Mohammed - Prophet of Peace

[kochman]

Euh, I think you are not fully understanding the abrogation thing as I showed you above. To be honest with you, and with all due respect, I don't think you who hardly know about the Koran and Islamic theology, can throw to the garbage the Sufi scholar work. That would be as If I blatantly say the Reformation is garbage, or Protestant are wrong

Well, what I am saying is, I wish the Sufi ideas were more prevalent.
Then again, we don't hear about them as much in the USA, because our media focuses on the Wahabi types, etc.
When I was in Iraq, the overwhelming majority of the people were good, peaceful people. This was encouraging. They still treated their women like dogs... even the higher class men, but perhaps with time the women in the Islamic world will gain the respect they earn.

History does not agree with you. Jesus words were used to justify persecuting the Jews, the Inquisition, slavery, which burning and to maintain a patriarchal society. Don't get me rong, they were also used to combat anti-semitism (though really lately) and to comabt slavery. So they were ambigus indeed. And till this very day they are still used by some wacko to justify crimes against abortionist and discrimination against gays.

Not what Jesus said... but what was also written by others about Paul, etc has been used that way. This is true, and unfortunate.

Reaction to what?

To centuries of violent land grabs by Muslims into Christian lands...
N Africa was deeply Christian, as was the Levant and Turkey. Spain was conquered... Sicily... this was all before the Crusades.
Then you get the Pope telling illiterates, poor, hopeful, condemned that if they Crusade they get to heaven...
Manipulation at it's finest...

I really don't know enough about St. Louis to comment on him.
I don't doubt he thought he was doing the right thing, and yes, this is an example of the prevailing attitude within Christianity at the time being wrong...
But it was also against the Word of Christ, who, yes, I believe is God.

As for God killing... He's God, He's kind of in charge. He often speaks of wanting fear to inspire people to follow him in the OT, which is not how Jesus spoke.
He softened His message... unlike Mohammed, who gradually became more warlike.

Which do you prefer? A God that has become more peaceful, for whatever reason? Or a god that, in the end, reveals his ultimate desire is violent conquest of the world?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

How about no God, and people suck?

 

[kochman]

How about no God, and people suck?

There would be even more suckiness with no God...
Oh, and no creation of the universe, etc.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

[citation needed]

 

[gangleri2001]

There would be even more suckiness with no God...
Oh, and no creation of the universe, etc.

You should know that there're alternatives to the creation ex nihilo scenario.

 

[General Pilates]

It has been discussed before that the Arab invasions of these places were hardly violent in any sort of manner except for the obvious violence that comes in a war(between soldiers). When the Arabs invaded Spain, hardly any blood was split outside of the battles, since most of the cities(which were full of incredibly persecuted Jews) threw their gates open to them, and were repaid in kind by administrative positions and being virtually the same class as Muslims. North Africa was one expedition by Uqba Ibn Nafi, and then 30 years of defeat against the Berbers, until they were finally able to defeat the Princess of the Berbers and take over the area(and then they had little to no hold outside Tunisia).

The Levant conquest consisted entirely of Byzantines fighting the Arabs, losing, and then the cities surrendering one by one with little bloodshed. Sicily was another example of an opportunistic invasion that had very little bloodshed in any way. Interestingly, the biggest examples of Arab bloodshed in the conquests is in Persia and Transoxiana; Istrakhr and Paykand were both destroyed, never to be resettled again.

Nor can the Christian crusades really be called any sort of 'reaction'; Christians and Muslims had no issue living in areas such as Sicily or Spain. Rather, it was a complex product of a number of social, economical, and demographic changes, as well as an increased confidence that resulted with the end of the Viking, Magyar, and Muslim invasions.

The rest of your post is pretty incoherent, and your ultimate point is..what? That God evolved(he was violent for the Hebrews, but they were lesser beings to Christians, obviously) and told the Christians words of peace? Then where the hell did the Teutonic knights come from?

 

[_random_]

You should know that there're alternatives to the creation ex nihilo scenario.

I find the creation ex Deo one rather intriguing myself.

 

[Fr8monkey]

[Citation Needed]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] (I Timothy 2:11-14)[/FONT]

Equality indeed...

As for God killing... He's God, He's kind of in charge. He often speaks of wanting fear to inspire people to follow him in the OT, which is not how Jesus spoke.
He softened His message... unlike Mohammed, who gradually became more warlike.

Which do you prefer? A God that has become more peaceful, for whatever reason? Or a god that, in the end, reveals his ultimate desire is violent conquest of the world?

How about not believing in fairy tails and say that god is a figment of people's imagination?

 

[Traitorfish]

There would be even more suckiness with no God...

Um, how so? If God never exited, then the level of suckiness we see would be pretty much the level of suckiness ones could expect from a God-free world. Because that's exactly what it would be.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think the concept of Hell increases the net suckiness, no?

 

[kochman]

How about not believing in fairy tails and say that god is a figment of people's imagination?

Not much better about this website than waking up to read completely smug and unsupported statements from the usual suspects.

 

[gangleri2001]

I find the creation ex Deo one rather intriguing myself.

How about the no-creation scenario of the pagans such as me? The "universe" is the fact of being, which neither created nor destroyed.

 

[Fr8monkey]

Not much better about this website than waking up to read completely smug and unsupported statements from the usual suspects.

Is that any different than waking up and hearing all the glorious wonders of god and his adventures with the same smug and unsupported statements from the usual suspects?

 

[kochman]

Hard to say since that hasn't happened... and anyhow, if it did, yes, it would certainly be more positive than what you are bringing to the table.
Christianity has been defended many times here...

I really don't see why you have to go on the offensive like this, but it is your prerogative.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”

edit: I just read the most offensive explanation of that verse.

However, that is not the meaning of the Hebrew word translated “fool.” In this text, the Hebrew word is nabal which refers more to a “moral fool,” e.g., someone without morals. The meaning of the text is not “unintelligent people do not believe in God.” Rather, the meaning of the text is “immoral people do not believe in God.”

[...]

The point of “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” is that a lack of evidence of His existence is not the true reason people reject belief in God. People reject belief in God due to a desire to live free of the moral constraints He requires and to escape the guilt that accompanies the violation of those constraints.

 

[El_Machinae]

Immoral -> atheist =\= atheist -> immoral

 

[Narz]

It's a trend that's come and gone before. Religious faith is such an important aspect of human society I can't see it ever disappearing.

When historically did atheism flourish besides now?

Maybe you're right, I do think some sort of spirituality will probably always be with us, I just don't see Christianity being able to stand the test of time (on a large scale) in a globalized age for more than a couple more generations.

Why does it say "cave cave hut cave" when all of those women are clearly from wealthy families?

How can you tell? High thread-count burqas?

 

[Rumilus]

It has been discussed before that the Arab invasions of these places were hardly violent in any sort of manner except for the obvious violence that comes in a war(between soldiers).

Bit false. Invading muslim armies massacred, raped, took slaves and killed just like all the other invading armies of the time. One of the more famous one (or atleast the one I remember) was the total destruction of Carthago in North Africa.

 

[kochman]

When historically did atheism flourish besides now?

Ummm. It isn't flourishing now either...
What percentage of people are atheists? Not many.

Even Richard Dawkins calls himself agnostic... to just say there is no God, period... it's a tough stance to take.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ummm. It isn't flourishing now either...
What percentage of people are atheists? Not many.

Even Richard Dawkins calls himself agnostic... to just say there is no God, period... it's a tough stance to take.

The way you're using "atheism" is a bit, um, wrong. It doesn't necessarily an absolute, 100%, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die disbelief in any and all gods anywhere ever, it just means a declination to believe in such any god or gods. "A-theism", see?

Religious faith is such an important aspect of human society I can't see it ever disappearing.

How are you defining "religion", here? It's a very ambiguous term, so it could do with some unpacking.

How can you tell? High thread-count burqas?

That kind of ultra-burqa is pretty characteristic of wealthy families in Afghanistan, it's not something that just anyone wears. It's heavily wrapped up into the local class system, as much a display of social aloofness as one of feminine modesty.