Christian Terrorism vs. Islamic Terrorism

[mms]

I am pretty sure that is Scientology as well, although that may be 100% not 2.5

Not even close

 

[mms]

I looked for myself and this is more like what I remember. May have got the number wrong:

Muslims have six major beliefs:

• Belief in one God (Allah)
• Belief in the Angels
• Belief in the holy books sent to all the prophets including Torah that was revealed to the prophet Moses, Bible that was revealed to the prophet Jesus, and Qur'an (Koran) that was revealed to the prophet Muhammad
• Belief in all the prophets sent by God including Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. Although Muslims believe in Isa or Jesus they don't think of Jesus as the Son of God the way Christians do.
• Belief in the Day of Judgment and life after death. The best reward for performing good deeds is getting closer to God.
• Belief in divine decree. This means that God is all-powerful and nothing can happen without His permission, however, he has given human beings freedom to choose whether to be good or bad. In the end, everyone will be questioned about how they lived in this life.
  
  I believe these 6 refer to things that are essentially true even if I may understand them differently than other believers. And I believe that peace comes from surrender. I also believe that no believer of any real faith can be a terrorist.

This is a verse in Quran
آمَنَ الرَّسُولُ بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مِن رَّبِّهِ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ ۚ كُلٌّ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَمَلَائِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ لَا نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّن رُّسُلِهِ ۚ وَقَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا ۖ غُفْرَانَكَ رَبَّنَا وَإِلَيْكَ الْمَصِيرُ (285)
....
The text I sent you earlier is prophet Muhammed words.
It starts Islam is build upon 5 then continues
....
I agree that who ever submits himself to god will never be a terrorist and the meaning of Islam is submission to God's well.

 

[mms]

Lol
Guys, Islamic terrorism isn’t Islamic because the perpetrators weren’t real Muslims. By that token, Christian terrorism isn’t really Christian terrorism because the perpetrators weren’t real Christians.

If you haven’t figured it out guy, the true practitioners of “insert name of religion here” are arbitrary and decided by who is the most fanatic. Hence the reason most older religions have factions that all claim to be true “insert name of religious practitioners”.

Claiming is viable for everyone but as long as you don't have any cause against those claims it will valid.
I made 2 claims at the start of the post people came and had fun but none could prove me wrong instead the mockery went off.
You see Usually any atheist claim to be more knowledgeable than any believer but all I can see here is people with no idea about how even to think.
They think I'm an old person from this forum which is false.
They think I came here to revive this post also wrong.
They think I'm here to attack others and again wrong.
All I did is I explained what others failed to do earlier in post and again as I said I came here by coincidence and I have never seen this forum before I found a post speaking about terrorism which was the main key word while searching and I found this page.

 

[ivwshane]

Claiming is viable for everyone but as long as you don't have any cause against those claims it will valid.
I made 2 claims at the start of the post people came and had fun but none could prove me wrong instead the mockery went off.
You see Usually any atheist claim to be more knowledgeable than any believer but all I can see here is people with no idea about how even to think.
They think I'm an old person from this forum which is false.
They think I came here to revive this post also wrong.
They think I'm here to attack others and again wrong.
All I did is I explained what others failed to do earlier in post and again as I said I came here by coincidence and I have never seen this forum before I found a post speaking about terrorism which was the main key word while searching and I found this page.

You didn’t address anything I said in my post nor did I mention your motives for posting/reviving this thread in my post or my previous post.

 

[Pohemi]

Claiming is viable for everyone but as long as you don't have any cause against those claims it will valid.
I made 2 claims at the start of the post people came and had fun but none could prove me wrong instead the mockery went off.
You see Usually any atheist claim to be more knowledgeable than any believer but all I can see here is people with no idea about how even to think.
They think I'm an old person from this forum which is false.
They think I came here to revive this post also wrong.
They think I'm here to attack others and again wrong.
All I did is I explained what others failed to do earlier in post and again as I said I came here by coincidence and I have never seen this forum before I found a post speaking about terrorism which was the main key word while searching and I found this page.

Except, you didn't actually explain anything but what you subjectively believe. And you make it sound as though it is fact simply because you believe it. That is not how objective reality works.

 

[mms]

You didn’t address anything I said in my post nor did I mention your motives for posting/reviving this thread in my post or my previous post.

You said every body claiming to be true so my reply came to this part. I wonder what is the nationalities inside this forum...

Except, you didn't actually explain anything but what you subjectively believe. And you make it sound as though it is fact simply because you believe it. That is not how objective reality works.

Either you didnt read my original claims ok let me repeat what I said

I dare anyone in this forum to submit one statement from Quran that tells Muslims to be terroristic. In contrast I can bring more than one verse from the bible to show you what you dont read
Furthermore for those loving to say muslims spread by sword you really have no knowledge of history and barely read about it you are just replying others.
" Luke 19:27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ ”
"1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Now If you have some thing against my claims please I'm all ears.
Take into consideration reading the meaning of terrorism.

 

[Moonbeam]

Claiming is viable for everyone but as long as you don't have any cause against those claims it will valid.
I made 2 claims at the start of the post people came and had fun but none could prove me wrong instead the mockery went off.
You see Usually any atheist claim to be more knowledgeable than any believer but all I can see here is people with no idea about how even to think.
They think I'm an old person from this forum which is false.
They think I came here to revive this post also wrong.
They think I'm here to attack others and again wrong.
All I did is I explained what others failed to do earlier in post and again as I said I came here by coincidence and I have never seen this forum before I found a post speaking about terrorism which was the main key word while searching and I found this page.

Should one tend toward anger at the ignorance of others or have compassion for those who live in darkness? You have pointed to the ignorance of others as to the true nature of what it means to be a Muslim yet you have said you love Jesus more than any Christian. I would think this might be an unfair statement about ALL Christians.

 

[Braznor]

If I had been asked this question, say fifteen years ago, I would have been one of the first of the fools here to jump and blame Islam as a terrorist religion.

Now I believe that it is not Islam or Christianity to blame for their respective followers actions. Now I believe that the fundamental problem is the corrupt and broken nature of the human psyche. Humans destroy, pervert and ruin everything beautiful that has been given to us and this includes ideology.

Don't believe me? Check out how the Aum Shinrikyo cult instigated Sarin attacks in the Tokyo subway. Shall we blame the Buddha or Buddhism for these attacks? Or what about the violent gun nuts in the U.S? Will you blame the U.S. Constitution for the attacks? Nope, you see, the ideology is only the excuse, it is the human actor driven by the corrupt and broken psyche which is to blame and anything else is just an excuse.

 

[ivwshane]

If I had been asked this question, say fifteen years ago, I would have been one of the first of the fools here to jump and blame Islam as a terrorist religion.

Now I believe that it is not Islam or Christianity to blame for their respective followers actions. Now I believe that the fundamental problem is the corrupt and broken nature of the human psyche. Humans destroy, pervert and ruin everything beautiful that has been given to us and this includes ideology.

Don't believe me? Check out how the Aum Shinrikyo cult instigated Sarin attacks in the Tokyo subway. Shall we blame the Buddha or Buddhism for these attacks? Or what about the violent gun nuts in the U.S? Will you blame the U.S. Constitution for the attacks? Nope, you see, the ideology is only the excuse, it is the human actor driven by the corrupt and broken psyche which is to blame and anything else is just an excuse.

Exactly. Religion is neither good or bad, it’s the people who teach it and the people who practice it who make it good or bad. It’s also why I’m against organized religion but not necessarily against those that practice it on their own, because with organized religion you also have the possibility of men looking to exploit it and the people who practice it.

 

[pauldun170]

I wonder what is the nationalities inside this forum...

This site is an Asian site but most of the people in this forum are from New Zealand.
We have a few token Aborigines but for the most part this sub-forum is dominated by member of a Japanese fetish site.
You can verify that by using the -//q switch in a goduckgo search on -membership for site:anandtech.nz

As for your original question there are many learned members in the OT discussion forum.

 

[amenx]

During the 20th century, Islam was a relatively benign religion pre-1980. The Islamic world (in general) was not as strictly adherent to religion as they may have been afterwards. The main driving factors that gave rise to what has been called Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism has arisen from 2 countries basically, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Both at odds vs one another and both using their opposing views on religion to foment militant, political and religious movements. The Sunni-Wahhabi clergy in Saudi consider Shia Islam of Iran to be heretic. This was ratcheted up after the Iranian revolution in 1979 (whereas during the reign of the Shah, Iran was not seen as much of a threat). The mullahs and ayatollahs of Iran were trying very hard to undermine the Saudis due to their alliance with the US as well, which they considered as a threat to them too.

Coincidentally, also in 1979, Saudi underwent a major event that transformed regional and world politics ever since. This was the grand mosque seizure in Mecca by extremists that were even more extreme than the Wahhabi clergy. They were upset at the rapid pace of modernization in Saudi and and the influx of millions of non-Muslim foreigners who constituted the bulk of the workforce during Saudis oil rich boom years (in the 70s) whom they blame for the decline of the countrys Islamic faith and culture. They also demanded the overthrow of the house of Saud whom they viewed as corrupt and lacking religious conviction. Needless to say, this rebellion was crushed, those involved brought to trial and executed.

The Saudis were pretty shaken from this event and began a slow reversal of any liberal Islamic trends and gave power to the clergy to do whatever they wanted. This included introducing more religion in schools, enforcing stricter religious customs, practices, etc. On a separate track, they began exporting their Sunni-Wahhabi ideology to other Muslim countries in the form of economic aid, cultural exchanges, missionaries and religious schools (madrassas). These measures were to counter Irans influence in the region and to create a larger Sunni Islamic alliance that were more sympathetic to the Saudis vs the Iranians. This with an extra emphasis on Afghanistan and Pakistan (who bordered Iran). Thus the rise of the Taliban and Qaeda who ultimately managed to drive out the Soviets from Afghanistan and take over the country.

The Iranians also exported their ideology, in particular to Shia militants in Lebanon which gave rise to Hezbolla in early 80s. They blew up the US marines barracks in 1983 (over 200 dead) thus leading to the withdrawal of US troops from Lebanon. This was one of the first acts of what began to be known as "Islamic terrorism". Bear in mind there were several terrorist attacks vs the Israelis by Palestinian militants in the 70s, but they were NOT Islamic derived at all. In fact these were mainly by militant Marxist groups (esp the PFLP) who did not give a crap about religion. Over the decades, they were replaced by Hammas and other Islamic militant movements who rode on the wave of religious fundamentalism that the Saudis and Iranians initiated.

After Sept 11, the Saudis began to feel the heat of the religious demon they unleashed over the years who was also attacking and undermining them. They began to understand that they can no longer use their political, fundamentalist version of Islam to keep themselves in power without it undermining their rule as well. But the genie was already out of the bottle and began to spillover in other countries that were falling apart (Iraq & Syria) and the birth of ISIS. That further highlighted the urgency for the Saudis and other Muslim countries of the need to stamp out these fundamentalist terror movements whose main goal was to overthrow their countries.

So basically that in a nutshell. Islamic societies can be molded like clay by the politics of their rulers. They can taken to religious extremes or as tolerant as can be on the other end of the scale (where several countries tolerate booze, nightclubs, prostitution, etc) and other very un-Islamic practices. So imo its not the religion that espouses 'terrorism' but who controls it and the direction they channel it, especially for political purposes, either to strengthen their hold on power or undermine their enemies. I see a further evolution of Islam to where it just withers away eventually as being more of an inconvenience in the rule of societies than a benefit. It may take many years, but I believe its inevitable. The Wahhabis of yesterday may be the Sufis of tomorrow.

Back to the main point being discussed, yes, you can find all sorts of texts, quotes or hadiths to support Islams 'link' to terrorism but can just as well find as much to dispel them as well.

 

[mms]

Should one tend toward anger at the ignorance of others or have compassion for those who live in darkness? You have pointed to the ignorance of others as to the true nature of what it means to be a Muslim yet you have said you love Jesus more than any Christian. I would think this might be an unfair statement about ALL Christians.

Well it might be but if Christians really love jesus they would search for his true words all I did is just scratching the surface

During the 20th century, Islam was a relatively benign religion pre-1980. The Islamic world (in general) was not as strictly adherent to religion as they may have been afterwards. The main driving factors that gave rise to what has been called Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism has arisen from 2 countries basically, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Both at odds vs one another and both using their opposing views on religion to foment militant, political and religious movements. The Sunni-Wahhabi clergy in Saudi consider Shia Islam of Iran to be heretic. This was ratcheted up after the Iranian revolution in 1979 (whereas during the reign of the Shah, Iran was not seen as much of a threat). The mullahs and ayatollahs of Iran were trying very hard to undermine the Saudis due to their alliance with the US as well, which they considered as a threat to them too.

Coincidentally, also in 1979, Saudi underwent a major event that transformed regional and world politics ever since. This was the grand mosque seizure in Mecca by extremists that were even more extreme than the Wahhabi clergy. They were upset at the rapid pace of modernization in Saudi and and the influx of millions of non-Muslim foreigners who constituted the bulk of the workforce during Saudis oil rich boom years (in the 70s) whom they blame for the decline of the countrys Islamic faith and culture. They also demanded the overthrow of the house of Saud whom they viewed as corrupt and lacking religious conviction. Needless to say, this rebellion was crushed, those involved brought to trial and executed.

The Saudis were pretty shaken from this event and began a slow reversal of any liberal Islamic trends and gave power to the clergy to do whatever they wanted. This included introducing more religion in schools, enforcing stricter religious customs, practices, etc. On a separate track, they began exporting their Sunni-Wahhabi ideology to other Muslim countries in the form of economic aid, cultural exchanges, missionaries and religious schools (madrassas). These measures were to counter Irans influence in the region and to create a larger Sunni Islamic alliance that were more sympathetic to the Saudis vs the Iranians. This with an extra emphasis on Afghanistan and Pakistan (who bordered Iran). Thus the rise of the Taliban and Qaeda who ultimately managed to drive out the Soviets from Afghanistan and take over the country.

The Iranians also exported their ideology, in particular to Shia militants in Lebanon which gave rise to Hezbolla in early 80s. They blew up the US marines barracks in 1983 (over 200 dead) thus leading to the withdrawal of US troops from Lebanon. This was one of the first acts of what began to be known as "Islamic terrorism". Bear in mind there were several terrorist attacks vs the Israelis by Palestinian militants in the 70s, but they were NOT Islamic derived at all. In fact these were mainly by militant Marxist groups (esp the PFLP) who did not give a crap about religion. Over the decades, they were replaced by Hammas and other Islamic militant movements who rode on the wave of religious fundamentalism that the Saudis and Iranians initiated.

After Sept 11, the Saudis began to feel the heat of the religious demon they unleashed over the years who was also attacking and undermining them. They began to understand that they can no longer use their political, fundamentalist version of Islam to keep themselves in power without it undermining their rule as well. But the genie was already out of the bottle and began to spillover in other countries that were falling apart (Iraq & Syria) and the birth of ISIS. That further highlighted the urgency for the Saudis and other Muslim countries of the need to stamp out these fundamentalist terror movements whose main goal was to overthrow their countries.

So basically that in a nutshell. Islamic societies can be molded like clay by the politics of their rulers. They can taken to religious extremes or as tolerant as can be on the other end of the scale (where several countries tolerate booze, nightclubs, prostitution, etc) and other very un-Islamic practices. So imo its not the religion that espouses 'terrorism' but who controls it and the direction they channel it, especially for political purposes, either to strengthen their hold on power or undermine their enemies. I see a further evolution of Islam to where it just withers away eventually as being more of an inconvenience in the rule of societies than a benefit. It may take many years, but I believe its inevitable. The Wahhabis of yesterday may be the Sufis of tomorrow.

Back to the main point being discussed, yes, you can find all sorts of texts, quotes or hadiths to support Islams 'link' to terrorism but can just as well find as much to dispel them as well.

A can agree to some parts and disagree to other parts.
Islam is always the same, it's not strict or loose the rules are clear, applying it or not, is point you might have tried to point out.
Nit knowing wahhabism or suffisim is something I can assure. Since both are having deficiencies in understanding and both has extreme thoughts.
Its not good to be extreme in either side moderate understanding is the best to be done, adding extra beliefs that's considered to be a good dead is actually not good in Islam. God and his prophets has given us the best to do adding more is like saying the prophet was not good enough or God has not given us the best.

Ignoring all the massacres happened to Muslims by other armies you start your quest of cut out of context scenes
Have you mentioned Bosnia and Chechnya and Kosovo and Palestine? could you place the main reasons of fighting and killing those civilians.

Saudi-arabia sent fighters to Afghanistan and Serbia and Russia and other places to counter those extremists that were exterminating Muslims at those areas like they did in spain aroud 1650.

Those fighters were not given any chance to go back to the army and were just like launched in the field, fighting was the only thing they could do after watching the horrors of killing civilians they became fanatic and started opposing systems.

Hamas is simply a plastinian force that's trying to counter the unlawful clonolization of the palastinian lands

Sep 11 was discussed millions of times and many evidences seems to be missing so saying it's made by bin laden is superficial and considered to be an inaccuracy.
Many scientists came out defending the right of those who died at the towers and criticized the lack of disclosure of information while one claim is enough to destroy the logic of the official story which is how you cant see any debris from the Pentagon plane while you could gather DNA samples from the crash about the attacker.
The birth of ISIS is just another foul play by the CIA.
The question I have been asking for years why all the attacks of ISIS is not reaching the US and concentrated in the middle east ?
And the answer is simple it's a rage war against Muslims.
Are always and will be the target of all the violence through the history just take the example of Spain Andalucia and compare the Islamic vs the Visogothic and Roman Ruling.
Putting Muslims as the attacker is actually twisting facts of history I hope when you mention one story you start mention all the criteria that surrounds it and the reasons of it other than mere small normal conflicts between 10% of Muslims trying to sabotage the rest.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well it might be but if Christians really love jesus they would search for his true words all I did is just scratching the surface

Moonbeam: What person searches for the truth when they already believe they have it. I note there are many many one true religions, almost as many as their are believers. The assumption that one just happened to be born or converted into the one true religion strikes me as profoundly problematic. There is one sect of Buddhists, I think, who say they may not have the best religion but it's their religion anyway. Fanaticism, something you claim to abhor, is characterized by certainty. That is why, I believe, religion asks us for humility to counter the possibility of arrogance of ego, "what I believe is truth." and also the entitlement one then feels to tell others what it is.

mms: A can agree to some parts and disagree to other parts.
Islam is always the same, it's not strict or loose the rules are clear, applying it or not, is point you might have tried to point out.
Nit knowing wahhabism or suffisim is something I can assure. Since both are having deficiencies in understanding and both has extreme thoughts.
Its not good to be extreme in either side moderate understanding is the best to be done, adding extra beliefs that's considered to be a good dead is actually not good in Islam. God and his prophets has given us the best to do adding more is like saying the prophet was not good enough or God has not given us the best.

M: I find in my conversations with other people a tendency to describe what is extreme as that which differ es from from what one believes. Therefore, I regard what people label as extreme a matter of personal opinion rather that fact. Now it may be fact but it might not. But the feeling that one is personally capable and entitled to make that determination is something I would call extreme. Again it can be arrogance of the ego, a joy in feeling right because of hidden doubt. I judge people more by how they act over what they say they believe.

mms: Ignoring all the massacres happened to Muslims by other armies you start your quest of cut out of context scenes
Have you mentioned Bosnia and Chechnya and Kosovo and Palestine? could you place the main reasons of fighting and killing those civilians.

Saudi-arabia sent fighters to Afghanistan and Serbia and Russia and other places to counter those extremists that were exterminating Muslims at those areas like they did in spain aroud 1650.

Those fighters were not given any chance to go back to the army and were just like launched in the field, fighting was the only thing they could do after watching the horrors of killing civilians they became fanatic and started opposing systems.

Hamas is simply a plastinian force that's trying to counter the unlawful clonolization of the palastinian lands

M: An eye for an eye starts afresh for every new injustice we receive. For every cause and reaction there is a previous cause and reaction so far back the original injury is lost in the dust of history. Everybody seeks to excuse their own need for revenge and for every threat, real or imagined.

mms: Sep 11 was discussed millions of times and many evidences seems to be missing so saying it's made by bin laden is superficial and considered to be an inaccuracy.
Many scientists came out defending the right of those who died at the towers and criticized the lack of disclosure of information while one claim is enough to destroy the logic of the official story which is how you cant see any debris from the Pentagon plane while you could gather DNA samples from the crash about the attacker.
The birth of ISIS is just another foul play by the CIA.
The question I have been asking for years why all the attacks of ISIS is not reaching the US and concentrated in the middle east ?
And the answer is simple it's a rage war against Muslims.
Are always and will be the target of all the violence through the history just take the example of Spain Andalucia and compare the Islamic vs the Visogothic and Roman Ruling.
Putting Muslims as the attacker is actually twisting facts of history I hope when you mention one story you start mention all the criteria that surrounds it and the reasons of it other than mere small normal conflicts between 10% of Muslims trying to sabotage the rest.

M: I have no doubt myself that Muslims have suffered terrible injustices in the past and that one is justified to take arms to stop them, but once stopped and guilt confessed with the promise of reformation, should not the violence end? At that point isn't a Muslim supposed to be a Christian and forgive? How many Christians do you know who can do that? You might think it would be even more difficult for someone not of a religion where that is job number one.

Anyway, I try to worry more about the offenses I may do to others than the ones they do to me. I carry many many old wounds, not all of which I remember intellectually, but every one is there in my unconscious just waiting for it's chance to get even. It's who I am but I don't consciously like it. Unconsciously I must or I would allow myself to relive the pain, it would seem.

 

[darkswordsman17]

And without any evidence you speak.
Claiming I hate "Jesus" peace be upon him. I love jesus more than any Christian and that's why I followed all his actions. Praying like he did, fasted like he did, covering up like he ordered, eating only good food like he ate circumcised like he was and greet people like he did all the religious matters that most of Christians deny today I did it because I love jesus and because my God told me about Jesus through my prophet. Add to this not a single book in the bible was named mary the mother of Jesus but a full chapter in Quran was named after mary. So I guess your claim is invalid.
Regarding reviving an old post since no one has the appropriate knowledge to reply I had to give an answer to people posing claimswith no evidence, adding to the fact of ignoring many evidences.
Again I dare anyone to prove that my religion is evil. And according to what I see people are lacking appropriate knowledge to debate such topic.
The Question of the topic was misleading since there is nothing called as terrorist Muslim. And the reason is no religious man would accept that.
Maybe some Christians were terrorists and supported by the church (crusades, vlad the impaler,.....) since they among the history clearly killed anyone in the name of their religion, but no muslim did so because nothing in Quran would command you to kill a civilian.

Your post is all the evidence I need. You also suck halal donkey dick at understanding it, not that I'm surprised. Despite your supposed exemplary knowledge you clearly lack basic levels of understanding.

I don't really need to know about how you trimmed your penis to be like Jesus. Pretty sure Jesus wouldn't give a shit if someone was circumcised or not since it had literally nothing to do with being a good person.

I like how your proof that you're not jealous of Jesus is that you've gone out of your way to deliberately be like Jesus as much as possible.

No, you really didn't need to, and the fact that you did is a perfect example of how you absolutely are lacking in faith and are a massive hypocrite.

So you're gladly doing the same thing? Like I said, there's something about followers of Abrhamic religions that they just have to be alike while claiming how they're sooo totally super not!

The reasons you've declared your religion isn't evil but others are can be perfectly applied in the opposite direction. And no matter how much you try and hand-waive it away because well gee you're the only True Believer just shows how lacking in actual faith you are as you would not need to declare it. After all your god is supposedly the actual arbiter of such, so you should be able to live humbly and piously without needing to worry about what anyone else is doing, confident that god will judge you thus. It also shows you're not at all following Jesus, as he would just declare his love. You instead are trying to demonize Christians. Which there's plenty of valid reasons for Muslims to take issue with Christians, yet here you are doing what you're criticizing others for by assuming what people think or know based on your own personal beliefs.

And? I'm not more fond of Christians doing that shit than I am Muslims that kill or do other abhorrent behavior (child brides comes to mind) based on their various religious ideals. I care not if they come from the Bible or Quran or not. Ah but its totally ok with killing people that it views aren't "civilians" which I'm sure won't at all have a biased view that's left it open to interpretation?

 

[Moonbeam]

No, you really didn't need to, and the fact that you did is a perfect example of how you absolutely are lacking in faith and are a massive hypocrite.

So you're gladly doing the same thing? Like I said, there's something about followers of Abrhamic religions that they just have to be alike while claiming how they're sooo totally super not!

The reasons you've declared your religion isn't evil but others are can be perfectly applied in the opposite direction. And no matter how much you try and hand-waive it away because well gee you're the only True Believer just shows how lacking in actual faith you are as you would not need to declare it. After all your god is supposedly the actual arbiter of such, so you should be able to live humbly and piously without needing to worry about what anyone else is doing, confident that god will judge you thus.

May I ask you what need you have to tell him this since you seem not to be able to use the excuse that you belong to an Abrahamic religion. What is it you lack faith in that, while not needing to do it yourself, you vituperously attacked him anyway? Are you sure you are not attacking somebody you see in the mirror?

I think you have felt great pain that that those who think they know the truth but are merely fanatics have caused so much pain and suffering and I salute you for that, but how will it help by trying to cause more pain? Perhaps, you know, God really will take care of it, or, at a minimum, the hate mongers will never know true peace.

Edit: Anyway, like you, he seems also to despise injustice and the certainty of those who cause harm.

 

[mms]

Bravo!. You get a trophy for being the best to insult others not only you showed an extreme way of thinking but again a superficial understanding.
"Jesus wont care about it", "Got out of my way" What are you even talking about ?
Unable to reply to my claim made you feel so angry that you started your own quest to discover fake ideas that I would be glad to bring it up clearly to anyone.
What you are trying to refer from the statement " bride children " is nothing but lack of understanding in all ways .
If you open books and read about civilizations and one of them will be

The Story of Civilization - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Then you will understand what it means when he say at old times in hot weather areas of Arabic peninsula girls were becoming rapidly mature at the age of 8,9 and10 and become old at the age of 20 it means simply they die at early age because of hyber-rate of maturity.
Again looking at the English Queens from 1100 to 1450 many of them got married at the age of 7 with a special case
Ealdgyth Daughter of Ælfgar, Earl of Mercia
This Queen got married twice and one of those two were at the age of 7 then at the age of 9. Now that was the case for the ruling family what about normal people?!
But does this means that we should do the same now ? And the answer is simple no. Because we have our rules in Islam when it comes to marriage
1- The girl or boy must reach puperty age.
2- The girl must be able physically and psychologically to have children and bear relationship.
3- The girl shall not be forced to marry a certain person.
(Any practices that oppose those rules is not an evidence against them but means lack of knowledge)
Those 3 rules is guaranteeing that each place and time has it's own limits and age when it comes to marriage so it means clearly that if an old girl didnt reach puberty she will not be able to marry and or if she reach at very young age and can't physically and psychologically bear relationship then she also cant marry
Yet only people with sick mentality would consider this as child marriage.
Looking at your ancestors will give you a clue of why they used to marry at the age of 14 and 13.
I didnt demonize anyone I only pointed out two verses from the bible and compared them with actual actions and if you can explain them in any other way please do.
And between if you have more of that bring it in I like to reply such topics

 

[cytg111]

Bravo!. You get a trophy for being the best to insult others not only you showed an extreme way of thinking but again a superficial understanding.
"Jesus wont care about it", "Got out of my way" What are you even talking about ?
Unable to reply to my claim made you feel so angry that you started your own quest to discover fake ideas that I would be glad to bring it up clearly to anyone.
What you are trying to refer from the statement " bride children " is nothing but lack of understanding in all ways .
If you open books and read about civilizations and one of them will be

The Story of Civilization - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Then you will understand what it means when he say at old times in hot weather areas of Arabic peninsula girls were becoming rapidly mature at the age of 8,9 and10 and become old at the age of 20 it means simply they die at early age because of hyber-rate of maturity.
Again looking at the English Queens from 1100 to 1450 many of them got married at the age of 7 with a special case
Ealdgyth Daughter of Ælfgar, Earl of Mercia
This Queen got married twice and one of those two were at the age of 7 then at the age of 9. Now that was the case for the ruling family what about normal people?!
But does this means that we should do the same now ? And the answer is simple no. Because we have our rules in Islam when it comes to marriage
1- The girl or boy must reach puperty age.
2- The girl must be able physically and psychologically to have children and bear relationship.
3- The girl shall not be forced to marry a certain person.
(Any practices that oppose those rules is not an evidence against them but means lack of knowledge)
Those 3 rules is guaranteeing that each place and time has it's own limits and age when it comes to marriage so it means clearly that if an old girl didnt reach puberty she will not be able to marry and or if she reach at very young age and can't physically and psychologically bear relationship then she also cant marry
Yet only people with sick mentality would consider this as child marriage.
Looking at your ancestors will give you a clue of why they used to marry at the age of 14 and 13.
I didnt demonize anyone I only pointed out two verses from the bible and compared them with actual actions and if you can explain them in any other way please do.
And between if you have more of that bring it in I like to reply such topics

What the fuck is this bullshit? Still going on?
Dude. You are ape. Without training you fling your own feces. Like the rest of us. Period. May the best method of training win.

 

[mms]

What the fuck is this bullshit? Still going on?
Dude. You are ape. Without training you fling your own feces. Like the rest of us. Period. May the best method of training win.

You can call yourself ape but I'm not.
Darwinism is dead years ago by sience so stop trash talking about some thing useless unless you have some thing to add then

you fling your own feces

Away from me

 

[zinfamous]

You can call yourself ape but I'm not.
Darwinism is dead years ago by sience so stop trash talking about some thing useless unless you have some thing to add then

what?

absolutely not.