What does anyone think about this? It is easy to say yes but do you think the religion of islam supports it or has islam been hijacked by radicals who are twisting it?
I am doing a research paper on this and have to take a stance on the subject. Just looking for some opinions.
Zero, I must intervene here as you are speaking the americanized version of the Qu'ran that has become popular since 9-11.
There is a lot in the Qu'ran, and issues with infidels is there. However, m ore importantly are 2 specific issues.
1. if you kill innocent civilians you will go to hell;
2. if you commit suicide you will go to hell.
Now with those 2 being understood, we must look at extremism. You will notice, that there is extremism in all religions, in fact Zero, you even stated that you are a tad extreme in your beliefs. It is those same zealots that twist the words that they "believe", to suit their own selfish needs, wants and desires. That is not only found in Islam, that is also found in Judaism, and of course Christianity.
Also, the jihad is more harmful than the crusades?![]()
I agree that it is all up for interpretation. However I am always amazed that a theist talks about interpretaion, but also is a believer in a strict interpretation, hence being a theist. Kinda contradictory imo.
![]()
good point. atheism is the belief that there is no god...so its still a faith. lol
No, it is a lack of belief in god. It is a neutral to your positive, for most people.
Some believe that there is NO god - which would be a more negative atheist, but the strict definition of the word is "a" (without) theism (belief in god).
but does not an atheist have faith in the fact there is no god? less he worry about judgment?
In all technicalities there is no safe ground. atheist is not the middle of a Christian and a satanist, it is more of a 3 way split, add in the other religions and it goes into more splits. but there is no middle. The middle is before you are old enough to choose I would say if there had to be a labeled focal point.
You did not read what I wrote.
Strict definition of atheist is one WITHOUT belief in god. Do you believe in aliens? Not sure? Not enough evidence yet? Well, you are an A-alienist since you do not believe yet.
You are not claiming that there ARE no aliens, you are just not convinced either way.
I'll ignore your last paragraph as I am sober and to try to make any sense of it would make my head hurt.
I think it has nothing to do with soberness.
I see how you are defining it. But an agnostic is a person who is not convinced some something to me.
Actually here you go.
"Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism,[1] though it is not a religious declaration in itself."
My experience with atheists....they are definitely in faith that there is no god.
I always thought Agnostic was the lack of belief in god and Atheism was the belief of No God.
either way, both are probably interchanged nowadays.
I'm not gonna say whether Islam supports terrorism but I do notice some intolerance and isolation in Islam. This facilitates terrorism depending on the individuals and the degree to which they follow it.
From what I understand, it seems to be an extremely conservative legal system which involves a belief in god. Like any legal system, it has its punishments for not abiding the laws, except Islam seems to have very brutal punishments. Therefore, like conservative christianity, it makes it hard for followers to assimilate with non-followers (especially those who believe in liberalism).
Which is why both groups try to silence opposing views any way they can.
Can we leave this guys thread to its intentions? Me and you have never seen eye to eye, and though I have learned and changed much to more properly represent myself, we wont ever agree. Who is wrong? only death will tell.
Regardless of Christianity, atheism, agnosticism, etc. He is asking about Islam. Lets cut the idle chat here. you know as well as I do how some of these threads have turned out.
1. if you kill innocent civilians you will go to hell;
So they have a provision to kill ones not innocent? (This statement is wide open to interpret)
that is reading way too far into it. In fact it states one cannot kill innocents, which is not too different from earlier texts. In fact, the NT states that you must be a peace maker until you see injustice.
From the Bible there are 3 states cases where killing is allowed. As a soldier in war, to protect an innocent, and to protect yourself/family/land.
I am actually a fan of old school punishments. I dont think those other countries are off in the way they do punishments. The punishment for a cheating wife is stoning....I dont see an issue with that -.-
Also, the jihad is more harmful than the crusades?![]()
What does anyone think about this? It is easy to say yes but do you think the religion of islam supports it or has islam been hijacked by radicals who are twisting it?
I am doing a research paper on this and have to take a stance on the subject. Just looking for some opinions.
Its comparing apples to filet mignon. The conquest of northern Africa alone in the name of Islam killed more people than all the Crusades put together.
Only when you look at the killing of the Aztecs (even then it was disease, not the sword) do you even come close the number of human life lost when compared to the spread of Islam under the caliphates from Rashidun to the beginning of the Ottoman Empire.
You simply can't compare the two on equal terms. The Crusades are romanticized..the conquests of Africa and South Asia are forgotten. Its similar to Hitler being the worst while forgetting Stalin killed more people overall..by a large margin.
Its comparing apples to filet mignon. The conquest of northern Africa alone in the name of Islam killed more people than all the Crusades put together.
Only when you look at the killing of the Aztecs (even then it was disease, not the sword for the majority) do you even come close the number of human life lost when compared to the spread of Islam under the caliphates from Rashidun to the beginning of the Ottoman Empire.
You simply can't compare the two on equal terms. The Crusades are romanticized..the conquests of Africa and South Asia are forgotten. Its similar to Hitler being the worst while forgetting Stalin killed more people overall..by a large margin.
Islam as it originally began and as written directly in the quaran doesn't support terrorism, however like all religions its subject to interpretation. So the humans doing the interpretation can warp it however they want.
Did it really rain 40 days and 40 nites or is that metaphorical? did Abraham really live 175 years? Did he offer the tip of Isaac's prick as a sacrifice as the old testament has it, or sacrifice Isaac altogether as the quaran has it?![]()
actually the Qu'ran has it as Ishmael, Abraham's son with Hagar.
Plenty of penises are stillol mutilated in the name of ridiculous beliefs.ah true, i just recalled it being a sacrifice of the whole child rather than the tip of his johnson![]()
I do not disagree, and also appreciate the Aztec reference. However, the overall theme under both belief systems has been a history of onversion by the sword. My point here in this thread is not to prove one more liable than the other, actually it is to prove both as a horrible criminal in this situation
But are they conceptually different, or the same act on different scales?
Did it really rain 40 days and 40 nites or is that metaphorical?
Come to South Florida in August and Sept. You'll believe![]()
I wouldn't say Christianity has a large history. In the overall scheme of things, the conversion by sword is relatively small....a few instances of perversion (on a large scale) over 2000yrs...for much of it Christians were getting the sword...:lol:
I don't think there is anything within the Christian belief system that encourages conversion by the sword on a grand scale. In fact, its quite the opposite.
Whether or not Islam as an entity does not exist doesn't deal with the question. It is practiced but with it being practiced and its strict adherents to it does terorrism exists in it from when it was founded or did it evolutionize itself into terrorist acts.
I have read some accounts where Mohammed actually did acts of piracy in order that his village, would have good and foods. I wondered if this was merely an act of surviving or did it have anything to do with Islam?
This is probably the most I have ever dealt with anything islam. I have always taken the notion that terrorism is built into the muslim pysche. I think that this may be more of a middle eastern thing because of the war with Israel for land. This may be a cultural thing.
What does anyone think about this? It is easy to say yes but do you think the religion of islam supports it or has islam been hijacked by radicals who are twisting it?
I am doing a research paper on this and have to take a stance on the subject. Just looking for some opinions.
From the Bible there are 3 states cases where killing is allowed. As a soldier in war, to protect an innocent, and to protect yourself/family/land.
-.-
I agree that it is all up for interpretation. However I am always amazed that a theist talks about interpretaion, but also is a believer in a strict interpretation, hence being a theist. Kinda contradictory imo.
![]()
please provide verse in the bible that this is stated
Just for that I got a few Bible verses that are thinkers for you
"Exodus 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side ... and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. "
or
"1 Samuel 15:2-3 Thus saith the Lord of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare him not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. "
^ that I believe is in relation to the "Ban of Hiram"( I definitly did not spell that right)
Christians are constantly accused of wrong if we dont "turn the other cheek"
I can probably find alot of verses that give you the right ot protect yourself and the ones you love. Tho it takes a bit to sift through a Bible.
No where in the Bible does it say "Though shalt be a panzy."
The issue is finding the balance in this.
Lets not drag the thread into one of these. PM me if you want to do this, but no thread hijacking.
EDIT: I do mean really though...you dont think God wouldnt want you to protect your wife and kids from someone who broke into your hose at 2am?
Some one hurts my kids(when I get some)...they might not believe in God, but by the time I am done with them they will be praying for God to save them...
"1 Samuel 15:2-3 Thus saith the Lord of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare him not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Yeah...those infants are a HUGE threat to your family...better slaughter them to protect yourself.
Yep...we've been over this before and you keep insisting that infants somehow committed sins that justified killing them.This is in relation to the "Ban of Hiram"(I know i have that name wrong...) I think like stated. Basically it was Judgment. For what the tribes did, God decided to destroy them because they had drifted into evil.
We been over this before, overvaluing a life is insane. The military would fail utterly if they overvalue a life that did not necessarily get in the way(look at Iraq). The modern issue of "Red Tape" and media make any world wide breakthroughs impossible.
Sin has the right to be exterminated. It is just not a normal mortals right to do so, but God does allow appointment of judges and officials to carry out such tasks. Sadly, this world thinks criminals have more rights than honest people...(hence Revelations)