Holy War Quran Vs. Bible

[RedKnight]

On a thread in another section "Revolution Until Victory" challenged anyone to make a separate thread, if they wished to discuss the alledged violence of religion, particularly Islam. He claims that Islam is actually peaceful and tolerant. :rolleyes: Well I've decided to take up his challenge. http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/20...r-bible-vs.html (http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/09/holy-war-and-holy-father-bible-vs.html) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html

[Marsella]

Why is this thread called 'Quran v Bible' then?

[RedAnarchist]

Both Islam and Christianity are violent religions. Why do you think so many people are Muslim and Christian? Because most of them are from countries where the population was forced to convert to Christianity and their cultures and languages were destroyed by those of the invdaing Christian nations such as Spain and Britain, and Muslim countries such as the Ottoman Empire.

[daniyaal]

Moral pacifism in Christianity from a Biblical standpoint is based on three things: explicit command from Christ and the apostles, precedent set by Christ and the apostles, and 700 years of early church precedent with emphasis on the first century of Christianity.

Christianity not only forbids war, the early church fathers also forbade the early Christians from joining the Roman army and to use violence (e.g. the Christians of the first few centuries, who refused to admit to Communion any who had killed in battle for a whole year).

Christians not only make bad soldiers, they don\'t make soldiers at all.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Both Islam and Christianity are violent religions.

In that case, atheism and materialism are also violent.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 20, 2007 12:26 am

Both Islam and Christianity are violent religions.

In that case, atheism and materialism are also violent.
Firstly, atheism is not a religion.

Secondly, atheists may be violent, but the difference is that atheists are not violent because of atheism.

[Revolution Until Victory]

what the hell???

are you serious??

why the hell would you start a thread I challanged to be started and not mention this to me?

anyways, in another thread I rejected the baselss right-wing propaganda that Islam is a violent, mourderous, terrorist relegion. I didn't say relegion in general isn't violent.

concering the passages form the Quran, all of them should be viewed in context, and all of them where in context of battles between the tribes in Arabia and the prophet and his followers, in which tribes were killing, torturing, and expelling the prophet and his followers. So Islam allows Muslims to defend themselves if they wree opressed or are facing agreesion, murder, toruture, and expulsion.
Islam is against violence, and only allows it in the form of self-defence with alot of restrictions on using it even in that context

As Malcolm X put it:


I believe in a religion that believes in freedom. Any time I have to accept a religion that won't let me fight a battle for my people, I say to hell with that religion.

[Revolution Until Victory]

Why do you think so many people are Muslim and Christian? Because most of them are from countries where the population was forced to convert to Christianity and their cultures and languages were destroyed by those of the invdaing Christian nations such as Spain and Britain, and Muslim countries such as the Ottoman Empire.

what the followers of the relegion do is one thing, and what the relegion in itself is is a total different thing. What the followers of a specific ideology do is one thing, and what the ideology in itself is is a total different issue. Just coz the imperilaists opress others in the name of "Freedom" doesn't necessarly mean "Freedom" stands for opression...

[hajduk]

djihad is not crusade war like in christianity,djihad is fighting with himself against temptations like greed,lust or predjuice,islam fundamentalist change the point of djihad into war against others religions so by that everyone think that islam is not peaceful

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Comrade J+November 20, 2007 01:50 am--> (Comrade J @ November 20, 2007 01:50 am)
Labor Shall [email protected] 20, 2007 12:26 am

Both Islam and Christianity are violent religions.

In that case, atheism and materialism are also violent.
Firstly, atheism is not a religion.

Secondly, atheists may be violent, but the difference is that atheists are not violent because of atheism. [/b]
It is a faith, considering that you are claiming that you can logically explain existence through holding that everything is just a particular arrangement of matter, though there is no objective scientific analysis to prove that. Therefore, people use it as a crutch – an opiate to determine reality through the scope of their own eyes.

Do you have a monopoly over deciding who is truly following their religious doctrine the best? As I have said in another thread, religion is an idea, not the reflection of the thought processes of the ruling class that is subordinated to their scholastic interpretation. If we follow that logic, materialism and atheism are equally as guilty – need I repeat my past example of how it was weilded by slaveowners in the antebellum south to justify slavery? It was Hitler that wrote, that "the heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity." You are completely ignoring the historically progressive role that religious people have played for mankind.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:00 am
Why is this thread called 'Quran v Bible' then?
Read the link, and you'd see why. :rolleyes: It compares passages from the Bible with that of the Quran.
what the hell???

are you serious??

why the hell would you start a thread I challanged to be started and not mention this to me? Yes, I'm very serious. This thread is not intended to be a personal arguement between you and me. I have nothing to prove, in regards to you. I'm just indulging in my right of anti-religious propoganda, which was protected under the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. On a final note, apostacy, adultry, sodomy, etc., are victimless crimes. It is therefore not in self defense that those who engage in such behaviour are put to death.

Moral pacifism in Christianity from a Biblical standpoint is based on three things: explicit command from Christ and the apostles, precedent set by Christ and the apostles, and 700 years of early church precedent with emphasis on the first century of Christianity.

Christianity not only forbids war, the early church fathers also forbade the early Christians from joining the Roman army and to use violence (e.g. the Christians of the first few centuries, who refused to admit to Communion any who had killed in battle for a whole year).

Christians not only make bad soldiers, they don\'t make soldiers at all. While this may be true of "peace churches", like that of the anabaptists. It is not true of Christianity in general, as it has existed since the reign of the Roman Emperor Constantine, who convened the Council of Nicea.

[spartan]

Christianity is much less violent than Islam if you read the new testament.

Jesus essentially preached non-violence and to love your enemies and do good to those who do bad to you.

Hell he even stopped an adulterous woman from being stoned to death! (Stoning of women who go against the sexist limitations of Islam is something that is still very common in Islamic countries even in modern times).

Of course you get the odd violent passage in the bible but that is mostly from the Jewish Torah (the old testament) which is only apart of the bible to let people see where Christianity evolved from essentially.

Indeed the old testament was the book most used as the primary excuse for all the bad things that a certain leaders variant of Christianity was made to support and the old testament is'nt Christian but Jewish!

I also hate how these defenders of Religion accuse us Atheists and anti-Religion leftists of being as bad as the "right wingers" and every anti-Religious thing that we say is "the same as what the right wingers say" :lol:

If you cant take our arguements then i suggest that you give up instead of trying to connect us with "right wingers" all the time as it makes you look weak and unable to defend your view point without descending into false accusations just because you are unable to defend one of the most reactionary institutions in all of human history namely Religion.

[Revolution Until Victory]

Yes, I'm very serious. This thread is not intended to be a personal arguement between you and me. I have nothing to prove, in regards to you

In another thread, I denied right-wing, imperialist accuastions against Islam. Somone asked me to prove it and wanted to start a debate; I refused and said that other thread wasn't the place to start such issues, if he wants, he can start a thread and we can debate it.

and YOU wrote:


On a thread in another section "Revolution Until Victory" challenged anyone to make a separate thread, if they wished to discuss the alledged violence of religion, particularly Islam. He claims that Islam is actually peaceful and tolerant. Well I've decided to take up his challenge

so yes, this is, according to you, a debate between me, you, among others. That's why, you should've told me of it, if you want any kind of an honest debate.


I also hate how these defenders of Religion accuse us Atheists and anti-Religion leftists of being as bad as the "right wingers" and every anti-Religious thing that we say is "the same as what the right wingers say"

yeah, I know, its hilarious.

The imperialist fight Islam and political Islam today.

If someone shows up and claims to fight Islam and Political Islam (and uses the same lies the imperialists use), wether he called himself a leftist or a Nazi, would be nothing other than an imperilaist-apologist, adopting right-wing, imperilaist propaganda.


If you cant take our arguements then i suggest that you give up instead of trying to connect us with "right wingers" all the time

hahaaha, I can't take the arguments of the bigoted imperialsits?? wake up. It's not me who's taking passeges out of context and changing texts (such as the sources provided above). The imperialists, and all of those clowns that aid them, wether they call themselves Nazis or communsists, got nothing but lies to launch thier bigoted, racist, and capitalist-imperialist agression against the people of the third world.


all the time as it makes you look weak and unable to defend your view point without descending into false accusations

what false accusations??

you parrot the lies the racist imperialsits spread, what do you expect me to call you??? a revolutionary leftist?? a marxist revolutionary?? an anti-imperialist communist!??

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Labour Shall Rule
It is a faith, considering that you are claiming that you can logically explain existence through holding that everything is just a particular arrangement of matter, though there is no objective scientific analysis to prove that. Therefore, people use it as a crutch – an opiate to determine reality through the scope of their own eyes.

Being able to explain one's lack of faith logically is not faith. If you want to dispute our lack of faith, you can start by providing evidence of a God. I don't accept the possibility of God's existance any more than I do the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Inivisible Pink Unicorn. There is a damn good reason for that, can you work it out or do I have to lead you by the hand?


Do you have a monopoly over deciding who is truly following their religious doctrine the best?

No, but most religions have a standard to which we can hold believers to - usually their holy book or the sayings of their founder etc. By this standard of course there are hardly any real Christians, Muslims etc on the planet. This is partly through ignorance, partly from being civilised beings, and partly through doubletalk and bafflegab, otherwise known as theology.

Which is of course one giant strike against them. What the hell kind of cosmic plan is so fragmented and contradictory?


As I have said in another thread, religion is an idea, not the reflection of the thought processes of the ruling class that is subordinated to their scholastic interpretation. If we follow that logic, materialism and atheism are equally as guilty – need I repeat my past example of how it was weilded by slaveowners in the antebellum south to justify slavery?

That's bullshit. The justification for continuing slavery in the South was biblical, not atheistic. What atheist-based line of reasoning could possibly condone slavery?


It was Hitler that wrote, that "the heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity."

Yet in the real world, he was really chummy with the Church and his soldiers had Christian slogans embossed on their belts. Gives you nice hint as to which direction any self-respecting megalomaniac will turn for help in world domination.


You are completely ignoring the historically progressive role that religious people have played for mankind.

Because it is insignificant compared to the impact of the reactionary role that many religious people have played.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Yes, it is, because you are filling in a void where logic can not. You are, in other words, taking a leap of faith to determine why we exist. Materialism says that nothing exists but matter - that is, pardon the pun, a matter of faith. As a matter of fact, many mainstream denominations have admitted that matter exists, but have brought in faith to fill in the gap of where empirical investigation can not do its job.

I am "religious" because you can not reconcile materialism with free will. Not all "ideas" are reflections of real-life, physical processes. The laws of logic, for instance, are valid even if there are no human brains to comprehend or make use of them. If we all died tomorrow, one plus one would still equal two. But then again, if "nothing exists outside of matter" then one plus one could equal three for all we know - it becomes something that is about as provable as the assertions of those claiming that their spiritual doctrine is better than the other guy in the church down the street.

If "people" are sacks of flesh, particular arrangements of matter, talking monkeys without souls, then we can do anything we want to them. A human being can't have intrinsic value or dignity without purpose. Without a teleological purpose created by a non-physical identity, then there is no reason why we should be fighting. No matter how much you urge yourself that you have no faith, that you believe nothing without "evidence", you can't ever "prove" that your values are the right ones, and they aren't right simply because you hold them. From a materialist viewpoint, what is honestly 'wrong' with a child starving? What is 'wrong' with a worker being exploited? What is 'wrong' with the Holocaust, from a materialist viewpoint? Why do we fight?

To equate the fight between materialism and idealism, with the fight between the working class and ruling class, is to make a crucial mistake. The radical abolitionists used the Bible to prove that slavery was an unjust system, and socialists, when bringing up their critiques of capitalism, have the emotional understanding of injustice also that doesn't come out of any "materialist" argument.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 22, 2007 09:17 pm
Yes, it is, because you are filling in a void where logic can not. You are, in other words, taking a leap of faith to determine why we exist. Materialism says that nothing exists but matter - that is, pardon the pun, a matter of faith. As a matter of fact, many mainstream denominations have admitted that matter exists, but have brought in faith to fill in the gap of where empirical investigation can not do its job.

I am "religious" because you can not reconcile materialism with free will. Not all "ideas" are reflections of real-life, physical processes. The laws of logic, for instance, are valid even if there are no human brains to comprehend or make use of them. If we all died tomorrow, one plus one would still equal two. But then again, if "nothing exists outside of matter" then one plus one could equal three for all we know - it becomes something that is about as provable as the assertions of those claiming that their spiritual doctrine is better than the other guy in the church down the street.

If "people" are sacks of flesh, particular arrangements of matter, talking monkeys without souls, then we can do anything we want to them. A human being can't have intrinsic value or dignity without purpose. Without a teleological purpose created by a non-physical identity, then there is no reason why we should be fighting. No matter how much you urge yourself that you have no faith, that you believe nothing without "evidence", you can't ever "prove" that your values are the right ones, and they aren't right simply because you hold them. From a materialist viewpoint, what is honestly 'wrong' with a child starving? What is 'wrong' with a worker being exploited? What is 'wrong' with the Holocaust, from a materialist viewpoint? Why do we fight?

To equate the fight between materialism and idealism, with the fight between the working class and ruling class, is to make a crucial mistake. The radical abolitionists used the Bible to prove that slavery was an unjust system, and socialists, when bringing up their critiques of capitalism, have the emotional understanding of injustice also that doesn't come out of any "materialist" argument.

I am "religious" because you can not reconcile materialism with free will.

Sure.


If "people" are sacks of flesh, particular arrangements of matter, talking monkeys without souls, then we can do anything we want to them.

Exactly. Providing it's within the laws of physics, etc.


A human being can't have intrinsic value or dignity without purpose.

And there is no purpose, therefore humans don't have intrinsic value. QED.


Without a teleological purpose created by a non-physical identity, then there is no reason why we should be fighting.

You're absolutely right. There is no reason why we "should" be fighting.
There is, however, a reason why we do fight - because we want communism.


No matter how much you urge yourself that you have no faith, that you believe nothing without "evidence", you can't ever "prove" that your values are the right ones, and they aren't right simply because you hold them.

"To coin a popular Sunnydale phrase, 'duh!'"


From a materialist viewpoint, what is honestly 'wrong' with a child starving? What is 'wrong' with a worker being exploited? What is 'wrong' with the Holocaust, from a materialist viewpoint?

Absolutely nothing.

They're just things we really don't want.


To equate the fight between materialism and idealism, with the fight between the working class and ruling class, is to make a crucial mistake. The radical abolitionists used the Bible to prove that slavery was an unjust system, and socialists, when bringing up their critiques of capitalism, have the emotional understanding of injustice also that doesn't come out of any "materialist" argument.

Wait, so you're saying the "socialists" are right because "they" don't use logic to prove points?

In other words, what?

[Labor Shall Rule]

I am saying that socialists are right because they want a society based on the promotion of life rather than death.

It seems the dichotomy of your argument is that as members of a social caste that offers its labor-power as a service, communism would benefit us, so we should push for it. That is the same thing as saying that the petit-bourgeois should push for fascism since it benefits their class. Why should members of the middle strata be attracted to serving the role as the writers, thinkers, orators, journalists, and artists for the worker's movement? It wouldn't make sense to say that they "want" it, since the demand of their class should be fascism.

[RevMARKSman]

That is the same thing as saying that the petit-bourgeois should push for fascism since it benefits their class. Why should members of the middle strata be attracted to serving the role as the writers, thinkers, orators, journalists, and artists for the worker's movement? It wouldn't make sense to say that they "want" it, since the demand of their class should be fascism.


What exactly are you asking here?
Is it "why are the 'middle strata' [whatever those are] attracted to the workers' movement as opposed to fascism?"

If so

1) Fascism is an unstable system, especially if not applied globally all at once - because people tend not to like it. People with guns, and tanks, and all sorts of wonderful material goods tend not to like it, because under fascism they'd all be part of the lower class.


I am saying that socialists are right because they want a society based on the promotion of life rather than death.

How do you measure a) "right" (not pertaining to statements but to wants) and b) "promotion of life"? Is communism going to have "advertisements" for "life"?

[Random Precision]

It was Hitler that wrote, that "the heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity." You are completely ignoring the historically progressive role that religious people have played for mankind.

Labor Shall Rule, that quote was taken from Hitler's Table-Talk, a book compiled (or more likely invented in this case) by his secretary Martin Bormann, a notorious anti-Catholic whose document is highly questionable as an accurate record.

The fact of the matter seems to be that Hitler had quite strong Christian convictions, however warped they might have been.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I am referring to the petit-bourgeois, who have been the social base of the mass fascist movement for decades. It was lead by the upper tier of the bourgeoisie, but the middle strata, private administrators, and state employees played the historic role as their foot soldiers. The fact is that "want" has a job in moving the working class, but the more privileged proletarians and intellectual rank-in-file are motivated by something outside of "want," which is ethical disgust to the effects of capitalism.

I measure that by how humans of our caliber measure wage labor as "inhuman" and "wrong," and how the society we are aiming for would be the diametric opposite of that.

[RevMARKSman]

but the more privileged proletarians and intellectual rank-in-file are motivated by something outside of "want," which is ethical disgust to the effects of capitalism.

I measure that by how humans of our caliber measure wage labor as "inhuman" and "wrong," and how the society we are aiming for would be the diametric opposite of that.

How do you measure "inhuman" and "wrong"?

You can't. Therefore those people who think that capitalism is "wrong" are incorrect.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes, it is, because you are filling in a void where logic can not. You are, in other words, taking a leap of faith to determine why we exist.

I'm not taking a leap of faith. I am in agreement with scientific findings (which are testable) on the origin of the human species, which say we evolved from an earlier lifeform. That is not an article of faith.


Materialism says that nothing exists but matter - that is, pardon the pun, a matter of faith.

It is not a matter of faith to believe only in things that can be proven to exist. Unless you happen to have some evidence for the existance of non-material things?


As a matter of fact, many mainstream denominations have admitted that matter exists, but have brought in faith to fill in the gap of where empirical investigation can not do its job.

And where does empirical investigation fall down?


I am "religious" because you can not reconcile materialism with free will.

And so what? If free will is an illusion, it's a very convincing one. Being "religious" as you put it simply because you don't like the idea of not truly having any free will (something which is debatable in the first place) is not rational.


Not all "ideas" are reflections of real-life, physical processes

Prove it.


The laws of logic, for instance, are valid even if there are no human brains to comprehend or make use of them. If we all died tomorrow, one plus one would still equal two. But then again, if "nothing exists outside of matter" then one plus one could equal three for all we know - it becomes something that is about as provable as the assertions of those claiming that their spiritual doctrine is better than the other guy in the church down the street.

What an interesting leap in logic. An abstract concept's consistency is not determined by whether it has any reflection in material reality or not.


If "people" are sacks of flesh, particular arrangements of matter, talking monkeys without souls, then we can do anything we want to them.

No, you're wrong. Even without souls, we are still living, breathing, thinking, feeling beings, and it is in our own self-interest to respect that and adhere to a moral code.


A human being can't have intrinsic value or dignity without purpose.

Rubbish. You also assume that without some non-material component humans are purposeless. This is also wrong, as humans are more than capable of creating their own purposes and goals in life.


Without a teleological purpose created by a non-physical identity, then there is no reason why we should be fighting.

Yes there is. Our own self-interest is more than enough reason, and not the only one to boot.


No matter how much you urge yourself that you have no faith, that you believe nothing without "evidence", you can't ever "prove" that your values are the right ones, and they aren't right simply because you hold them.

If everyone is content, including myself, then there is the minimum incentive for such behaviour as murder, theft, and other antisocial behaviours that are caused by discontent and that cause misery for others. It is in my own interest to attain such a society, and so I struggle for it. My values must be in accordance with such a goal, and to my knowledge they are. Obviously I can't be 100% certain that my social, moral and political mores will lead to such a society, nor even if they are in fact capable of attaining such a society, but trying is better than not trying at all and accepting the status quo.

And another thing; no religious moral code is even close to attaining the universal human happiness that humanist moral codes attempt to achieve. They are barbaric, cruel, and belong in the dustbin of history.


From a materialist viewpoint, what is honestly 'wrong' with a child starving? What is 'wrong' with a worker being exploited? What is 'wrong' with the Holocaust, from a materialist viewpoint? Why do we fight?

Because such things cause human misery, which has real, material effects not just on the wellbeing of those being directly affected but on those around them as well. It wasn't just the prisoners in the concentration camps that were fucked up.


To equate the fight between materialism and idealism, with the fight between the working class and ruling class, is to make a crucial mistake.

No it isn't. To reject idealism is to realise that we are essentially material beings, beings of the world without souls and with only one shot at life, so make the best of it.


The radical abolitionists used the Bible to prove that slavery was an unjust system,

Chapter and verse please, I still don't believe you.


and socialists, when bringing up their critiques of capitalism, have the emotional understanding of injustice also that doesn't come out of any "materialist" argument.

But they don't emotionalist, idealist arguments against capitalism, whatever strong emotions may be engendered by the injustices of the capitalist system - they use logical, empirical arguments based on material reality. At least if they are sensible.

[graffic]

This is fascinating, it seems RUV is a Muslim or has been brought up in a Muslim household. This explains your illogical and heavily biased views on the Middle East.

I think I agree with Spartan on this. All religons have the potential to be just as violent as one another, yet today undeniably Islam is the worst by far. For example the American Muslim who was called to do a speech in the house of representatives - the "award winning model of Muslims in America" - this guy is on record for co-conspirating the plan to blow up the twin towers in 93, so the line between "fanatic" and "Moderate" Muslims is fairly blurry. Leftists should be against all religions, just because the Christian right is against Islam it doesnt mean we have to defend it. Its funny how many leftists are against facism unless ofcourse it has the term "Islamic" in front of it. :lol:

My main problem with Islam, that doesnt appear in other religons, is the control and submission, Islamic sharia law is backwards and reactionary. " Islam can't be ruled by others" "Allahs law must stand above human law". This is a serious threat to social progression. Most christians or Hindus etc are happy to live in a secular state as long as they can freely practice their religon.

Muhammed slaughtered thousands of people in spreading and establishing Islam and then youve got Jesus who didnt kill anyone. So for the record I do think Islam is inherintly more violent than most other religons.

[Dr Mindbender]

no jesus didnt kill anyone personally, but there were certain westerners who spilt blood in his name.
http://savecivilization.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/crusades.jpg
http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061110/061110_gulfwar_hmed1p.hmedium.jpg

[graffic]

The Biblical teachings of Jesus Christ most likely contradict what the crusaders and what George Bush is doing now, Hitler claimed to be a Christian. Its just another tactic people in power do to win support.

My point was that Violent Muslims today are going by what Mohammed wanted - violence. Which is why Islam is a greater threat than Christianity or any other relgion.

[Ismail]

Islam in the Middle Ages by Enver Hoxha (http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2001/TMLD192.htm).

This explains how Islam expanded from a Marxist-Leninist viewpoint.

As a note about Muhammad, I am pretty sure there were two Jihad's in his view. The "small Jihad" (fight against occupation, etc) and ultimately the large Jihad. (improvement of ones life in accordance with Islam)

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:30 pm
This is fascinating, it seems RUV is a Muslim or has been brought up in a Muslim household. This explains your illogical and heavily biased views on the Middle East.
Maybe it does, although I don't think your claim works because there are ( :o )atheist westerners that agree with his analysis. Perhaps his analysis of the situation comes from understanding the facts something you and your zionist chums don't do.


I think I agree with Spartan on this. All religons have the potential to be just as violent as one another, yet today undeniably Islam is the worst by far.

Sheer bollocks. :lol:


For example the American Muslim who was called to do a speech in the house of representatives - the "award winning model of Muslims in America" - this guy is on record for co-conspirating the plan to blow up the twin towers in 93,

Names and dates, if you please.


so the line between "fanatic" and "Moderate" Muslims is fairly blurry.

Haha, for the most part any ordinary, working class muslim you will ever meet just wants to get on with their life and their illogical belief system without having ****s like you go on about it.


Leftists should be against all religions,

Which makes me wonder why you go for Islam so specifically (and this coming from a guy with my member title).


just because the Christian right is against Islam it doesnt mean we have to defend it.

No but it does mean that we shouldn't support the Christian right's line on Islam (your, "It's teh worst religion EVAR!" line) or anything else ("teh jews need liebensraum" - how ironic.).


Its funny how many leftists are against facism unless ofcourse it has the term "Islamic" in front of it. :lol:

Where the fuck did you get THAT strawman from?


My main problem with Islam, that doesnt appear in other religons, is the control and submission, Islamic sharia law is backwards and reactionary. " Islam can't be ruled by others" "Allahs law must stand above human law". This is a serious threat to social progression. Most christians or Hindus etc are happy to live in a secular state as long as they can freely practice their religon.

Christians in the west don't need shit like the Sharia law, most so called "secular" governments have plenty of legislation to cater for them. Especially in the US of A.


Muhammed slaughtered thousands of people in spreading and establishing Islam and then youve got Jesus who didnt kill anyone. So for the record I do think Islam is inherintly more violent than most other religons.

It's doubtful whether Jesus existed, or at least the Jesus of the bible. Also Christianity didn't do any actual spreading until they turned to violence so don't give us that bollocks. All the abrahmic are equally shit. As are the Eastern ones.


The Biblical teachings of Jesus Christ most likely contradict what the crusaders and what George Bush is doing now, Hitler claimed to be a Christian. Its just another tactic people in power do to win support.

People "claim" to be christian in the west in the same way people claim to be islamic in the east. They get the support of hundreds of people who are unshakably loyal to their sky-daddy. This is one of the disgusting things about religion.


My point was that Violent Muslims today are going by what Mohammed wanted - violence. Which is why Islam is a greater threat than Christianity or any other relgion.

Jaweh, Iohava or Allah - whatever you want to call them their followers always demand violence, they even share most of a holy book. Whether it's the psychological violence of the deep south pastors, the unjustifiable violence of the U$ army or the desperate violence of the Islamic resitance groups. It's all equally deservant of condemnation.

[graffic]

Maybe it does, although I don't think your claim works because there are ( :o )atheist westerners that agree with his analysis. Perhaps his analysis of the situation comes from understanding the facts something you and your zionist chums don't do.

There are leftists who oppose the Zionist occupation. RUV is a different brand entirely, read his posts.




Names and dates, if you please.

Yes sir, Siraj Wahaj.

1991: Speach to the US House of representatives "The Model of all Muslims in America".

1993: Listed as an alleged conspirator to blow up twin towers.



Haha, for the most part any ordinary, working class muslim you will ever meet just wants to get on with their life and their illogical belief system without having ****s like you go on about it.

If only it was true. The majority of muslims here in the U.K, sadly supported the 9/11 attacks on America. Ive only ever seen one muslim publicly denounce fundamentalism and terroism, they need to do a fuck load more to convince me on that one.


Christians in the west don't need shit like the Sharia law, most so called "secular" governments have plenty of legislation to cater for them. Especially in the US of A.

hahahahahahahahahaHAHA

You would rather live in Saudi Arabia than the US jazzratt?

Do me a favour and shut the fuck up with this nonsense. Last time I checked the Christian Bible didnt call for a specific law, sharia law is essential to the Islamic faith. And well we might aswell be brutally honest, sharia law is shit and as much as you hate the US you have to admit the law there is better.



Which makes me wonder why you go for Islam so specifically (and this coming from a guy with my member title).

I'm not I'm just stating facts, Islam is a greater threat to social progression today than any other religion.



Jaweh, Iohava or Allah - whatever you want to call them their followers always demand violence

What?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:35 pm

Maybe it does, although I don't think your claim works because there are ( :o )atheist westerners that agree with his analysis. Perhaps his analysis of the situation comes from understanding the facts something you and your zionist chums don't do.

There are leftists who oppose the Zionist occupation. RUV is a different brand entirely, read his posts.
I have. He's kicked your arse up and down.



If only it was true. The majority of muslims here in the U.K, sadly supported the 9/11 attacks on America.

Supported how? A lot of leftists "supported" the attacks by some people's definitions. Also the christians have been fully supportive of much more atrocious things (carpet bombing Afghanistan for example).


Ive only ever seen one muslim publicly denounce fundamentalism and terroism, they need to do a fuck load more to convince me on that one.

They don't need to convince you. Put down your fucking BNP literature and look about you.


hahahahahahahahahaHAHA

You would rather live in Saudi Arabia than the US jazzratt?

What a horrible crude simplification.

Would you rather face the christian militias in the Philippines or live in the kingdom of Brunei?

Would you rather argue or just attack strawmen?


Do me a favour and shut the fuck up with this nonsense.

Look, you know you're wrong, I know you're wrong. Why are you botherign with this shit?


Last time I checked the Christian Bible didnt call for a specific law, sharia law is essential to the Islamic faith.

You know that's bullshit. Biblical law exists and many people argue for it.


And well we might aswell be brutally honest, sharia law is shit

Well that's news to me :rolleyes: For fuck's sake, cretin, read this and try - just fucking try to let it sink in:

Islam is fucking awful reactionary bollocks. Right, you understand that. Now here is the bit that you may find difficult to square with your western chauvinist world view - Christianity is JUST AS FUCKING BAD.


and as much as you hate the US you have to admit the law there is better.

Right. The foreign policy is still pretty much "blood for the blood god, skulls for the skull throne".


I'm not I'm just stating facts,

Were these the "facts" Nick Griffin gave you?


Islam is a greater threat to social progression today than any other religion.

:lol: Let's open up the concentration camps then. No time to lose.


What?

Might I suggest remedial English Language lessons?

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by spa[email protected] 21, 2007 05:36 pm
Christianity is much less violent than Islam if you read the new testament.

Jesus essentially preached non-violence and to love your enemies and do good to those who do bad to you.

Hell he even stopped an adulterous woman from being stoned to death! (Stoning of women who go against the sexist limitations of Islam is something that is still very common in Islamic countries even in modern times).
Being stoned to death was something Arabs added to Islam ages after Muhammad died. Try again.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:50 pm
The Biblical teachings of Jesus Christ most likely contradict what the crusaders and what George Bush is doing now, Hitler claimed to be a Christian. Its just another tactic people in power do to win support.

My point was that Violent Muslims today are going by what Mohammed wanted - violence. Which is why Islam is a greater threat than Christianity or any other relgion.
Yeah Muhammad advocated violence. After those pesky Meccans had been killing his followers for 13 years without them fighting back Muhammad got a bit sick of this and said Muslims are allowed to fight against those Meccan "disbelievers". Now the average Muslim just sees "disbeliever" and thinks they can lop off the head of any non-Muslim.

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:35 pm
The Christian Bible didnt call for a specific law.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


I suggest you try reading the bible...

[daniyaal]

Originally posted by RedKnight+November 21, 2007 05:23 pm--> (RedKnight @ November 21, 2007 05:23 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 01:00 am
Why is this thread called \'Quran v Bible\' then?
Read the link, and you\'d see why. :rolleyes: It compares passages from the Bible with that of the Quran.
what the hell???

are you serious??

why the hell would you start a thread I challanged to be started and not mention this to me? Yes, I\'m very serious. This thread is not intended to be a personal arguement between you and me. I have nothing to prove, in regards to you. I\'m just indulging in my right of anti-religious propoganda, which was protected under the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. On a final note, apostacy, adultry, sodomy, etc., are victimless crimes. It is therefore not in self defense that those who engage in such behaviour are put to death.

Moral pacifism in Christianity from a Biblical standpoint is based on three things: explicit command from Christ and the apostles, precedent set by Christ and the apostles, and 700 years of early church precedent with emphasis on the first century of Christianity.

Christianity not only forbids war, the early church fathers also forbade the early Christians from joining the Roman army and to use violence (e.g. the Christians of the first few centuries, who refused to admit to Communion any who had killed in battle for a whole year).

Christians not only make bad soldiers, they don\\\'t make soldiers at all. While this may be true of \"peace churches\", like that of the anabaptists. It is not true of Christianity in general, as it has existed since the reign of the Roman Emperor Constantine, who convened the Council of Nicea. [/b]
Try looking through the history of the church. In the first hundred years, the Apostolic Fathers are explicitly pacifistic saying that Christians could be in the army, but not in combat (the Roman army served as road builders and postal workers as well). It is further attested to by the fact that there are no Christians going to war until the 4th century when the church merged with the government and no church sanctioned war until the early 8th century some 700 years after its founding.

[daniyaal]

Originally posted by drosera99+November 25, 2007 04:42 am--> (drosera99 @ November 25, 2007 04:42 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 05:35 pm
The Christian Bible didnt call for a specific law.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


I suggest you try reading the bible... [/b]
It is possible to create a law based on the precepts of Christianity, but there is no such thing as Christian law. Christians were liberated from the law of the Jews. Christians thus have precepts and explicit commands on the lines of those precepts, but no law.

[daniyaal]

Originally posted by The Red Ghost+November 25, 2007 03:29 am--> (The Red Ghost @ November 25, 2007 03:29 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 01:50 pm
The Biblical teachings of Jesus Christ most likely contradict what the crusaders and what George Bush is doing now, Hitler claimed to be a Christian. Its just another tactic people in power do to win support.

My point was that Violent Muslims today are going by what Mohammed wanted - violence. Which is why Islam is a greater threat than Christianity or any other relgion.
Yeah Muhammad advocated violence. After those pesky Meccans had been killing his followers for 13 years without them fighting back Muhammad got a bit sick of this and said Muslims are allowed to fight against those Meccan \"disbelievers\". Now the average Muslim just sees \"disbeliever\" and thinks they can lop off the head of any non-Muslim. [/b]
Can you name a single Muslim that was killed before they left for Mecca?

[daniyaal]

Originally posted by The Red Ghost+November 25, 2007 03:22 am--> (The Red Ghost @ November 25, 2007 03:22 am)
[email protected] 21, 2007 05:36 pm
Christianity is much less violent than Islam if you read the new testament.

Jesus essentially preached non-violence and to love your enemies and do good to those who do bad to you.

Hell he even stopped an adulterous woman from being stoned to death! (Stoning of women who go against the sexist limitations of Islam is something that is still very common in Islamic countries even in modern times).
Being stoned to death was something Arabs added to Islam ages after Muhammad died. Try again. [/b]
Stoning is found in both the earliest biographies of Mohamed and all of the authentic hadith collections. Do you reject the authenticity of both?

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by daniyaal+November 24, 2007 08:53 pm--> (daniyaal @ November 24, 2007 08:53 pm)
Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 25, 2007 03:29 am

[email protected] 24, 2007 01:50 pm
The Biblical teachings of Jesus Christ most likely contradict what the crusaders and what George Bush is doing now, Hitler claimed to be a Christian. Its just another tactic people in power do to win support.

My point was that Violent Muslims today are going by what Mohammed wanted - violence. Which is why Islam is a greater threat than Christianity or any other relgion.
Yeah Muhammad advocated violence. After those pesky Meccans had been killing his followers for 13 years without them fighting back Muhammad got a bit sick of this and said Muslims are allowed to fight against those Meccan \"disbelievers\". Now the average Muslim just sees \"disbeliever\" and thinks they can lop off the head of any non-Muslim.
Can you name a single Muslim that was killed before they left for <s>Mecca</s>Medina?[/b]

Sumayyah bint Khabbab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumayyah_bint_Khabbab), the first "martyr" for Islam, a woman.

It is possible to create a law based on the precepts of Christianity, but there is no such thing as Christian law. Christians were liberated from the law of the Jews. Christians thus have precepts and explicit commands on the lines of those precepts, but no law.
The Ten Commandments are Christian and Judaism&#39;s main laws that are preached like they&#39;re going out of style (which they are), though not practiced as well as preached.

The only difference is the time frame, given that there haven&#39;t been "Christian States" since before the Industrial Revolution. Same can&#39;t be said for "Jewish States".

[graffic]

Supported how? A lot of leftists "supported" the attacks by some people&#39;s definitions. Also the christians have been fully supportive of much more atrocious things (carpet bombing Afghanistan for example).


Christians? Not all Americans are Christians. You are correct alot of Americans supported the bombings in Afghanistan which was a shambles.

Lets anaylse your comparison:

-ME: Majority of Muslims here in the U.K supported 9/11 terror attacks, specifically targeting innocent people.

-YOU: Majority of Americans (they must all be christians duh) supported the response to 9/11 which was to go after and kill Bin Laden et al. Innocent civilians were killed but whether that was intentinal is a different debate.

And you have the audicity to say the carpet bombings were "much more" atrocious than 9/11. :lol:


They don&#39;t need to convince you.

Why? Ive already explained how the line between "Fundamental" and "moderate" is not fucking clear enough. Its fairly clear in Christianity, youve got the KKK at one end and the "church goers" at the other end. You could call George Bush a fanatic but to be fair you don&#39;t see Bush quoting from the Bible during speeches in the same way Islamic leaders do today.

Ive given you a first hand example which youve chosen not to respond to of why the line between Moderate and Fanatical is not clear.


You know that&#39;s bullshit. Biblical law exists and many people argue for it.

Are you illiterate? There is no law in Christianity like "sharia law". People don&#39;t get stoned in America if they disobey the 10 commandments :lol:



Christianity is JUST AS FUCKING BAD

I agree, today however Islam is shitter and causes me more problems.



Right. The foreign policy is still pretty much "blood for the blood god, skulls for the skull throne".

The law is better in America though isnt it Jazzratt? Your knowledge of, well, pretty much everything to do with current affairs and International relations leaves alot to be desired. The "Christian US" is just as bad as the "Islamic Saudi Arabia"or "Islamic Iran" - hahahaHA.


:lol: Let&#39;s open up the concentration camps then. No time to lose.

Yes because shock horror&#33; Someones criticising Islam&#33; This means they must be racist.


Might I suggest remedial English Language lessons?

Might I suggest you to explain to me in plain English that Jesus&#39;s teachings in the Bible were as violent as Muhammed in the Korahn. No I didnt think you could.

[Guerrilla22]

A couple thoughts:

I find it rather ironic that Christians are attacking another religion for intolerance. As demonstrated by the link in the first post on this thread, not too many Chrisitans are too tolerant of Muslims either.

The problem with religion, aside for the fact that it&#39;s complete non sense, is that it divides humans against other humans. Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same non-existent god. Their religions are seperated by a few differences. They all should get over it alreaady.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by graffic+November 25, 2007 10:57 am--> (graffic @ November 25, 2007 10:57 am) -ME: Majority of Muslims here in the U.K supported 9/11 terror attacks, specifically targeting innocent people.

-YOU: Majority of Americans (they must all be christians duh) supported the response to 9/11 which was to go after and kill Bin Laden et al. Innocent civilians were killed but whether that was intentinal is a different debate.

And you have the audicity to say the carpet bombings were "much more" atrocious than 9/11. :lol:
[/b]
It is difficult to measure atrocities, but if you measure the scale of atrocities certainly what America has inflicted on Iraq is on a far larger that what happened in New York.

As for the point about whether the murder of civilians was intentional, it is complete nonsense. These sort of actions cause civilians deaths on a mass scale.


graffic
You could call George Bush a fanatic but to be fair you don&#39;t see Bush quoting from the Bible during speeches in the same way Islamic leaders do today.

No, I haven&#39;t seen him quote the Bible directly, but I have heard him say that God told him to do it.

Devrim

[graffic]

I was referring to the Afghanistan bombings in particular Devrim. Yes what the US has done in Iraq has caused far more deaths than 9/11.

Theres an important distinction here. I doubt most Americans support "mass deaths", most Americans support the war in Iraq because they believed (foolishly) that there were "weapons of mass destruction". This was used as a comparison by Jazzratt to my example that the majority of Muslims here in the U.K supported the terror attacks on 9/11. Thats supporting mass murder, supporting murder of people purely because of their race and the actions of their government. So its not fair to say the "Christian Americans" support for the war is just as bad as the Muslim community&#39;s support of 9/11.

I&#39;m not trying to make some sort of statement against Islam, and Muslims - I&#39;m just defending what I said and what I and most people believe today - Islam is a greater threat to social progression than any other religon currently.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:57 am

Supported how? A lot of leftists "supported" the attacks by some people&#39;s definitions. Also the christians have been fully supportive of much more atrocious things (carpet bombing Afghanistan for example).


Christians? Not all Americans are Christians. You are correct alot of Americans supported the bombings in Afghanistan which was a shambles.
No. But the Christians in America are the most vocal proponents of American terrorism.


Lets anaylse your comparison:

-ME: Majority of Muslims here in the U.K supported 9/11 terror attacks, specifically targeting innocent people.

-YOU: Majority of Americans (they must all be christians duh) supported the response to 9/11 which was to go after and kill Bin Laden et al. Innocent civilians were killed but whether that was intentinal is a different debate.

You&#39;re being naive. Of course it was intentional that civilians were killed, one doesn&#39;t blanket an area with cluster bombs without expecting a few bits of "collateral damage".


And you have the audicity to say the carpet bombings were "much more" atrocious than 9/11. :lol:

Well, yes.


Why? Ive already explained how the line between "Fundamental" and "moderate" is not fucking clear enough.

It&#39;s not clear to you because your contact with the muslim working class has been through the media.


Are you illiterate? There is no law in Christianity like "sharia law". People don&#39;t get stoned in America if they disobey the 10 commandments :lol:

Well done. America is also not a "Christian nation". Remember this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli) Silly wanker.


I agree, today however Islam is shitter and causes me more problems.

No you don&#39;t agree as the latter half of your statement plainly shows.


The law is better in America though isnt it Jazzratt?

Thanks to secularism, not Christianity.


Your knowledge of, well, pretty much everything to do with current affairs and International relations leaves alot to be desired.

Sorry for not following the FOX news, Daily Mail, BNP party line.


The "Christian US" is just as bad as the "Islamic Saudi Arabia"or "Islamic Iran" - hahahaHA.

The Christian US doesn&#39;t exist and though the US is better for US citizens the foreign policy as dictated by its Christian leader is far worse.


Yes because shock horror&#33; Someones criticising Islam&#33; This means they must be racist.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: The irony of someone saying that to me of all people won&#39;t be lost on most members here.


Might I suggest you to explain to me in plain English that Jesus&#39;s teachings in the Bible were as violent as Muhammed in the Korahn. No I didnt think you could.

:rolleyes:

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:36 pm


Jesus essentially preached non-violence and to love your enemies and do good to those who do bad to you.

Hell he even stopped an adulterous woman from being stoned to death&#33; (Stoning of women who go against the sexist limitations of Islam is something that is still very common in Islamic countries even in modern times).

Of course you get the odd violent passage in the bible but that is mostly from the Jewish Torah (the old testament) which is only apart of the bible to let people see where Christianity evolved from essentially.

Indeed the old testament was the book most used as the primary excuse for all the bad things that a certain leaders variant of Christianity was made to support and the old testament is&#39;nt Christian but Jewish&#33;

I also hate how these defenders of Religion accuse us Atheists and anti-Religion leftists of being as bad as the "right wingers" and every anti-Religious thing that we say is "the same as what the right wingers say" :lol:

If you cant take our arguements then i suggest that you give up instead of trying to connect us with "right wingers" all the time as it makes you look weak and unable to defend your view point without descending into false accusations just because you are unable to defend one of the most reactionary institutions in all of human history namely Religion.
"Christianity is much less violent than Islam if you read the new testament. "

Christianity is a slave religion...
Everytime I hear about christianity it makes me fucking sick. The local "prophet" just asked me to pay his rent today not knowing htat everytime I go to the coffee shop they give me things free or on discount cause I try really hard to hide it but they know im POOR. And then he went on and on about how woshipping mohammed isnt going to get you eternal life cause jesus is the answer. Not knowing that Muslim people only worship god because it says in the ten commandments to worship god only, and Jesus said he never violated the ten commandments. But thats beside the point. Christianity is a tool for slavery an edited religion that insinuates that god is cool with your opression. but two prophets out of three say man wasnt made to be opressed. "Pharoh let my people go&#33;"

To subliminally insinuate that the "the son of god" in their words was able to be murdered at the hands of the Roman Empire who coincidentially wound up "spreading the gospel" later is really saying to people "god is subject to our gangster ass rule"
And to insinuate that a perosn needs Jesus Christ in order to talk to god because they arent good enough to do it themselves, that there needs to be an intermediate, this is stupid because its brainwashing people to believe god is a fuck up.
He originally made us to rule the earth and nature and now we arent good enough to talk to him?
And worse then that it insinuates that we always need to be subservient to something other then god. To insinuate that god is okay with slavery by turning the other cheek is hte same as satanists who rape little girls and say "look this is what god allows to happen to you cause hes not really there"

In Islam in being subservient to only god, we are subservient to none other and no opressor.

THAT is why there are holy wars, because it is against Islam for a grown ass man to tolerate someone stepping in and trying to take his human rights away in being the provider for his family. Whether christians do it, pagans do it, the ENglish do it, the Israli government does it, it doesnt matter.

Other people in the world dont have SLAVE mentalities. Cause we werent made as slaves. We were made as a great thing. A human being.
The real holy war happens inside yourself everyday. Are you going to be positive and reflect your blessings or are you going to be a selfish negative ****. Are you a survivor or a victim?

Every other holy war is "economics".

[Raisa]

You know and other then that, I just want to let you know youre an asshole for equating hte actions of middle eastern governments with Islam.....

Its the same dumb shit as equating what Stalin did with the efforts of working class communists.

Or looking at these peice of shit asian governments that were once communists and telling the people "look yall thats communism, everyone works in a sweat shop, the government censors the news paper...bla bla bla"

YOUR DOING THE SAME THING, cause you dont know what the fuck youre talking about....

[Devrim]

Originally posted by graffic+November 25, 2007 02:55 pm--> (graffic @ November 25, 2007 02:55 pm) Theres an important distinction here. I doubt most Americans support "mass deaths", most Americans support the war in Iraq because they believed (foolishly) that there were "weapons of mass destruction". This was used as a comparison by Jazzratt to my example that the majority of Muslims here in the U.K supported the terror attacks on 9/11. Thats supporting mass murder, supporting murder of people purely because of their race and the actions of their government. So its not fair to say the "Christian Americans" support for the war is just as bad as the Muslim community&#39;s support of 9/11.
[/b]
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. I don&#39;t see how your are maintaining that murders committed by America are not as bad as those committed by Al-Quada.

You claim that when it is referring to America:


Originally posted by [email protected]
Thats supporting mass murder, supporting murder of people purely because of their race and the actions of their government.

But when Iraqis are killed for the actions of their government, that was OK because:


graffic
most Americans support the war in Iraq because they believed (foolishly) that there were "weapons of mass destruction".

So what you appear to be saying is it is worse to kill people for what their government did than it is to kill people for what you dishonestly claim they did.

Of course this moralism is completely the wrong way to look at the question, but even in its own terms it reeks of hypocrisy.

Devrim

[daniyaal]

The Ten Commandments are Christian and Judaism&#092;&#39;s main laws that are preached like they&#092;&#39;re going out of style (which they are), though not practiced as well as preached.

Christians don&#092;&#39;t follow the ten commandments. (See Hebrews 8)

Old Testament=Jews

New Testament=Christians

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:55 pm

The Ten Commandments are Christian and Judaism&#092;&#39;s main laws that are preached like they&#092;&#39;re going out of style (which they are), though not practiced as well as preached.

Christians don&#092;&#39;t follow the ten commandments. (See Hebrews 8)

Old Testament=Jews

New Testament=Christians
Yeah they do, at least in the USA, some even go so far as to want them displayed in public institutions. They&#39;re all repeated in the New Testament, except for the command to observe the Sabbath day.

[daniyaal]

Yeah they do, at least in the USA, some even go so far as to want them displayed in public institutions. They&#092;&#39;re all repeated in the New Testament, except for the command to observe the Sabbath day.

Conservative Christians not wanting people to tear down statues of the Ten Commandments =/= them following the Ten Commandments.

The Old Testament is valid for the purpose of explaining how Christians got from point A to point B (where A = the creation of the earth and B = the salvation of the world). It is also valid for the purpose of providing context to Jesus&#092;&#39; ministry.

It is not a valid source for commands or precedents for Christians. That is expressly stated in the New Testament. Didn&#092;&#39;t you ever wonder why Christians don&#092;&#39;t follow Jewish food laws? Same deal.


&#092;"By calling this covenant &#092;"new,&#092;" he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.&#092;" - Hebrews 8:13

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:50 pm
The Biblical teachings of Jesus Christ most likely contradict what the crusaders and what George Bush is doing now, Hitler claimed to be a Christian. Its just another tactic people in power do to win support.

My point was that Violent Muslims today are going by what Mohammed wanted - violence. Which is why Islam is a greater threat than Christianity or any other relgion.
Actually, the fact that the bulk of the Middle East lives in giant open prisons is what is causing all kinds of problems to happen over there, not Islam itself. If the people in the Middle East were Christians, or even atheists, all kinds of problems would still be around there.

Petit-bourgeois atheism that lurks at this board is dogmatic enough to practically be considered a religion. It is something of subjective idealism, thinking that all religion can be badmouthed out of existence (nevermind that badmouthing high gas prices and many other problematic issues does nothing to eradicate them.).

The petit-bourgeois atheist can often fall for the divide and rule tactic of the bourgeoisie, with the bourgeois media spreading all kinds of Islamophobic filth. All this does is turn the workers against each other. It is used in an attempt to justify the war in Iraq and the Middle East. Islamophobia, in short, is reactionary filth that can only serve to reel in some "revolutionaries" into supporting bourgeois reaction.

The consistent materialist, the Marxist, in the "pure" sense of the word, knows that religion has roots, and that no amount of badmouthing of religion will make it go away. These roots can only be severed when capitalism is abolished and people start to, for the first time in history, have conscious control over major aspects of their lives. The gyrations of the stock market, the declining living standards, these are just some aspects that many workers think they have no control over. Consequently, such a worker often concludes that his/her life is dominated by unseen forces, which he/she has no control over.

Engels in fact opposed atheist fundamentalism in his classic work, Anti-Dühring. He starts out making note of how Dühring depicts a future society with religion being prohibited:


But it does not matter what we want. What matters is what Herr Dühring wants. And he differs from Frederick II in this, that in the Dühringian future state certainly not everyone will be able to be happy in his own way. The constitution of this future state provides:

"In the free society there can be no religious worship; for every member of it has got beyond the primitive childish superstition that there are beings, behind nature or above it, who can be influenced by sacrifices or prayers" {D. Ph. 286}. A "socialitarian system, rightly conceived, has therefore ... to abolish all the paraphernalia of religious magic, and therewith all the essential elements of religious worship" {D. C. 345}.

After quoting from Dühring in the second paragraph from above, Engels goes on to materialistically explain:


Religion is being prohibited.

All religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men&#39;s minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces. In the beginnings of history it was the forces of nature which were first so reflected, and which in the course of further evolution underwent the most manifold and varied personifications among the various peoples. This early process has been traced back by comparative mythology, at least in the case of the Indo-European peoples, to its origin in the Indian Vedas, and in its further evolution it has been demonstrated in detail among the Indians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Germans and, so far as material is available, also among the Celts, Lithuanians and Slavs. But it is not long before, side by side with the forces of nature, social forces begin to be active — forces which confront man as equally alien and at first equally inexplicable, dominating him with the same apparent natural necessity as the forces of nature themselves. The fantastic figures, which at first only reflected the mysterious forces of nature, at this point acquire social attributes, become representatives of the forces of history. *16 At a still further stage of evolution, all the natural and social attributes of the numerous gods are transferred to one almighty god, who is but a reflection of the abstract man. Such was the origin of monotheism, which was historically the last product of the vulgarised philosophy of the later Greeks and found its incarnation in the exclusively national god of the Jews, Jehovah. In this convenient, handy and universally adaptable form, religion can continue to exist as the immediate, that is, the sentimental form of men&#39;s relation to the alien, natural and social, forces which dominate them, so long as men remain under the control of these forces. However, we have seen repeatedly that in existing bourgeois society men are dominated by the economic conditions created by themselves, by the means of production which they themselves have produced, as if by an alien force. The actual basis of the religious reflective activity therefore continues to exist, and with it the religious reflection itself. And although bourgeois political economy has given a certain insight into the causal connection of this alien domination, this makes no essential difference. Bourgeois economics can neither prevent crises in general, nor protect the individual capitalists from losses, bad debts and bankruptcy, nor secure the individual workers against unemployment and destitution. It is still true that man proposes and God (that is, the alien domination of the capitalist mode of production) disposes. Mere knowledge, even if it went much further and deeper than that of bourgeois economic science, is not enough to bring social forces under the domination of society. What is above all necessary for this, is a social act. And when this act has been accomplished, when society, by taking possession of all means of production and using them on a planned basis, has freed itself and all its members from the bondage in which they are now held by these means of production which they themselves have produced but which confront them as an irresistible alien force, when therefore man no longer merely proposes, but also disposes — only then will the last alien force which is still reflected in religion vanish; and with it will also vanish the religious reflection itself, for the simple reason that then there will be nothing left to reflect.

Herr Dühring, however, cannot wait until religion dies this, its natural, death. He proceeds in more deep-rooted fashion. He out-Bismarcks Bismarck; he decrees sharper May laws [127] not merely against Catholicism, but against all religion whatsoever; he incites his gendarmes of the future against religion, and thereby helps it to martyrdom and a prolonged lease of life. Wherever we turn, we find specifically Prussian socialism.

-From Anti-Dühring, Part III, Socialism, section V, State, Family, Education (online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...hring/ch27.htm) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch27.htm))

Here is a consistently materialist explanation of religion and why it continues to be widespread. The revolutionary does not participate in the bourgeois divide and rule game. The revolutionary does not prohibit the religious worker from the movement. The revolutionary is not a sectarian, i.e. he/she does not put his own interests or the interests of his/her organization above those of the working class.

If the petit-bourgeois atheists had their way, some of them probably willing to suppress religion and exclude non-atheist workers from the struggle, they would do nothing more than to make martyrs and greatly strengthen religious sentiment.

This thread is nonsensical. The real issue is proletariat (and natural allies, i.e. urban poor and peasantry) vs. the reactionary bourgeoisie. Communists do not fall for the divide and rule game. They do not alienate themselves from religious workers, they do not spread the bourgeois Islamophobic poison for the bourgeoisie. The communist wins over and unites the workers and their natural allies, bringing about conscious democratic planning and cutting the roots of religious sentiment without suppressing religious sentiment, letting religion die a natural death. We have our explanations of why we do not believe in the supernatural, but we are not sectarians that exclude workers that do not share our lack of faith. The religious worker will think otherwise about the decline of religion, in a natural way, in a socialist society, but regarding the issue of Marxist philosophy vs. religious philosophy, we can let history be the judge, we can let people see with their own eyes who will be right in the future. The point is that regardless of faith (or lack thereof), the proletarians and their natural allies have an interest in eliminating capitalist exploitation. There will be religious freedom in a socialist society, with a separation of church and state. Let the religious workers drive the moneychangers from their temples and maintain them in their own time. Their temples will cease to be organs of bourgeois propaganda then (this of course, does not imply that all religious workers are bourgeois agents. I am sure that very few of them actually are. It just indicates that with the political and economic expropriation of the bourgeoisie, there will be no more killing for bourgeois interests "In the Name of God.).

Many petit-bourgeois atheists are hypocrites - just take the case of the religious fundamentalist, replace "god" with "in the name of science," "you are a fool for not believing in X-deity (ies)" for "you are a fool for believing in the "Sky Fairy," etc. You get some people in this category simply wanting to force atheism down everyone&#39;s throat, yet they hypocritically complain about the fundies wanting to ram religion down everyone&#39;s throat&#33; Given its unscientific and dogmatic character, petit-bourgeois atheism is practically dogmatic enough to pass as a form of religious fundamentalism&#33;

In a crisis ridden world, no worker in his/her right mind is going to care about what the petit-bourgeois atheist thinks. They are going to listen to patient explanation and political exposure that will win them over to the side of revolutionary socialism. In fact, the average religious worker already knows that petit-bourgeois atheism is nonsense, given that its foul-mouthed artillery has not scratched his/her faith, no matter how vehement the attacks are.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Axel1917
Petit-bourgeois atheism that lurks at this board is dogmatic enough to practically be considered a religion.

The dogmatism of a given ideology&#39;s adherents does not determine whether or not it is a religion. If that were the case, then Marxism would be a religion.

Here&#39;s a hint: look at actual religions and compare them to atheism. You will not not find many similarities. In other words, try to know what the fuck you are talking about before you go spouting off and make yourself look like an idiot.


It is something of subjective idealism, thinking that all religion can be badmouthed out of existence (nevermind that badmouthing high gas prices and many other problematic issues does nothing to eradicate them.).

Are you fucking high?&#33; I don&#39;t recall any of the atheists on this board claiming to be able to eliminate religion through pure ratiocination.


The petit-bourgeois atheist can often fall for the divide and rule tactic of the bourgeoisie, with the bourgeois media spreading all kinds of Islamophobic filth. All this does is turn the workers against each other. It is used in an attempt to justify the war in Iraq and the Middle East. Islamophobia, in short, is reactionary filth that can only serve to reel in some "revolutionaries" into supporting bourgeois reaction.

That&#39;s a blatant strawman and you know it.


The consistent materialist, the Marxist, in the "pure" sense of the word, knows that religion has roots, and that no amount of badmouthing of religion will make it go away. These roots can only be severed when capitalism is abolished and people start to, for the first time in history, have conscious control over major aspects of their lives. The gyrations of the stock market, the declining living standards, these are just some aspects that many workers think they have no control over. Consequently, such a worker often concludes that his/her life is dominated by unseen forces, which he/she has no control over.

That is of course, a recipe for staying silent when fundamentalists talk shit (which they do with alarming frequency&#33;). After all, why bother doing or saying anything if religion is here until capitalism is abolished?


Here is a consistently materialist explanation of religion and why it continues to be widespread. The revolutionary does not participate in the bourgeois divide and rule game. The revolutionary does not prohibit the religious worker from the movement.

I don&#39;t recall any of our resident atheists saying that religious people should be barred from the movement.


The revolutionary is not a sectarian, i.e. he/she does not put his own interests or the interests of his/her organization above those of the working class.

By that lofty standard, none of us are revolutionaries.


This thread is nonsensical. The real issue is proletariat (and natural allies, i.e. urban poor and peasantry) vs. the reactionary bourgeoisie. Communists do not fall for the divide and rule game. They do not alienate themselves from religious workers, they do not spread the bourgeois Islamophobic poison for the bourgeoisie.

But some of them do allow themselves to become pawns for wealthy Islamic fundamentalists.


Many petit-bourgeois atheists are hypocrites - just take the case of the religious fundamentalist, replace "god" with "in the name of science," "you are a fool for not believing in X-deity (ies)" for "you are a fool for believing in the "Sky Fairy," etc.

This statement completely ignores the arguments that usually go along with such insults.


You get some people in this category simply wanting to force atheism down everyone&#39;s throat, yet they hypocritically complain about the fundies wanting to ram religion down everyone&#39;s throat&#33;

Liar, liar, pants on fire. Nobody here advocates forcing atheism on anybody.


Given its unscientific and dogmatic character, petit-bourgeois atheism is practically dogmatic enough to pass as a form of religious fundamentalism&#33;

It&#39;s only "unscientific" because it does not fit within the confines of your narrow, dogmatic Marxist definition of "science". And as I pointed out earlier, dogmatism does not a religion make.


In a crisis ridden world, no worker in his/her right mind is going to care about what the petit-bourgeois atheist thinks. They are going to listen to patient explanation and political exposure that will win them over to the side of revolutionary socialism. In fact, the average religious worker already knows that petit-bourgeois atheism is nonsense, given that its foul-mouthed artillery has not scratched his/her faith, no matter how vehement the attacks are.

Another statement based on false assumptions. Atheist revolutionaries only criticise religious comrades if they feel that their religion is getting in the way of being a revolutionary. no sensible atheist revolutionary is going to immediately start talking about revolution.

All in all, quit your whining. we can&#39;t all be dogmatic , orthodox Marxists like you.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 05:02 am
Actually, the fact that the bulk of the Middle East lives in giant open prisons is what is causing all kinds of problems to happen over there, not Islam itself.
What on Earth, are you talking about now. You could you this description to talk about Gaza, the West Bank, and the camps in Lebanon, but the &#39;bulk of the Middle East&#39; Get real.
Devrim

[graffic]

No. But the Christians in America are the most vocal proponents of American terrorism.

Yes I agree the Christians were the most vocal in their support for what they believed at the time was a necessary war. And so what? Millions of secular and religous Americans supported the war. This isnt the same as supporting Mass Murder, the Conservative Chrisitans were not calling for "infidels to be killed", they were merely fighting for what they believed was good for the West and postive democracy. Not fighting for reactionary religous darkness.


You&#39;re being naive. Of course it was intentional that civilians were killed, one doesn&#39;t blanket an area with cluster bombs without expecting a few bits of "collateral damage".

Find me some American Christians who supported the war because they wanted Innocent civilians to be killed by cluster bombs. This isnt the issue, the issue is that the majority of the Muslim community in the U.K supported the mass murder of thousands of Americans. They didnt support a war which they believed was helping a situation, they supported the mass murder of innocent people. Something which the "American Chrisitians" have not done.


Well, yes.

The entire Iraq war has caused more deaths than 9/11, not bombs in Afghanistan.


It&#39;s not clear to you because your contact with the muslim working class has been through the media.

Siraj Wahaj

1991: Speach to the US House of representatives "The Model of all Muslims in America".

1993: Listed as an alleged conspirator to blow up twin towers.


Well done. America is also not a "Christian nation".

Exactly, America is a majority Christian country - This illustrates my point that the majority of Christians are happy to live in a secular free society where everyone regardless of culture or race can practice their religons freely. Peace is at the centre of the Christian faith - and most other faiths Hinduism/Buddhism etc. This is not true in Islam where "There must be no law but Allahs". Most countrys where Islam is a majority religon become reactionary, because Islam is a veheomently intolerant religon.

I was reading in private Eye the strange favour bias "Leftists" have towards the religon - Islam. The bigotry of Ken "Red ken" Livingstone who attacks The Pope, the Archbishop and the Chief Rabbi for not being "supporters of homosexual rights", and defends Muslim- Dr Qaradawi who was reported to have said "Homosexuals should be executed" "We need to keep Islam clean of perveted elements". This was reported not by MEMRI but by Qaradawis own website. Livingstone spent tax payers money whitewashing his politics and still continues to defend him.


Thanks to secularism, not Christianity.

But the majority of Americans are Christians which shows there is no interest amongst Christians for the state and the Church to be connected. This is why I don&#39;t have much of a problem with Christianity. Do you think America would still be secular if a majority Muslim population evolved? Think about it Jazzratt.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Devrim+November 26, 2007 07:23 am--> (Devrim @ November 26, 2007 07:23 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 05:02 am
Actually, the fact that the bulk of the Middle East lives in giant open prisons is what is causing all kinds of problems to happen over there, not Islam itself.
What on Earth, are you talking about now. You could you this description to talk about Gaza, the West Bank, and the camps in Lebanon, but the &#39;bulk of the Middle East&#39; Get real.
Devrim [/b]
The neo-liberal, anti-worker countries can metaphorically represent that. Not to mention the oppressive and repressive dictatorships and kingdoms. Yemen is also a devastatingly poor country.

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Syria, Egypt, etc.

Would you like to live in these countries?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:36 pm
The neo-liberal, anti-worker countries can metaphorically represent that.
All countries are anti-worker.


Not to mention the oppressive and repressive dictatorships and kingdoms.

Being a dictatorships doesn&#39;t make the whole country a prison camp. It is just hyperbole.


Yemen is also a devastatingly poor country.

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Syria, Egypt, etc.

Would you like to live in these countries?

What does this have to do with anything?

My point was that the idea that the Middle East is one big prison camp is absurd.

Devrim

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 11:46 am
What does this have to do with anything?

My point was that the idea that the Middle East is one big prison camp is absurd.

Devrim
Fair enough.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Existence itself is evidence of the supernatural, and the existence of freedom and will are evidence of spirit. Where is your proof that matter made itself, or that free will is an epiphenomenal mirage? There is no evidence. These are claims based on the assumption that nothing beyond atoms and molecules has any relevance.

A belief in objective good, let alone human value, presupposes an ultimate valuer. Free will is a property of a highly developed consciousness; a state of rational agents having a sense of what is &#39;right&#39; or &#39;wrong&#39;, and acting upon that. So, if humans have &#39;made their own morals&#39;, they did so without the laws of nature, and are acting as a subjective agency, which would mean a force outside of their control that has made special, unalienable laws that our thought processes are guided along. Our obligation to our fellow man does not rely on warm, fuzzy feelings which are here today and can be just as easily ignored or subverted tomorrow by &#39;material conditions&#39;, but on a universal understanding that there are certain rights that can not be touched.

Science is a means to help us reach an end, but it can not explain existence, nor will it probably ever. If you put forth an unerring application of scientific method to every question and problem that stems from existence, then you are not a scientist, you are an atheist fundamentalist.

[RevMARKSman]

A belief in objective good, let alone human value, presupposes an ultimate valuer.

Fucking get this into your fucking head right now.

DUH.

That&#39;s why we don&#39;t believe in objective "good."


Free will is a property of a highly developed consciousness; a state of rational agents having a sense of what is &#39;right&#39; or &#39;wrong&#39;, and acting upon that. So, if humans have &#39;made their own morals&#39;, they did so without the laws of nature, and are acting as a subjective agency, which would mean a force outside of their control that has made special, unalienable laws that our thought processes are guided along.

Tell me again how these supposed "rational" beings are using an undefined (and therefore irrational) concept like "right/wrong" to motivate their actions.


Our obligation to our fellow man does not rely on warm, fuzzy feelings which are here today and can be just as easily ignored or subverted tomorrow by &#39;material conditions&#39;, but on a universal understanding that there are certain rights that can not be touched.

Funny. I&#39;d state just the opposite.


Science is a means to help us reach an end, but it can not explain existence, nor will it probably ever. If you put forth an unerring application of scientific method to every question and problem that stems from existence, then you are not a scientist

Actually, you are a scientist. By definition.


, you are an atheist fundamentalist.

From the Wikipedia article:


Many criticisms of fundamentalist positions have been offered. One of the most common is that some claims made by a fundamentalist group cannot be proven, and are irrational, demonstrably false, or contrary to scientific evidence. For example, some of these criticisms were famously asserted by Clarence Darrow in the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Contrary to scientific evidence. Are we seeing a pattern here?

If I use the scientific method to discover the answer to a question, it is not fundamentalism. If I think the answer I get is right, it is not fundamentalism - because far from contradicting the evidence, the idea I have is based on the evidence itself&#33;


Existence itself is evidence of the supernatural, and the existence of freedom and will are evidence of spirit.

Your logic?


Where is your proof that matter made itself

Matter did not "make" itself.


or that free will is an epiphenomenal mirage? There is no evidence.

Except the absence of evidence for any other conclusion. The brain is made up of matter. When that matter is destroyed (see: car accidents, Alzheimer&#39;s, MS, concussions, Phineas Gage), the ability to think and make decisions is destroyed. Ultimately, the decisions you make rest on what electrical signals are being transferred by your neurons. There is no separate "you" from your neurons. Whether that means "free will" is real or an illusion depends on how you define "free will."


These are claims based on the assumption that nothing beyond atoms and molecules has any relevance.

Because the assumption is valid. True. There is no evidence for anything beyond atoms and molecules (and photons, and ionic lattices, and what have you).

[C_Rasmussen]

To be fair, I truthfully doubt that either could be considered valid as both are of religious faiths and sure while I believe in religion (to an extent) I also believe in the possibility of it not coming true.

[Andy Bowden]

Yes I agree the Christians were the most vocal in their support for what they believed at the time was a necessary war. And so what? Millions of secular and religous Americans supported the war. This isnt the same as supporting Mass Murder, the Conservative Chrisitans were not calling for "infidels to be killed", they were merely fighting for what they believed was good for the West and postive democracy. Not fighting for reactionary religous darkness.

Yeah, I forgot, its ok to support violence on a massive scale so long as you can attach the right propaganda terms to it about "democracy", "freedom" etc to it.

Believe it or not but many Political Islamists use the same rhetoric in statements on their own attacks. Jason Burkes book on Al Qaeda is very good at showing how diverse Islamic militancy is, diverging from millenarian, cosmic good vs evil Jihadists to those who use rhetoric that could have easily come from the Baader Meinhoff or the PLO.

The terrorist who bombed the WTC in 1993 did not release a statement calling for "death to infidels" - he called for end to US aid to Israel, diplomatic relations with Israel and an end to interference in the affairs of middle east governments. All of these demands could have been taken word for word from secular left militant groups like RAF, Brigate Rosse etc.

Anyone who thinks the neoconservative right are actually bombing Iraq etc for the good of arabs and muslims, or because they genuinely want to liberate them, should go on their websites - frontpage mag etc, and examine their leading figures views on muslims - Coulter, Malkin etc.