at all costs, regardless of
consequences. It is this mindset carried to extreme that creates the
charactures of bin Laden and his ilk.
We are not likely to ever reach a common understanding with these
people, since their ways of thought and reasoning are conditioned from
birth in a manner that ensures a form of enforced ignorance. To them
this is acceptable, so long as their extremist views are reinforced by
their "spiritual" teachers. They willingly relinquish their humanity
to satisfy the goals conceived by these so-called "holy" men. It
shouldn't take much wisdom to ascertain this as false, since
fundamental Islamic belief neither accepts or condones the idea of
churches or interpreters (of the Qur-an). In fact, each believer is
expected to achieve illumination and understand the message of the
Qur-an directly. However, since Arabic is termed by muslims "the
language of the divine communication" and the majority of them in
these affected countries are illiterate, they nevertheless become
subject to interpreters having agendas quite apart from original
Islamic teaching.
The cruelest treatment we could deliver to these people is to give
them exactly what they want. If they want isolation to perpetuate
their idea of Arabic-inspired "fundamentalism," we should give it to
them. There should in this ideal situation be no trade, no foreign
aide, no exchange whatever with the West. Their bloated populations
existing on foreign aid would soon dwindle and the mockery of the
"Royal Family" would vanish as these Bedouins would be forced back
into their tattered tents to enjoy the fruits of their belief system.
Then we will see who exactly are the "fools."
--Al Kaf'r
On 2 Nov 2001 16:06:04 -0600, abu abui <" aa"@aol.com> wrote:
>another american fool
>
>Dave wrote:
>
>> - The word Islam does not mean peace. It means submission to God and
>> to his representative on earth. The word for peace in Arabic is
>> "solh."
>>
>> - The history of Islam, from its very conception, accompanied war,
>> violence, treachery, terror and ruthlessness. Islam is completely
>> intolerant of any alternate or opposing viewpoints.
>>
>> - In Iran, Khomeini himself in one day ordered the execution of over
>> 30,000 opposition people, all in the name of the purification of
>> Islam. This concern about Islamic purity prevents any chance of
>> peaceful coexistance.
>>
>> - Islam is against freedom and democracy. Islam thrives by suppression
>> and oppression, because it is afraid of giving people a choice.
>> Denying choice is one of the central ideas of Islam. Islam prevents
>> 'sin' by eliminating all sources of temptation and free choice.
>>
Habshi
Muslims in the west have Islamic sharia law applied for criminal cases
-chopping hands for theft , public whippings , stoning to death etc.
On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 07:57:59 -0800, Al-Kaf'r <Kaf...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
SpiritOfU.S.A.
a functioning brainstem. If you did not, there would be something
fundamentally wrong with his assertions. There is not. We rejoice
when backward, savage, simpleminded subspecies like you call us fools.
It only reinforces the certainty of your evil, ignorance, and
irrelevancy. Oh, by the way, don't pick the "Daisy Cutters"...
abu abui <" aa"@aol.com> wrote in message news:<3BE3181F...@aol.com>...
Louis Kuhelj
> Killing of people or Murder?
This is a wonderful question. It depends on the motivation of the
heart of the individuals doing the deed. If they harboured hatred for
the Americans that they ultimately killed, they comitted the murders
way before they ever crashed those planes into the twin towers.
Personally, I suspect(based on my knowledge of human nature)that most
of them were indeed guilty of murder(s). However, regardless of the
answer to this question, the resulting loss of human life was a loss
to all humanity, including the muslims and the muslim fanatics. I'm
sure that the members of the Teliban would disagree with this, but it
is a genuine loss to them as well.
Louis Kuhelj
I'm not still beating my wife either. That's the form that your
question takes.
The Crusades and the Inqisition were in fact aberations and not part
of accepted Christian orthodoxy.
I did a small amount of research for the sake of satifying my
curiosity regarding the Quaran. I tried to find a reference in it
regarding the fact that man was created in God's image. I found no
such concept there as I did in the bible. My interest was to find out
if Islam has any basis in its literature to place the same amount of
value on human life as does Christianity. To give you a better
understanding what I am talking about I would like to point out that
to hate someone to the point of murder followed by actually killing
them is to show contempt for the image of God in which that man was
created. It is in effect a demonstration of the ultimate contempt for
God himself. Islam has no such concept. Its absence from their belief
system may well be a contributing factor to the kind of violent
history, even recent history, that the Islamic extremists have had.
Within their teachings there is no restraining doctrinal base to
prevent them from such acts as the September 11 attack.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<rrlduto580260spqd...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2001 14:38:44 -0500, "Andy" <xx@xxx> posted in
>> alt.atheism:
>> [piggybacking]
>> >"YOELK" <jk...@shani.net> wrote in message
>> >news:newscache$pbd9mg$3aa$1...@lnews.actcom.co.il...
>> >> Maximus <max...@legion.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:IxUE7.127431$YL3.37...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>> >> > Take it easy. I was not trying to judge Christians. I am a Christian! I
>> >> > got kind of lost as to the central point of your response, but I was just
>> >> > making a basic observation that Christians have killed in the name of their
>> >> > religion in the past, and IMHO this is a violation of the commandment Though
>> >> > shall not kill. Anyway, the main point I was trying to address in my
>> >> > prevous post was that warfare and the sword are inherent parts of Islam,
>> >> > whereas in Christianity they are not.
>> So the Crusades, the Inquisitions and the 30 Years' War weren't all
>> about killing people?
>I'm not still beating my wife either. That's the form that your
>question takes.
Nope. You say that Christianity isn't about killing people. History
says it's ALWAYS been about killing people.
>The Crusades and the Inqisition were in fact aberations and not part
>of accepted Christian orthodoxy.
Then all of history has been an aberration.
>I did a small amount of research for the sake of satifying my
>curiosity regarding the Quaran. I tried to find a reference in it
>regarding the fact that man was created in God's image. I found no
>such concept there as I did in the bible. My interest was to find out
>if Islam has any basis in its literature to place the same amount of
>value on human life as does Christianity. To give you a better
>understanding what I am talking about I would like to point out that
>to hate someone to the point of murder followed by actually killing
>them is to show contempt for the image of God in which that man was
>created.
Your opinion. Muslims don't think the same way you do.
> It is in effect a demonstration of the ultimate contempt for
>God himself. Islam has no such concept. Its absence from their belief
>system may well be a contributing factor to the kind of violent
>history, even recent history, that the Islamic extremists have had.
EXACTLY the same violent history that Christian extremists have had.
>Within their teachings there is no restraining doctrinal base to
>prevent them from such acts as the September 11 attack.
There is, you just refuse to do enough reading to find it. When you
get a second track in your head, maybe you will.
Louis Kuhelj
> On 6 Nov 2001 15:34:38 -0800, yar...@aol.com (Louis Kuhelj) posted in
> alt.atheism:
>
> >Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<rrlduto580260spqd...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Sun, 4 Nov 2001 14:38:44 -0500, "Andy" <xx@xxx> posted in
> >> alt.atheism:
> >> [piggybacking]
> >> >"YOELK" <jk...@shani.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:newscache$pbd9mg$3aa$1...@lnews.actcom.co.il...
> >> >> Maximus <max...@legion.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:IxUE7.127431$YL3.37...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>
> >> >> > Take it easy. I was not trying to judge Christians. I am a Christian! I
> >> >> > got kind of lost as to the central point of your response, but I was just
> >> >> > making a basic observation that Christians have killed in the name of their
> >> >> > religion in the past, and IMHO this is a violation of the commandment Though
> >> >> > shall not kill. Anyway, the main point I was trying to address in my
> >> >> > prevous post was that warfare and the sword are inherent parts of Islam,
> >> >> > whereas in Christianity they are not.
>
> >> So the Crusades, the Inquisitions and the 30 Years' War weren't all
> >> about killing people?
>
> >I'm not still beating my wife either. That's the form that your
> >question takes.
>
> Nope. You say that Christianity isn't about killing people. History
> says it's ALWAYS been about killing people.
Superficial examination of history will lead you to that conclusion.
In-depth one will lead to the opposite conclusion.
>
> >The Crusades and the Inqisition were in fact aberations and not part
> >of accepted Christian orthodoxy.
>
> Then all of history has been an aberration.
>
> >I did a small amount of research for the sake of satifying my
> >curiosity regarding the Quaran. I tried to find a reference in it
> >regarding the fact that man was created in God's image. I found no
> >such concept there as I did in the bible. My interest was to find out
> >if Islam has any basis in its literature to place the same amount of
> >value on human life as does Christianity. To give you a better
> >understanding what I am talking about I would like to point out that
> >to hate someone to the point of murder followed by actually killing
> >them is to show contempt for the image of God in which that man was
> >created.
>
> Your opinion. Muslims don't think the same way you do.
>
> > It is in effect a demonstration of the ultimate contempt for
> >God himself. Islam has no such concept. Its absence from their belief
> >system may well be a contributing factor to the kind of violent
> >history, even recent history, that the Islamic extremists have had.
>
> EXACTLY the same violent history that Christian extremists have had.
Not exactly the same. I refer to the first century church that spread
not at the point of the sword, as Islam always did, but with the force
of the spirit.
>
> >Within their teachings there is no restraining doctrinal base to
> >prevent them from such acts as the September 11 attack.
>
> There is, you just refuse to do enough reading to find it. When you
> get a second track in your head, maybe you will.
Let's face it...crazy nuts will murder.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>> Nope. You say that Christianity isn't about killing people. History
>> says it's ALWAYS been about killing people.
>Superficial examination of history will lead you to that conclusion.
>In-depth one
An in-depth examination will find even more examples of Christian
killing.
>> > It is in effect a demonstration of the ultimate contempt for
>> >God himself. Islam has no such concept. Its absence from their belief
>> >system may well be a contributing factor to the kind of violent
>> >history, even recent history, that the Islamic extremists have had.
>> EXACTLY the same violent history that Christian extremists have had.
> Not exactly the same. I refer to the first century church that spread
>not at the point of the sword, as Islam always did, but with the force
>of the spirit.
The current Christian Church didn't start until the 4th century, so
what those in the 1st century did is irrelevant.
>> >Within their teachings there is no restraining doctrinal base to
>> >prevent them from such acts as the September 11 attack.
>> There is, you just refuse to do enough reading to find it. When you
>> get a second track in your head, maybe you will.
> Let's face it...crazy nuts will murder.
And most of the crazy nuts who murder the most victims are religious
nuts. People are seldom murdered by atheists for not being atheists.
Dave
> > > >
> > > > - Islam is against freedom and democracy. Islam thrives by suppression
> > > > and oppression, because it is afraid of giving people a choice.
> > > > Denying choice is one of the central ideas of Islam. Islam prevents
> > > > 'sin' by eliminating all sources of temptation and free choice.
> > >
> > > The fundamentalists within it are certainly opposed to freedom and
> > > democracy, just like the fundamentalists in any other religion.
>
> > Yes but clearly it goes much deeper than that. Islam proposes a
> > reversion to something like Old Testament law. There is little respect
> > for anything except submission to authority and the purification of
> > the spirit.
>
> This is only true among the fundamentalists. The vast majority of muslims
> are just as liberal as the vast majority of Christians. It's only the
> fundamentalists among them that want a complete reversion to old testament
> style laws, just as it's only the Christian fundamentalists in the United
> States who fight for reversion to old-testament style laws. Unfortunately,
> there are nations in the middle-east where their equivalent to Falwell et al
> have actually achieved their goals. Afghanistan is one of the worst in this
> regard, while in the United States, they've been limited to such things as
> outlawing equal rights for gay people, and getting school boards to seriously
> debate teaching christian doctrine as science.
>
case of the New Testament Bible the Christian fundamentalists are
instructed to refrain from violent acts. In the Qur'an the Muslim
fundamentalists are instructed to engage in violent acts. They are
instructed to treat women as inferiors. They are instructed to
restrict the freedom of others. They are instructed to forcibly
exclude non-muslims from 'holy' Arabia.
Islam may have many many millions of followers who are wonderful
people, but that is not the issue.
Thadeus Margrove
>
> And most of the crazy nuts who murder the most victims are religious
> nuts. People are seldom murdered by atheists for not being atheists.
The Soviet experience is a bit different I think.
You could argue that Communism ideology as practiced was/is a secular
religion. Course any state-backed ideology that puts the state ahead of
the individual would be as murderous.
Al Klein
<div...@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
>news:kg1kutguqsnr4jfbu...@4ax.com...
>> On 7 Nov 2001 05:49:23 -0800, yar...@aol.com (Louis Kuhelj) posted in
>> alt.atheism:
>> *snip*
>> And most of the crazy nuts who murder the most victims are religious
>> nuts. People are seldom murdered by atheists for not being atheists.
>The Soviet experience is a bit different I think.
Name a Soviet citizen who was murdered for not being an atheist.
(Jews killed in pogroms don't count, since they were killed for being
Jews, not for not being atheists.)
>You could argue that Communism ideology as practiced was/is a secular
>religion.
It was the same as any dictatorship - the head of the religion was the
dictator.
>Course any state-backed ideology that puts the state ahead of
>the individual would be as murderous.
And still not disprove my claim. The head of a personality cult is a
god of that cult as much as Yahweh is the god of the Judeo/Christian
cult.
Thadeus Margrove
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
news:qa4mut4idol12s7b5...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 05:08:06 GMT, "Thadeus Margrove"
> <div...@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
> >news:kg1kutguqsnr4jfbu...@4ax.com...
> >> On 7 Nov 2001 05:49:23 -0800, yar...@aol.com (Louis Kuhelj) posted in
> >> alt.atheism:
>
> >> *snip*
>
> >> And most of the crazy nuts who murder the most victims are religious
> >> nuts. People are seldom murdered by atheists for not being atheists.
>
> >The Soviet experience is a bit different I think.
>
> Name a Soviet citizen who was murdered for not being an atheist.
> (Jews killed in pogroms don't count, since they were killed for being
> Jews, not for not being atheists.)
The names, oh the names. Every time I see headlines like "1000 Dead in
Bangledesh Floods" I want to say "what are their names?"
No one knows the names and circumstances of each of the soviet citizens that
died for not conforming to the prevalent "norms" of the state. Some of
these norms were atheistic which put the religious in the position of
conflict with the state. Some of them must have been killed simply because
of religious opposition to the atheistic state.
The names? I wished I knew the names. Like the pentagon's spokesman
answered when questioned about civilian casualties in Afghanistan: "We don't
keep those statistics."
>
> >You could argue that Communism ideology as practiced was/is a secular
> >religion.
>
> It was the same as any dictatorship - the head of the religion was the
> dictator.
It seems you are objecting to the abuses of any dictatorship regardless of
whether it has a secular or religious basis. Is that true?
>
> >Course any state-backed ideology that puts the state ahead of
> >the individual would be as murderous.
>
> And still not disprove my claim. The head of a personality cult is a
> god of that cult as much as Yahweh is the god of the Judeo/Christian
> cult.
It seems to dispute your claim anyway that atheists don't murder
non-atheists. The problem, as I interpret your posting, is a dictatorship
sometimes formed around a personality cult. Which dictatorship then puts
the interest of the state ahead of the individual and then self-defines what
the interest of the state is.
Al Klein
<div...@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
>news:qa4mut4idol12s7b5...@4ax.com...
>> Name a Soviet citizen who was murdered for not being an atheist.
>> (Jews killed in pogroms don't count, since they were killed for being
>> Jews, not for not being atheists.)
[snip]
>Some of them must have been killed simply because
>of religious opposition to the atheistic state.
Because of opposition to the state. Religion may, or may not, have
been a factor.
>> >You could argue that Communism ideology as practiced was/is a secular
>> >religion.
>> It was the same as any dictatorship - the head of the religion was the
>> dictator.
>It seems you are objecting to the abuses of any dictatorship regardless of
>whether it has a secular or religious basis. Is that true?
Apropos this discussion? No. I'm merely pointing out that a
dictatorship kills those opposed to the dictatorship - religion has
very little to do with it.
>> >Course any state-backed ideology that puts the state ahead of
>> >the individual would be as murderous.
>> And still not disprove my claim. The head of a personality cult is a
>> god of that cult as much as Yahweh is the god of the Judeo/Christian
>> cult.
>It seems to dispute your claim anyway that atheists don't murder
>non-atheists.
I never made that claim. My claim was that atheists don't murder
non-atheists due to their lack of atheism.
>The problem, as I interpret your posting, is a dictatorship
>sometimes formed around a personality cult. Which dictatorship then puts
>the interest of the state ahead of the individual and then self-defines what
>the interest of the state is.
Which has nothing to do with religion.
Religions kill because of religion. Dictatorships kill because of the
dictatorship. Atheists don't kill because of atheism.
Thadeus Margrove
kill because of atheism".
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
news:o2dout07h11ga4r2v...@4ax.com...
Louis Kuhelj
Former Soviet Union and China not withstanding?
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<kg1kutguqsnr4jfbu...@4ax.com>...
>> And most of the crazy nuts who murder the most victims are religious
>> nuts. People are seldom murdered by atheists for not being atheists.
> Former Soviet Union and China not withstanding?
Who was murdered in the USSR or China for not being an atheist?
(Careful - if there was any other charge, they weren't murdered for
not being atheists.)
Racists___Religions
1.Church is "two bodies, one Black Christian, one white
Christian-separate and divided.
2.Sudras (Untouchables Hindus)
Hindu Church is "two bodies, one Brahmin Hindu , one Untouchable Hindu
separate and divided.
The holocaust was sponsored by "Christians".
American slavery was "justified" by "Christians".
Please visit:
Sudras (Untouchables Hindus) Holocaust Museum
http://www.dalitstan.org/holocaust/
Fight White Power
Fight Brahmin Hindu Power
Fight Imperialism
Fight Racism
Louis Kuhelj
You genuinely expect an answer to that in a "closed society"? It is
interesting that when someon who is religious murders someone, all
Christians are suddenly guilty along with them of comitting the most
awful crimes. I suppose you will claim that it was Christians who blew
up the world trade towers. I suppose you will claim that it was
Christians who overran my country and not the Muslim Turks hundreds of
years ago. I suppose you will claim that it was the protestants the
Catholics, the Seventh Day Advantists, the Southern Baptists, the
Anabaptists, the United Church of Christ, the Bhudists, the Pagans and
the Jehowah's Witnessess who started the crusades. Your broad
generalizations make just such an implication. When I went to public
school, the teachers there taught me to avoid generalizations. Don't
they teach that any more? Do they just teach you to go out with an
intellectually blunt instrument to make surgically precise incisions
to expose the truth?
chri...@the.crossroads
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<jd4sutc3ka4anqmnv...@4ax.com>...
>> On 10 Nov 2001 09:04:41 -0800, yar...@aol.com (Louis Kuhelj) posted
>> in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<kg1kutguqsnr4jfbu...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> >> And most of the crazy nuts who murder the most victims are religious
>> >> nuts. People are seldom murdered by atheists for not being atheists.
>>
>> > Former Soviet Union and China not withstanding?
>>
>> Who was murdered in the USSR or China for not being an atheist?
>> (Careful - if there was any other charge, they weren't murdered for
>> not being atheists.)
>
> You genuinely expect an answer to that in a "closed society"?
Yes. You are equating the power struggles, and atrocities,
of one man, who claims no authority but his own, with the
` atrocities done in the name of God.
There is no comparison, unless you want to say that they
were both committed by well intentioned, but mis-guided,
people.
> It is
>interesting that when someon who is religious murders someone, all
>Christians are suddenly guilty along with them of comitting the most
>awful crimes.
Only if we do it in the name of God.
You distort what has been said.
The subject is not "christians committing murder" but
"christians committing murder in God/Jesus' name",
Or perhaps "Atheists committing murder in the name of atheism"
and the claim is that, "If we don't condemn it, we indorse
it".
As a christian, I agree with the atheists: If we do not
condemn such action, then we have learned nothing, and
are no better, and therefore no different to our forebears.
> I suppose you will claim that it was Christians who blew
>up the world trade towers.
I suppose that you are going to deny that it is christians
who are murdering, or trying to murder, doctors and
nurses in Family Planning Clinics.
>I suppose you will claim that it was
>Christians who overran my country
Without knowing which country that is, I doubt that there
is anybody who would make such a claim.
> and not the Muslim Turks hundreds of
>years ago. I suppose you will claim that it was the protestants the
>Catholics, the Seventh Day Advantists, the Southern Baptists, the
>Anabaptists, the United Church of Christ, the Bhudists, the Pagans and
>the Jehowah's Witnessess who started the crusades.
If that is supposed to be a convincing argument for something,
It's logic totally escapes me.
Accusations like that are what get christians labeled "Liar"
in these NGs
> Your broad
>generalizations make just such an implication.
I see no such implication.
>When I went to public
>school, the teachers there taught me to avoid generalizations. Don't
>they teach that any more? Do they just teach you to go out with an
>intellectually blunt instrument to make surgically precise incisions
>to expose the truth?
Did your school teach you that debates could be won by ad
homen attacks?
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<jd4sutc3ka4anqmnv...@4ax.com>...
>> Who was murdered in the USSR or China for not being an atheist?
>> (Careful - if there was any other charge, they weren't murdered for
>> not being atheists.)
> You genuinely expect an answer to that in a "closed society"? It is
>interesting that when someon who is religious murders someone, all
>Christians are suddenly guilty
Christianity is guilty if someone is murdered for not being Christian.
We never claimed otherwise, but your straw man is defeated.
>I suppose you will claim that it was Christians who blew
>up the world trade towers.
It was theists who blew them up - for theistic reasons.
> I suppose you will claim that it was
>Christians who overran my country and not the Muslim Turks hundreds of
>years ago.
Your country? I have no idea which one that is. But Muslim anything
are theists.
> I suppose you will claim that it was the protestants the
>Catholics, the Seventh Day Advantists, the Southern Baptists, the
>Anabaptists, the United Church of Christ, the Bhudists, the Pagans and
>the Jehowah's Witnessess who started the crusades.
That it was Christians you can't refute.
>When I went to public
>school, the teachers there taught me to avoid generalizations. Don't
>they teach that any more?
Any more? You went to school before WWII? Somehow, I doubt that.
> Do they just teach you to go out with an
>intellectually blunt instrument to make surgically precise incisions
>to expose the truth?
That theists kill for theistic reasons, but atheists don't kill for
atheistic reasons, is a fact. No one has ever been killed because the
killer didn't believe in any god, and SOLELY for that reason. Yet
that's ALL atheism is - lack of theism.
Louis Kuhelj
> On 11 Nov 2001 10:14:59 -0800, yar...@aol.com (Louis Kuhelj) posted
> in alt.atheism:
>
> >Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<jd4sutc3ka4anqmnv...@4ax.com>...
>
> >> Who was murdered in the USSR or China for not being an atheist?
> >> (Careful - if there was any other charge, they weren't murdered for
> >> not being atheists.)
>
> > You genuinely expect an answer to that in a "closed society"? It is
> >interesting that when someon who is religious murders someone, all
> >Christians are suddenly guilty
>
> Christianity is guilty if someone is murdered for not being Christian.
> We never claimed otherwise, but your straw man is defeated.
You missed the point of the broad brush analogy. Intentionally.
Willful ignorance.
>
> >I suppose you will claim that it was Christians who blew
> >up the world trade towers.
>
> It was theists who blew them up - for theistic reasons.
Aha..so when it suits you, you will use the broad brush of "theist"
and when it further suits you, you will use "Christiann" to prove your
point. After all, the ends justify the means..don't they.
>
> > I suppose you will claim that it was
> >Christians who overran my country and not the Muslim Turks hundreds of
> >years ago.
>
> Your country? I have no idea which one that is. But Muslim anything
> are theists.
Broad brush again. Just to prove your point.
>
> > I suppose you will claim that it was the protestants the
> >Catholics, the Seventh Day Advantists, the Southern Baptists, the
> >Anabaptists, the United Church of Christ, the Bhudists, the Pagans and
> >the Jehowah's Witnessess who started the crusades.
>
> That it was Christians you can't refute.
That was not the central thrust of the argument. It wasn't even the
issue. You are answering arguments that I did not raise. If you want
to go to face a corner and argue a topic with yourself, feel free.
>
> >When I went to public
> >school, the teachers there taught me to avoid generalizations. Don't
> >they teach that any more?
>
> Any more? You went to school before WWII? Somehow, I doubt that.
Uninteligable without any context. Please rewrite.
>
> > Do they just teach you to go out with an
> >intellectually blunt instrument to make surgically precise incisions
> >to expose the truth?
>
> That theists kill for theistic reasons, but atheists don't kill for
> atheistic reasons, is a fact. No one has ever been killed because the
> killer didn't believe in any god, and SOLELY for that reason. Yet
> that's ALL atheism is - lack of theism.
People kill because they hate. Christian orthodoxy teaches to love.
Your argument has nothing to do with Christianity and this is why you
have fallen back on the word "theists". You had to for your argument
to have any validity at all.
Christianity believes that what elevates us above animals is that we
are capable of love, while animals are only capable of liking or
effection. For this reason alone, human lives have a greater intrinsic
value and are not to be extinguished if it can be possibly avoided.
Christian love demands action...action to prevent murders from
happening is part of that equation.
Louis Kuhelj
I agree with you there is no justification for murder.
> As a christian, I agree with the atheists: If we do not
> condemn such action, then we have learned nothing, and
> are no better, and therefore no different to our forebears.
I agree with you on this point...to a point. I disagree that my
forebears had anything to do with anythiing that ever went on in
America. I'm not its native.
>
>
> > I suppose you will claim that it was Christians who blew
> >up the world trade towers.
>
> I suppose that you are going to deny that it is christians
> who are murdering, or trying to murder, doctors and
> nurses in Family Planning Clinics.
Hmmm..if someone declared war on the children of America and decided
that they would systematically kill them all off, would you declare
war on that country? What was it that Germans told people before going
into the delousing showers? The showers are going to be good for you
and the camp. What do "Family Planing Clinics" tell the women who get
abortions? Its going to be good for you economically and it will be
good for society that will not be burdened with additional unwanted
kids. Both illustrations demonstrate people being lied to.
Let's get something clear. I don't condone the murders of doctors that
practice abortions or anyone affiliated with the centers. I support
full prosecution of such cases with the stiffest possible penalties
possible for them. I also support the political route of ousting those
politicians out of office that support abortion and placing in those
who oppose it. It is better to change the laws than to break them.
>
>
>
> >I suppose you will claim that it was
> >Christians who overran my country
>
> Without knowing which country that is, I doubt that there
> is anybody who would make such a claim.
>
> > and not the Muslim Turks hundreds of
> >years ago. I suppose you will claim that it was the protestants the
> >Catholics, the Seventh Day Advantists, the Southern Baptists, the
> >Anabaptists, the United Church of Christ, the Bhudists, the Pagans and
> >the Jehowah's Witnessess who started the crusades.
>
> If that is supposed to be a convincing argument for something,
> It's logic totally escapes me.
Of course it does. You never knew what the argument actually was.
That's why the logic escapes you.
>
> Accusations like that are what get christians labeled "Liar"
> in these NGs
>
>
>
>
> > Your broad
> >generalizations make just such an implication.
>
>
> I see no such implication.
Of course you don't.
>
>
> >When I went to public
> >school, the teachers there taught me to avoid generalizations. Don't
> >they teach that any more? Do they just teach you to go out with an
> >intellectually blunt instrument to make surgically precise incisions
> >to expose the truth?
>
> Did your school teach you that debates could be won by ad
> homen attacks?
You tell me.
Packman
>
> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<0sntut8f86p34cop5...@4ax.com>...
> > On 11 Nov 2001 10:14:59 -0800, yar...@aol.com (Louis Kuhelj) posted
> > in alt.atheism:
> >
> > >Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<jd4sutc3ka4anqmnv...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > >> Who was murdered in the USSR or China for not being an atheist?
> > >> (Careful - if there was any other charge, they weren't murdered for
> > >> not being atheists.)
> >
> > > You genuinely expect an answer to that in a "closed society"? It is
> > >interesting that when someon who is religious murders someone, all
> > >Christians are suddenly guilty
> >
> > Christianity is guilty if someone is murdered for not being Christian.
> > We never claimed otherwise, but your straw man is defeated.
>
> You missed the point of the broad brush analogy. Intentionally.
> Willful ignorance.
>
> >
> > >I suppose you will claim that it was Christians who blew
> > >up the world trade towers.
> >
> > It was theists who blew them up - for theistic reasons.
>
> Aha..so when it suits you, you will use the broad brush of "theist"
> and when it further suits you, you will use "Christiann" to prove your
> point. After all, the ends justify the means..don't they.
The suicide pilots had notebooks that had prayers to god in
them. They were theists. That's what other theists don't want
to admit.
Packman
IOW, you want to take away women's rights of control of their own
bodies.
chri...@the.crossroads
>> As a christian, I agree with the atheists: If we do not
>> condemn such action, then we have learned nothing, and
>> are no better, and therefore no different to our forebears.
>
>
> I agree with you on this point...to a point. I disagree that my
>forebears had anything to do with anythiing that ever went on in
>America. I'm not its native.
Nor am I, and I was thinking back a little farther than that.
>
>>
>>
>> > I suppose you will claim that it was Christians who blew
>> >up the world trade towers.
>>
>> I suppose that you are going to deny that it is christians
>> who are murdering, or trying to murder, doctors and
>> nurses in Family Planning Clinics.
>
> Hmmm..if someone declared war on the children of America and decided
>that they would systematically kill them all off, would you declare
>war on that country? What was it that Germans told people before going
>into the delousing showers? The showers are going to be good for you
>and the camp. What do "Family Planing Clinics" tell the women who get
>abortions? Its going to be good for you economically and it will be
>good for society that will not be burdened with additional unwanted
>kids. Both illustrations demonstrate people being lied to.
>Let's get something clear. I don't condone the murders of doctors that
>practice abortions or anyone affiliated with the centers. I support
>full prosecution of such cases with the stiffest possible penalties
>possible for them.
Which isn't going to happen, because in America, as in most of
the civilized world, it is legal.
I do not, cannot, agree with abortion, but I cannot agree to
the options offered either.
The pro-lifers I have read, or talked with, offer only
abstention from the normal sexual activities of couples, or
carrying to term. All of the pro-lifers I have met are also
anti-contraceprive, they all favor adoption for unwanted
babies, but none want to adopt them selves.
I don't know what the answer is, perhaps better education, I
cant think of anything else that will not contravene their
God given righ,t to do what we will with our own bodies.
God gave is free will for a reason,and I do not pretend to
know what that reason might be. Farther, I do not relish the
thought of standing before the throne, having the list of my
live read out, and when it gets to the bit where I prevented
X number of women getting abortions, God asking me :
"Where was your compassion?".
> I also support the political route of ousting those
>politicians out of office that support abortion and placing in those
>who oppose it. It is better to change the laws than to break them.
That is what the election booth is for.
To me, the fight against abortion is a fight against a spring:
You can push and push, and the spring will be pushed back,
but you cannot push for ever, and eventually, the spring will
return to it's original shape/position.
And of course, There is always the possibility of a slip on
your part, and you could end up farther from your goal that
you were to start with.
You need converts, not confrontation.
snip
>> Did your school teach you that debates could be won by ad
>> homen attacks?
>
> You tell me.
The initial evidence would seem to suggest it.
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<0sntut8f86p34cop5...@4ax.com>...
>> On 11 Nov 2001 10:14:59 -0800, yar...@aol.com (Louis Kuhelj) posted
>> in alt.atheism:
>> Christianity is guilty if someone is murdered for not being Christian.
>> We never claimed otherwise, but your straw man is defeated.
> You missed the point of the broad brush analogy.
Christianity is guilty if someone is murdered for not being Christian.
That's a very broad brush, and it's apt.
> Intentionally. Willful ignorance.
Willful knowledge that the broad brush is appropriate.
>> >I suppose you will claim that it was Christians who blew
>> >up the world trade towers.
>> It was theists who blew them up - for theistic reasons.
> Aha..so when it suits you, you will use the broad brush of "theist"
>and when it further suits you, you will use "Christiann" to prove your
>point. After all, the ends justify the means..don't they.
No, when we're talking about Christians doing something I'll use
"Christians". When we're talking about theism, I'll use "theism".
Sorry if that's too complicated for you to follow.
>> > I suppose you will claim that it was
>> >Christians who overran my country and not the Muslim Turks hundreds of
>> >years ago.
>> Your country? I have no idea which one that is. But Muslim anything
>> are theists.
> Broad brush again. Just to prove your point.
It's a broad brush to paint Muslims as theists? Maybe we should speak
your language - you don;t understand English very well.
>> > I suppose you will claim that it was the protestants the
>> >Catholics, the Seventh Day Advantists, the Southern Baptists, the
>> >Anabaptists, the United Church of Christ, the Bhudists, the Pagans and
>> >the Jehowah's Witnessess who started the crusades.
>> That it was Christians you can't refute.
> That was not the central thrust of the argument. It wasn't even the
>issue. You are answering arguments that I did not raise.
You're attempting to refute arguments I did raise, then refusing to
address them.
> If you want
>to go to face a corner and argue a topic with yourself, feel free.
Learn how usenet works, if you can. Not everyone is smart enough to
use a computer.
>> >When I went to public
>> >school, the teachers there taught me to avoid generalizations. Don't
>> >they teach that any more?
>> Any more? You went to school before WWII? Somehow, I doubt that.
> Uninteligable without any context. Please rewrite.
You're claiming that you went to school before I did, which would have
you in elementary school before WWII. And I doubt that.
Was that simple enough for you? Or should I translate it to
elementary school English?
>> That theists kill for theistic reasons, but atheists don't kill for
>> atheistic reasons, is a fact. No one has ever been killed because the
>> killer didn't believe in any god, and SOLELY for that reason. Yet
>> that's ALL atheism is - lack of theism.
> People kill because they hate. Christian orthodoxy teaches to love.
Which is why Christians kill. Nope, I don't think that works. Since
Christians DO kill, your assertion has an error in it.
>Your argument has nothing to do with Christianity
Sure it has - Christians DO kill.
>Christianity believes that what elevates us above animals is that we
>are capable of love, while animals are only capable of liking or
>effection. For this reason alone, human lives have a greater intrinsic
>value
Bullshit. "Value" immediately makes anything it relates to relative -
there's no "absolute value".
> and are not to be extinguished if it can be possibly avoided.
NO life is to be extinguished if it can possibly be avoided.
>Christian love demands action...action to prevent murders from
>happening is part of that equation.
Since Christians DO murder, your assertion has an error in it.
(And the claim that anyone who murders is not a Christian is, in
itself, a fallacy.)
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>chri...@the.crossroads wrote in message news:<onhtut4h8fl4gnajr...@4ax.com>...
>> As a christian, I agree with the atheists: If we do not
>> condemn such action, then we have learned nothing, and
>> are no better, and therefore no different to our forebears.
> I agree with you on this point...to a point. I disagree that my
>forebears had anything to do with anythiing that ever went on in
>America. I'm not its native.
Who said anything about America? If you come from Europe or Asia,
your forebears murdered plenty of people.
>> > I suppose you will claim that it was Christians who blew
>> >up the world trade towers.
>> I suppose that you are going to deny that it is christians
>> who are murdering, or trying to murder, doctors and
>> nurses in Family Planning Clinics.
>Let's get something clear. I don't condone the murders of doctors that
>practice abortions or anyone affiliated with the centers. I support
>full prosecution of such cases with the stiffest possible penalties
>possible for them. I also support the political route of ousting those
>politicians out of office that support abortion and placing in those
>who oppose it.
And, since the VAST majority of the voting population of the U. S. is
totally opposed to a blanket ban on abortion, you and your ilk have to
find a different way, eh?
> It is better to change the laws than to break them.
But if it seems impossible to change them, what's breaking them if you
do it for Jesus?
>> >I suppose you will claim that it was
>> >Christians who overran my country
>> Without knowing which country that is, I doubt that there
>> is anybody who would make such a claim.
>> > and not the Muslim Turks hundreds of
>> >years ago. I suppose you will claim that it was the protestants the
>> >Catholics, the Seventh Day Advantists, the Southern Baptists, the
>> >Anabaptists, the United Church of Christ, the Bhudists, the Pagans and
>> >the Jehowah's Witnessess who started the crusades.
>> If that is supposed to be a convincing argument for something,
>> It's logic totally escapes me.
> Of course it does. You never knew what the argument actually was.
>That's why the logic escapes you.
Since the argument is about "your country", and you refuse to name
that country, the logic of anything to do with that country escapes
everyone.
>> >When I went to public
>> >school, the teachers there taught me to avoid generalizations. Don't
>> >they teach that any more? Do they just teach you to go out with an
>> >intellectually blunt instrument to make surgically precise incisions
>> >to expose the truth?
>> Did your school teach you that debates could be won by ad
>> homen attacks?
> You tell me.
How would he know what your (obviously incompetent) teachers taught
you?
stillsunny
<snip *all* of it>
Packman!
Where the heck have you been? I've been wondering if you were okay.
Sunny
Packman
I needed a break from this place.
How are things? SOSO?
Louis Kuhelj
> On 12 Nov 2001 12:53:44 -0800, yar...@aol.com (Louis Kuhelj) posted
> in alt.atheism:
>
> >chri...@the.crossroads wrote in message news:<onhtut4h8fl4gnajr...@4ax.com>...
> >> As a christian, I agree with the atheists: If we do not
> >> condemn such action, then we have learned nothing, and
> >> are no better, and therefore no different to our forebears.
>
> > I agree with you on this point...to a point. I disagree that my
> >forebears had anything to do with anythiing that ever went on in
> >America. I'm not its native.
>
> Who said anything about America? If you come from Europe or Asia,
> your forebears murdered plenty of people.
You've missed a few continents in your list. I think ou have to
include all of them. You also missed some groups. You have to include
all of them regardless of religion. That sure makes us all true
descendants of Adam and Eve.
>
> >> > I suppose you will claim that it was Christians who blew
> >> >up the world trade towers.
>
> >> I suppose that you are going to deny that it is christians
> >> who are murdering, or trying to murder, doctors and
> >> nurses in Family Planning Clinics.
>
> >Let's get something clear. I don't condone the murders of doctors that
> >practice abortions or anyone affiliated with the centers. I support
> >full prosecution of such cases with the stiffest possible penalties
> >possible for them. I also support the political route of ousting those
> >politicians out of office that support abortion and placing in those
> >who oppose it.
>
> And, since the VAST majority of the voting population of the U. S. is
> totally opposed to a blanket ban on abortion, you and your ilk have to
> find a different way, eh?
No!
>
> > It is better to change the laws than to break them.
>
> But if it seems impossible to change them, what's breaking them if you
> do it for Jesus?
No! I don't belong to such a group. Give on to Ceasar what is
Ceasars. Not just in taxes, but also in following the law. On the
other side of the Roman coin, give on to God what is his.
What? A public school that believes in seperation of Church and state
would employ incompetant teachers? Unthinkable.
Actually, I agree with you. There were plenty of incompetent teachers
in my school. From what I've seen of others, this is commonly the case
in the U.S. As I recall, the Catholic primary school I went to did a
much better job. Mind you, I'm not a Catholic anymore, but those nuns
had what it took to make first rate teachers. As for their public
school counterparts...they don't have a prayer.
Louis Kuhelj
Nope, I want to give it back to them. The brain/mind is part of their
body...isn't it?
Louis Kuhelj
You're probably right. The problem with the "most" making it
"civilized" we could also argue that since most other countries find a
defendant guilty until proven innocent, America is uncivilized from a
legal standpoint.
>
> I do not, cannot, agree with abortion, but I cannot agree to
> the options offered either.
What? Marriage? Fidelity? Abstinance? Yup...those are horrible
allright. I'd say that they rank way above murder.
> The pro-lifers I have read, or talked with, offer only
> abstention from the normal sexual activities of couples, or
> carrying to term. All of the pro-lifers I have met are also
> anti-contraceprive, they all favor adoption for unwanted
> babies, but none want to adopt them selves.
There I differ with the anti-contraceptive thing. I say, get
married and use contraceptives. You can tell I'm not a Catholic. You
seem to be running into them quite a bit in your part of the world.
>
>
> I don't know what the answer is, perhaps better education, I
> cant think of anything else that will not contravene their
We've tried the education route. It hasn't worked.
> God given righ,t to do what we will with our own bodies.
This has been my argument all along. The source of evil is man's
freedom. You've just pointed out another instance where that is true.
> God gave is free will for a reason,and I do not pretend to
> know what that reason might be. Farther, I do not relish the
I don't pretend either. I know.
> thought of standing before the throne, having the list of my
> live read out, and when it gets to the bit where I prevented
> X number of women getting abortions, God asking me :
> "Where was your compassion?".
More Catholic influence. More I read from you...the more I get the
idea you're Catholic. Don't get me wrong. I like Catholics. In fact, I
seem to get along with them better than all the other religious
groups. I even agree with some of their theologians. They have some
wonderful ones.
>
>
> > I also support the political route of ousting those
> >politicians out of office that support abortion and placing in those
> >who oppose it. It is better to change the laws than to break them.
>
> That is what the election booth is for.
Exactly!!!
>
> To me, the fight against abortion is a fight against a spring:
> You can push and push, and the spring will be pushed back,
> but you cannot push for ever, and eventually, the spring will
> return to it's original shape/position.
> And of course, There is always the possibility of a slip on
> your part, and you could end up farther from your goal that
> you were to start with.
>
> You need converts, not confrontation.
Agreed one hundred percent. You make good sound points.
>
> snip
> >> Did your school teach you that debates could be won by ad
> >> homen attacks?
> >
> > You tell me.
>
>
> The initial evidence would seem to suggest it.
It might from a certain angle. Things look different depending on
where you stand. I try to eliminate the wrong angles, but I'm not
perfect.
Packman
Yes. Are you a woman? If not, why are you trying to tell them what
they can/can't do?
Louis Kuhelj
Allright...they were also humans. I guess that means that all humans
will do things like this. Give me a break.
Louis Kuhelj
> On 12 Nov 2001 12:34:12 -0800, yar...@aol.com (Louis Kuhelj) posted
> in alt.atheism:
>
> >Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<0sntut8f86p34cop5...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 11 Nov 2001 10:14:59 -0800, yar...@aol.com (Louis Kuhelj) posted
> >> in alt.atheism:
>
> >> Christianity is guilty if someone is murdered for not being Christian.
> >> We never claimed otherwise, but your straw man is defeated.
>
> > You missed the point of the broad brush analogy.
>
> Christianity is guilty if someone is murdered for not being Christian.
> That's a very broad brush, and it's apt.
Actually, we pray for people who aren't Christians. We don't kill
them. Jesus Christ did not command us to go out and kill people, nor
did he do so himself. Therefore, Christian orthodoxy abhors murder.
>
> > Intentionally. Willful ignorance.
>
> Willful knowledge that the broad brush is appropriate.
A broad brush is NEVER appropriate. Not against atheists, pro lifers
or people of warious faiths.
>
> >> >I suppose you will claim that it was Christians who blew
> >> >up the world trade towers.
>
> >> It was theists who blew them up - for theistic reasons.
>
> > Aha..so when it suits you, you will use the broad brush of "theist"
> >and when it further suits you, you will use "Christiann" to prove your
> >point. After all, the ends justify the means..don't they.
>
> No, when we're talking about Christians doing something I'll use
> "Christians". When we're talking about theism, I'll use "theism".
> Sorry if that's too complicated for you to follow.
Of course you are the final arbitror of which is the right one to use
when. You,re just hiding behind words. It used to be that the hiding
was done in the garden. Same difference...you're still hiding from the
truth.
>
> >> > I suppose you will claim that it was
> >> >Christians who overran my country and not the Muslim Turks hundreds of
> >> >years ago.
>
> >> Your country? I have no idea which one that is. But Muslim anything
> >> are theists.
>
> > Broad brush again. Just to prove your point.
>
> It's a broad brush to paint Muslims as theists? Maybe we should speak
> your language - you don;t understand English very well.
Mogoce bom. Ti me ne razumis po Englescini.
Yes..it is is a broad brush to paint a particular religious group as
theists. If one group is guilty of something, everyone is guilty of
something. Since you are human, you are also guilty of the attack on
the twin towers. Lets use my broad brush and see how it bristles you.
What kind of logic is that?
>
> >> > I suppose you will claim that it was the protestants the
> >> >Catholics, the Seventh Day Advantists, the Southern Baptists, the
> >> >Anabaptists, the United Church of Christ, the Bhudists, the Pagans and
> >> >the Jehowah's Witnessess who started the crusades.
>
> >> That it was Christians you can't refute.
>
> > That was not the central thrust of the argument. It wasn't even the
> >issue. You are answering arguments that I did not raise.
>
> You're attempting to refute arguments I did raise, then refusing to
> address them.
If I could do both at the same time, that would be quite a feat.
>
> > If you want
> >to go to face a corner and argue a topic with yourself, feel free.
>
> Learn how usenet works, if you can. Not everyone is smart enough to
> use a computer.
>
> >> >When I went to public
> >> >school, the teachers there taught me to avoid generalizations. Don't
> >> >they teach that any more?
>
> >> Any more? You went to school before WWII? Somehow, I doubt that.
>
> > Uninteligable without any context. Please rewrite.
>
> You're claiming that you went to school before I did, which would have
> you in elementary school before WWII. And I doubt that.
Ahh... by your correspondence, I would have guessed you were much
younger. Some fols never grow up. A close friend of mine comes to
mind.
>
> Was that simple enough for you? Or should I translate it to
> elementary school English?
According to you, it was so long ago that I doubt you can remember
it.
>
> >> That theists kill for theistic reasons, but atheists don't kill for
> >> atheistic reasons, is a fact. No one has ever been killed because the
> >> killer didn't believe in any god, and SOLELY for that reason. Yet
> >> that's ALL atheism is - lack of theism.
>
> > People kill because they hate. Christian orthodoxy teaches to love.
>
> Which is why Christians kill. Nope, I don't think that works. Since
> Christians DO kill, your assertion has an error in it.
>
> >Your argument has nothing to do with Christianity
>
> Sure it has - Christians DO kill.
So do atheists. Does that mean that all atheists are guilty of that?
Of course not.
>
> >Christianity believes that what elevates us above animals is that we
> >are capable of love, while animals are only capable of liking or
> >effection. For this reason alone, human lives have a greater intrinsic
> >value
>
> Bullshit. "Value" immediately makes anything it relates to relative -
> there's no "absolute value".
What? Where did I mention "absolute value"? I said intrinsic value.
>
> > and are not to be extinguished if it can be possibly avoided.
>
> NO life is to be extinguished if it can possibly be avoided.
>
> >Christian love demands action...action to prevent murders from
> >happening is part of that equation.
>
> Since Christians DO murder, your assertion has an error in it.
>
> (And the claim that anyone who murders is not a Christian is, in
> itself, a fallacy.)
If you hated anyone, you have murdered. Are you free of the same
guilt you accuse of others?
Elroy Willis
> Packman <pma...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Louis Kuhelj wrote:
>>> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote
>>>>> I suppose you will claim that it was Christians who blew
>>>>> up the world trade towers.
>>>> It was theists who blew them up - for theistic reasons.
>>> Aha..so when it suits you, you will use the broad brush of "theist"
>>> and when it further suits you, you will use "Christiann" to prove your
>>> point. After all, the ends justify the means..don't they.
>> The suicide pilots had notebooks that had prayers to god in
>> them. They were theists. That's what other theists don't want
>> to admit.
> Allright...they were also humans. I guess that means that all humans
> will do things like this. Give me a break.
Nobody said all theists might do something like that, but it's
certainly a possibility if they think they might be rewarded by
some god for doing something so horrible. Atheists don't have
that problem. We won't go out and kill people because we think
some invisible god told us to do so. If I heard a voice in my head
telling me to fly a plane into the WTC, I would seek psychiatric
help, I certainly wouldn't follow the instructions from the voice in
my head. If some military leader or religious fanatic told me that
god told him that it's a good idea to fly a plane into the WTC and
kill innocent people, I'd tell him to fuck himself, and would try to
get such an insane person taken out of power.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>Packman <pma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<F5A3C00834674089.E09DFB22...@lp.airnews.net>...
>> IOW, you want to take away women's rights of control of their own
>> bodies.
>Nope, I want to give it back to them. The brain/mind is part of their
>body...isn't it?
And they have that now. They can use their own brains to decide
whether they want to terminate their pregnancies. So you don;t have
to change anything.
Or did you mean that you only want to give them the freedom to reject
abortions?
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>Louis Kuhelj wrote:
>> Nope, I want to give it back to them. The brain/mind is part of their
>> body...isn't it?
>Yes. Are you a woman? If not, why are you trying to tell them what
>they can/can't do?
Because he's a Christian, so he knows what right for them better than
they do.
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<pa91vtgbmap43e6ag...@4ax.com>...
>> On 12 Nov 2001 12:53:44 -0800, yar...@aol.com (Louis Kuhelj) posted
>> in alt.atheism:
>> >chri...@the.crossroads wrote in message news:<onhtut4h8fl4gnajr...@4ax.com>...
>> >> As a christian, I agree with the atheists: If we do not
>> >> condemn such action, then we have learned nothing, and
>> >> are no better, and therefore no different to our forebears.
>> > I agree with you on this point...to a point. I disagree that my
>> >forebears had anything to do with anythiing that ever went on in
>> >America. I'm not its native.
>> Who said anything about America? If you come from Europe or Asia,
>> your forebears murdered plenty of people.
> You've missed a few continents in your list. I think ou have to
>include all of them. You also missed some groups. You have to include
>all of them regardless of religion. That sure makes us all true
>descendants of Adam and Eve.
None of which has to do with the fact that your ancestors murdered
just as many people as other people's ancestors.
>> And, since the VAST majority of the voting population of the U. S. is
>> totally opposed to a blanket ban on abortion, you and your ilk have to
>> find a different way, eh?
> No!
I haven't seen anti-choicers stop trying.
>> > It is better to change the laws than to break them.
>> But if it seems impossible to change them, what's breaking them if you
>> do it for Jesus?
> No! I don't belong to such a group.
You're NOT a Christian?
>> >That's why the logic escapes you.
>> Since the argument is about "your country", and you refuse to name
>> that country, the logic of anything to do with that country escapes
>> everyone.
What's the matter? Afraid to name the country?
>> How would he know what your (obviously incompetent) teachers taught
>> you?
>What? A public school that believes in seperation of Church and state
>would employ incompetant teachers? Unthinkable.
It's obviously thinkable, since your teachers were incompetent - they
failed to teach you to think.
>much better job. Mind you, I'm not a Catholic anymore, but those nuns
>had what it took to make first rate teachers. As for their public
>school counterparts...they don't have a prayer.
They're not supposed to.
Louis Kuhelj
I must not be as I don't seem to fit your definition of it. ;)
>
> >> >That's why the logic escapes you.
>
> >> Since the argument is about "your country", and you refuse to name
> >> that country, the logic of anything to do with that country escapes
> >> everyone.
>
> What's the matter? Afraid to name the country?
>
> >> How would he know what your (obviously incompetent) teachers taught
> >> you?
>
> >What? A public school that believes in seperation of Church and state
> >would employ incompetant teachers? Unthinkable.
>
> It's obviously thinkable, since your teachers were incompetent - they
> failed to teach you to think.
I _thought_ that was a condition we were all born with. Unless you
are speaking of "teaching someone _how_ to think". Well, I guess I
decided that my way was better. I could be right or maybe wrong, but I
made the choice. The youngsters today can only rarely claim that.
>
> >much better job. Mind you, I'm not a Catholic anymore, but those nuns
> >had what it took to make first rate teachers. As for their public
> >school counterparts...they don't have a prayer.
>
> They're not supposed to.
The system is so designed.
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>> > Aha..so when it suits you, you will use the broad brush of "theist"
>> > and when it further suits you, you will use "Christiann" to prove your
>> > point. After all, the ends justify the means..don't they.
>> The suicide pilots had notebooks that had prayers to god in
>> them. They were theists. That's what other theists don't want
>> to admit.
>Allright...they were also humans. I guess that means that all humans
>will do things like this. Give me a break.
The suicide pilots did what they did BECAUSE OF their theism. Give US
a break.
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<fq81vt8ujs3g8a9ee...@4ax.com>...
>> On 12 Nov 2001 12:34:12 -0800, yar...@aol.com (Louis Kuhelj) posted
>> in alt.atheism:
>> >Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<0sntut8f86p34cop5...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On 11 Nov 2001 10:14:59 -0800, yar...@aol.com (Louis Kuhelj) posted
>> >> in alt.atheism:
>> >> Christianity is guilty if someone is murdered for not being Christian.
>> >> We never claimed otherwise, but your straw man is defeated.
>> > You missed the point of the broad brush analogy.
>> Christianity is guilty if someone is murdered for not being Christian.
>> That's a very broad brush, and it's apt.
> Actually, we pray for people who aren't Christians.
Actually Christians have killed non-Christians for being
non-Christians since Christianity came to power in the 4th century.
And they've killed other Christians for being the wrong kind of
Christian for the 3 centuries before that. The entire history of
Christianity is the history of murder.
>Jesus Christ did not command us to go out and kill people
Jesus Christ didn't invent Christianity - he died a Jewish rabbi. But
the god that he followed DID command his people to kill other people -
for not being the same as they were.
>> > Intentionally. Willful ignorance.
>> Willful knowledge that the broad brush is appropriate.
> A broad brush is NEVER appropriate.
If ALL of a group is something, then ALL of that group is that thing.
>> No, when we're talking about Christians doing something I'll use
>> "Christians". When we're talking about theism, I'll use "theism".
>> Sorry if that's too complicated for you to follow.
> Of course you are the final arbitror of which is the right one to use
>when.
Of course, since I'm the one doing the talking, so I'm the ONLY
arbiter of what I mean to say.
>you're still hiding from the truth.
Your religion isn't "the truth". If it were, your bible wouldn't
contradict itself all over the place.
>> It's a broad brush to paint Muslims as theists? Maybe we should speak
>> your language - you don;t understand English very well.
> Mogoce bom. Ti me ne razumis po Englescini.
Since you're so loath to tell us what country that is, I guess there's
something wrong with being from there.
>Yes..it is is a broad brush to paint a particular religious group as
>theists.
You really DON'T understand English, do you?
>What kind of logic is that?
Yours? Or real logic? Yours, claiming that not all members of any
religious group are theists, is nonsense. Next you'll be claiming
that not all water is H2O.
>> > Uninteligable without any context. Please rewrite.
>> You're claiming that you went to school before I did, which would have
>> you in elementary school before WWII. And I doubt that.
> Ahh... by your correspondence, I would have guessed you were much
>younger. Some fols never grow up.
Which is why you find the faults you display in others, but fail to
recognize them in yourself.
>> >Your argument has nothing to do with Christianity
>> Sure it has - Christians DO kill.
>So do atheists. Does that mean that all atheists are guilty of that?
>Of course not.
Christians kill due to Christianity - atheists don't kill due to not
believing in your god.
>> >Christianity believes that what elevates us above animals is that we
>> >are capable of love, while animals are only capable of liking or
>> >effection. For this reason alone, human lives have a greater intrinsic
>> >value
>> Bullshit. "Value" immediately makes anything it relates to relative -
>> there's no "absolute value".
> What? Where did I mention "absolute value"? I said intrinsic value.
There's no absolute value - whether you choose to call it intrinsic or
inherent makes no difference. Value is only TO SOMEONE. Nothing is
intrinsically valuable - that's not what "valuable" means.
>> >Christian love demands action...action to prevent murders from
>> >happening is part of that equation.
>> Since Christians DO murder, your assertion has an error in it.
>> (And the claim that anyone who murders is not a Christian is, in
>> itself, a fallacy.)
>If you hated anyone, you have murdered.
Sorry, but no. Murder is a very specific legal term, and it has a
very specific meaning. "Hate" isn't it.
> Are you free of the same guilt you accuse of others?
I'm not claiming to be Christian, so that doesn't apply.
R. Bob Dean
> On 10 Nov 2001 09:04:41 -0800, yar...@aol.com (Louis Kuhelj) posted
>
> >> And most of the crazy nuts who murder the most victims are religious
> >> nuts. People are seldom murdered by atheists for not being atheists.
>
> > Former Soviet Union and China not withstanding?
>
> (Careful - if there was any other charge, they weren't murdered for
> not being atheists.)
>
were Catholic Priest and Jewish Rabbis who were murdered
for opposing the atheistic policies of an atheist state. It has also
happened in China.
>
Regards,
RDean
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<q1r3vtkbg5ofm1700...@4ax.com>...
>> It's obviously thinkable, since your teachers were incompetent - they
>> failed to teach you to think.
> I _thought_ that was a condition we were all born with. Unless you
>are speaking of "teaching someone _how_ to think".
I typed that at first, but deleted the word "how", since 1) one has to
be able to think before one can learn HOW to think and 2) it's obvious
that you don't think at all.
> Well, I guess I
>decided that my way was better. I could be right or maybe wrong, but I
>made the choice. The youngsters today can only rarely claim that.
*Anyone* can make *any* claim. As I said, you don't think.
>> >much better job. Mind you, I'm not a Catholic anymore, but those nuns
>> >had what it took to make first rate teachers. As for their public
>> >school counterparts...they don't have a prayer.
>> They're not supposed to.
> The system is so designed.
Here's a nickel - rent a sense of humor.
Al Klein
<bo...@news1.lig.bls.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>Your statement is a play on words - or it seems to me. Sure there
>were Catholic Priest and Jewish Rabbis who were murdered
>for opposing the atheistic policies of an atheist state.
For opposing the atheistic policies of the state, or for opposing the
dictatorial policies of the state? Were they killed for BEING
theists, or for opposing policies of the state?
Those aren't plays on words, they're the crux of my point.
chri...@the.crossroads
>- The word Islam does not mean peace. It means submission to God and
>to his representative on earth. The word for peace in Arabic is
>"solh."
>
Now, I was told that the word "islam", was derived from the
word "salams"(sp), which means "peace". Variations I've heard
are "marsalama", "salaams, and leecom salaams", but I think
they are in pairs, like "How are you? Fine: How are you?".
Louis Kuhelj
> On 13 Nov 2001 17:56:02 -0800, yar...@aol.com (Louis Kuhelj) posted
> in alt.atheism:
>
> >Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<fq81vt8ujs3g8a9ee...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 12 Nov 2001 12:34:12 -0800, yar...@aol.com (Louis Kuhelj) posted
> >> in alt.atheism:
> >> >Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<0sntut8f86p34cop5...@4ax.com>...
> >> >> On 11 Nov 2001 10:14:59 -0800, yar...@aol.com (Louis Kuhelj) posted
> >> >> in alt.atheism:
>
> >> >> Christianity is guilty if someone is murdered for not being Christian.
> >> >> We never claimed otherwise, but your straw man is defeated.
>
> >> > You missed the point of the broad brush analogy.
>
> >> Christianity is guilty if someone is murdered for not being Christian.
> >> That's a very broad brush, and it's apt.
>
> > Actually, we pray for people who aren't Christians.
>
> Actually Christians have killed non-Christians for being
> non-Christians since Christianity came to power in the 4th century.
> And they've killed other Christians for being the wrong kind of
> Christian for the 3 centuries before that. The entire history of
> Christianity is the history of murder.
>
This is patently untrue. Christianity, on balance, has done more good
than harm over the past 2000 years.
> >Jesus Christ did not command us to go out and kill people
>
> Jesus Christ didn't invent Christianity - he died a Jewish rabbi. But
> the god that he followed DID command his people to kill other people -
> for not being the same as they were.
He followed himself? That's interesting. Actually, it's funny. I know
you didn't intend to be funny, but that is truly funny. As to
Christianity being an invention... more humor. Christianity was a
natural outgrowth of God's reveleation of himself through himself in
the form of Jesus Christ...relationally demonstrating how mankind can
reconcile himself to the only true family he has that of God the
Father and God the Son. Finally, he fulfiled the entire requirements
of the laws in its entirety by meeting the reqirements on our behalf
and suffering the eternal death on our behalf. Then as a demonstration
of his devine power and evidence of eternal life being made available
to all who accept it as a free gift through faith in Christ, he rose
from the dead and ascended into heaven.
BTW-The word "Christian" means Christ-like. So in effect what you just
said is that Christ did not invent the idea of being like himself.
Interesting. I suppose you didn't invent the idea of being like
yourself either.
>
> >> > Intentionally. Willful ignorance.
>
> >> Willful knowledge that the broad brush is appropriate.
>
> > A broad brush is NEVER appropriate.
>
> If ALL of a group is something, then ALL of that group is that thing.
>
> >> No, when we're talking about Christians doing something I'll use
> >> "Christians". When we're talking about theism, I'll use "theism".
> >> Sorry if that's too complicated for you to follow.
>
> > Of course you are the final arbitror of which is the right one to use
> >when.
>
> Of course, since I'm the one doing the talking, so I'm the ONLY
> arbiter of what I mean to say.
>
> >you're still hiding from the truth.
>
> Your religion isn't "the truth". If it were, your bible wouldn't
> contradict itself all over the place.
I have seen someone post close to a dozen contradictions here on
this newsgroup and have answered all of them...showing where there are
no contradictions. What it ended up being is that the person simply
misunderstood the King's english. As I have often suggested...get a
NIV because it's easier to understand.
>
> >> It's a broad brush to paint Muslims as theists? Maybe we should speak
> >> your language - you don;t understand English very well.
>
> > Mogoce bom. Ti me ne razumis po Englescini.
>
> Since you're so loath to tell us what country that is, I guess there's
> something wrong with being from there.
>
> >Yes..it is is a broad brush to paint a particular religious group as
> >theists.
>
> You really DON'T understand English, do you?
>
> >What kind of logic is that?
>
> Yours? Or real logic? Yours, claiming that not all members of any
> religious group are theists, is nonsense. Next you'll be claiming
> that not all water is H2O.
Your measurments are off the two aguments intersect.
>
> >> > Uninteligable without any context. Please rewrite.
>
> >> You're claiming that you went to school before I did, which would have
> >> you in elementary school before WWII. And I doubt that.
>
> > Ahh... by your correspondence, I would have guessed you were much
> >younger. Some fols never grow up.
>
> Which is why you find the faults you display in others, but fail to
> recognize them in yourself.
You are mistaken. I know that I have many faults. I'm far from
perfect. But then, that's why I'm not promoting Louis-ism. I'm not
interested in gaining followers for myself. If you are looking at me
when I'm pointing to Christ, you make the choice to look in that
direction because you chose not to believe in the truth about him who
died so that you might live.
>
> >> >Your argument has nothing to do with Christianity
>
> >> Sure it has - Christians DO kill.
>
> >So do atheists. Does that mean that all atheists are guilty of that?
> >Of course not.
>
> Christians kill due to Christianity - atheists don't kill due to not
> believing in your god.
There is a report that some 300 folks have died in prisons due to
being members of a particular cult, the name of which escapes me for
the moment, that the Chinese government, which is atheistic, decided
is illegal within its borders. Although I do not subscribe to their
system of belief, would you not agree that they died because of their
belief? Would you not agree that they were killed because of their
belief? Not that anyone in the Chinese government would ever claim
that they killed them because they did not accept atheism. The root of
the plant that is atheism oozes a poison of intollerance that does
cause atheists to kill others who hold a different set of beliefs from
theirs. Ohhh..you will protest that atheism is not a belief. If it was
not, then it would have a much easier time tolerating folks from
belief systems...for it is only one belief that can endanger the
existance of another by supplanting it in an individual's mind.
>
> >> >Christianity believes that what elevates us above animals is that we
> >> >are capable of love, while animals are only capable of liking or
> >> >effection. For this reason alone, human lives have a greater intrinsic
> >> >value
>
> >> Bullshit. "Value" immediately makes anything it relates to relative -
> >> there's no "absolute value".
>
> > What? Where did I mention "absolute value"? I said intrinsic value.
>
> There's no absolute value - whether you choose to call it intrinsic or
> inherent makes no difference. Value is only TO SOMEONE. Nothing is
> intrinsically valuable - that's not what "valuable" means.
You are mistaken.
>
> >> >Christian love demands action...action to prevent murders from
> >> >happening is part of that equation.
>
> >> Since Christians DO murder, your assertion has an error in it.
>
> >> (And the claim that anyone who murders is not a Christian is, in
> >> itself, a fallacy.)
>
> >If you hated anyone, you have murdered.
>
> Sorry, but no. Murder is a very specific legal term, and it has a
> very specific meaning. "Hate" isn't it.
True from the human legal system. Not from the moral legal system,
that has the higher standard, that has been set in place by God.
Someday, we will all stand before that judge and will have to answer
to that higher standard.
>
> > Are you free of the same guilt you accuse of others?
>
> I'm not claiming to be Christian, so that doesn't apply.
Unless you are claiming not to be Human, you are not exempt.
Jeff Graham
The Arabic word for peace is "salaam". The traditional Islamic
greeting is "as-Salaamu aleikum" ("peace [be] with you") and the
response id "w-aleikum as-salaam" ("and with you peace")
The Arabic word "Islam" means "submission" and "Muslim" means "one who
submits" (the "mu-" part is the prefix of agent meaning one who
carries out the action indicated by the root SLM. The root SLM can
refer to either Submission or Peace, so both interpretations as to the
meaning of Islam are equally correct.
--
Jeffrey L. Graham - a.a.# 1946 - BAAWA Bard, Islamic Atheist®
ULC Imam, Saint and High priest
EAC Dept of Hymn Parodies
High Priest of Guinubis
ICQ 55638228
"Look at the moon in the sky,not the one in the lake. You've learned the Name of Allah, now seek the reality it refers to"
(Rumi)
http://jeff_9921.tripod.com/templeofguinubis/
http://jeff_9921.tripod.com/religioushumour/
Personal replies may be posted to alt.fan.jeffrey-graham (if your server doesn't carry it, ask for it).