Why don't most Muslims engage in Jihad?
Moderator: Moderators
Why don't most Muslims engage in Jihad?
Post #1To the best of my knowledge, it says in the Koran(or however you want to spell it) that infidels should be put to the sword. However, my knowledge of it ends just about there, so I'm just asking an honest question: Why don't most Muslims go around killing non-Muslims? Or, at the very least, those that refuse to convert once they're tought about it? After all, Muhammed himself waged holy wars.
Post #31
I have no idea if Dawkins' said it. If he did he is obviously a very wise and observant fellow.AlAyeti wrote:Bernee: "This is something you are clearly unwilling and unable to do - you defer to the directives of a mythological god who's 'word' is contained in a book of mythology and allegory.
It is fundamentals, of all persuasions, who are the real danger to the peace and well being of humanity."
That last sentence sounds very familiar. Richard Dawkins maybe?
You have expressed your opinion - not fact.AlAyeti wrote: I, time and again, use science and empiricism,... abortion and homosexuality and evolutionary belief systems.
For example:
You have called abortion 'murder' which it clearly and empirically isn't.
You have called homosexuality and unnatural abomination - which it clearly and empirically isn't.
ROTFLMAO...this is a joke, isn't it?AlAyeti wrote: Your position seems the one based on emotions overriding what can be clearly seen by evidence.
It is a pity you do not have the sense of self and the courage to leave it in a dumpster.AlAyeti wrote: I left my Bible in the other room.
Just so as you can recoginise...that was vitriol
Post #32
And you are totally ignorant of the suffering caused by convesions in impoverished Indian villages. You seem to blithely accept it as "not the christian's fault' and give no consideration at all to the reality.AlAyeti wrote:Bernee: "No a christian, such as your self, is the 'bad guy' because of the ignorance you display to the cultural realities of anyone other than youself and like believers."
Bernee, did you forget that you wrote that you observed, "some accept many do not."
You seem totally ignorant of "Christianity."
You are blinded by your fundamentalism and your ignorance.
I find that incredibly saddening.
-
Dilettante
- Sage
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Spain
Post #33
I know it's easy to get carried away by emotion. But please, AlAyeti and bernee, try to avoid personal attacks. It's against the rules.
Post #34
I have complimented Bernee several times and continue to present my views in truth.
He writes: "You have called abortion 'murder' which it clearly and empirically isn't."
"You have called homosexuality and unnatural abomination - which it clearly and empirically isn't."
/ / /
Empirically?
I always appeal to observable scientific reality. Jihad for instance can be shown for what it is on the Five O'Clock news or front page of any newspaper in the world.
Now also, both of the above "abortion and homosexuality" if shown in the daylight and without emotionalism and anti-Christianity driving the "debate" can be seen much easier in my terms than in some misrepresentation of facts.
Abortion tears and rips a human child to bits while they are "alive." It is done with thought and purpose. Qualification for first degree murder. If a developing embryo is not stopped from growing by killing "he or she" (which is a scientific fact) it will be born a human being. It should be the secular empiricist shouting this the loudest.
I will concede "abomination" in regards to unnatural sex acts, unless we are discussing the Biblical view. Then it is undebatable. But no amount of emotionalism can take away the very nature of the observable act of what occurs during an attempt at sexual intercourse that does not involve male and female sex organs. Homosexuality is an oxymoron by empiricism, not religion OR politics. Again, secular empiricists should be shouting this the loudest.
Anyone of any education level can prove that as fact with a mirror and their own naked body, when it comes to sexuality and anyone who can think rationally knows they were once in the womb.
Nothing can "justify," and no amount of political correctness, can change anatomy, physiology, or biology of the human body.
I will concede to using evolutionary definition on sexuality, as the survival of the fittest is far more absolute on homosexuality. It may "happen" in nature, but is always aberrant behavior, as how would a species survive if "it" was not replicating.
The Bible is just as absolute.
He writes: "You have called abortion 'murder' which it clearly and empirically isn't."
"You have called homosexuality and unnatural abomination - which it clearly and empirically isn't."
/ / /
Empirically?
I always appeal to observable scientific reality. Jihad for instance can be shown for what it is on the Five O'Clock news or front page of any newspaper in the world.
Now also, both of the above "abortion and homosexuality" if shown in the daylight and without emotionalism and anti-Christianity driving the "debate" can be seen much easier in my terms than in some misrepresentation of facts.
Abortion tears and rips a human child to bits while they are "alive." It is done with thought and purpose. Qualification for first degree murder. If a developing embryo is not stopped from growing by killing "he or she" (which is a scientific fact) it will be born a human being. It should be the secular empiricist shouting this the loudest.
I will concede "abomination" in regards to unnatural sex acts, unless we are discussing the Biblical view. Then it is undebatable. But no amount of emotionalism can take away the very nature of the observable act of what occurs during an attempt at sexual intercourse that does not involve male and female sex organs. Homosexuality is an oxymoron by empiricism, not religion OR politics. Again, secular empiricists should be shouting this the loudest.
Anyone of any education level can prove that as fact with a mirror and their own naked body, when it comes to sexuality and anyone who can think rationally knows they were once in the womb.
Nothing can "justify," and no amount of political correctness, can change anatomy, physiology, or biology of the human body.
I will concede to using evolutionary definition on sexuality, as the survival of the fittest is far more absolute on homosexuality. It may "happen" in nature, but is always aberrant behavior, as how would a species survive if "it" was not replicating.
The Bible is just as absolute.
Post #35
An abortion removes a foetus from the uterus. The use f emotive language is not 'debate'. Factas are debate.AlAyeti wrote: Abortion tears and rips a human child to bits while they are "alive."
Some other things are required before it is murder, which, I understand is the unlawful killing of a human being,AlAyeti wrote: It is done with thought and purpose. Qualification for first degree murder.
Abortion is not unlawful, and a foetus is not a human being.
See even you agree...it is not yet a human being...so haow can you calim it is murder.AlAyeti wrote: ....it will be born a human being.
The biblical view is the only one you have.AlAyeti wrote: I will concede "abomination" in regards to unnatural sex acts, unless we are discussing the Biblical view.
A question for you...would you support or do you believe that the moral code as you claim is set out in the bible or through/by Jesus should be the 'laws of the land"?
Post #36
Empiricism should be the Law of the land. The teachings of Jesus are not a bad place to find the foundation for good laws. There are many good teachings from other people in history that coinicide with Jesus' teachings.
Do unto others. . .
You (whoever the poster "Bernee" is) you were once a fetus.
Abortion removes a human being from the uterus, by killing he or she. That is an observable fact. By force and by the will of the participants against the scientifically distinct life inside the woman.
When people want to let scientific observations help them decide truth, then we can put the horror of abortion and other misrepresentations of empirical facts, in the dust bin of history, like the Holocaust and suicide bombers.
I cannot understand why every Evolutionist and/or Atheist in "today's world" do not oppose abortion ten-times louder than Christians and other religious people do.
What is inside a woman is now undebateable. It is a human person. DNA and by photos!
But bluntly, I would not support the Law of the land coming from "just" the teachings of Jesus Christ, because there are so many people who have distorted the simple truth of those teachings.
Although I wish you and I could discuss our views without trying to impress each other and those that view our positions with a little less smugness. My greatest weakness. And you seem eager to sling a little mud yourself. I like the new topic about Atheists and Agnostics being bullies!
I think indeed thet are. BUT, they learned it from the religiouis and pious.
But! I do believe that if people lived by the Truth, the Way and the Life of Jesus, your question about the law of the land would not have to be asked.
I hold these truths to be self evident.
Do unto others. . .
You (whoever the poster "Bernee" is) you were once a fetus.
Abortion removes a human being from the uterus, by killing he or she. That is an observable fact. By force and by the will of the participants against the scientifically distinct life inside the woman.
When people want to let scientific observations help them decide truth, then we can put the horror of abortion and other misrepresentations of empirical facts, in the dust bin of history, like the Holocaust and suicide bombers.
I cannot understand why every Evolutionist and/or Atheist in "today's world" do not oppose abortion ten-times louder than Christians and other religious people do.
What is inside a woman is now undebateable. It is a human person. DNA and by photos!
But bluntly, I would not support the Law of the land coming from "just" the teachings of Jesus Christ, because there are so many people who have distorted the simple truth of those teachings.
Although I wish you and I could discuss our views without trying to impress each other and those that view our positions with a little less smugness. My greatest weakness. And you seem eager to sling a little mud yourself. I like the new topic about Atheists and Agnostics being bullies!
I think indeed thet are. BUT, they learned it from the religiouis and pious.
But! I do believe that if people lived by the Truth, the Way and the Life of Jesus, your question about the law of the land would not have to be asked.
I hold these truths to be self evident.
Post #37
Can you give me a yes or no answer?AlAyeti wrote:Empiricism should be the Law of the land. The teachings of Jesus are not a bad place to find the foundation for good laws. There are many good teachings from other people in history that coinicide with Jesus' teachings.
Should the teachings of your religion be the law of the land?
And when I was a foetus I wasn't a human being...merely the potential to be one. As you yourself have already ackbnowledged.AlAyeti wrote:.
You (whoever the poster "Bernee" is) you were once a fetus.
It removes a foetus.AlAyeti wrote: Abortion removes a human being from the uterus,
This is what is commonly known as a slippery slope fallacy. Safely ignoredAlAyeti wrote: When people want to let scientific observations help them decide truth, then we can put the horror of abortion and other misrepresentations of empirical facts, in the dust bin of history, like the Holocaust and suicide bombers.
You may find evolutionists/atheists who are anti abortionist, just as you find christians who are pro-choice.AlAyeti wrote: I cannot understand why every Evolutionist and/or Atheist in "today's world" do not oppose abortion ten-times louder than Christians and other religious people do.
You are anti-abortion and anti-choice. IOW you would have the rest of the world conform to your view.
Wrong - it is a foetus.AlAyeti wrote: What is inside a woman is now undebateable. It is a human person.
So you want everyone to think and believe just like you?AlAyeti wrote: But! I do believe that if people lived by the Truth, the Way and the Life of Jesus, your question about the law of the land would not have to be asked.
Fortunately for the rest of civilization that you hold these 'truths' self evident doesn't make them facts.AlAyeti wrote: I hold these truths to be self evident.
Post #38
No.
But it should be given as much rights and as much voice as anyone or anything else.
Just give me and my culture as much free spech as any other on political matters.
It is very morally sound for the good of society.
I really do believe that secularism is not all that bad. But, it wasn't very good for all of the innocent peoples conquered by capitilists in the history of American, who history and the secularist have shown started and run America.
America is not a Christian nation. Never was and still isn't. I agree wholeheartedly. Look at the history of America. Not much Gospel there!
If Christianty would have been given a better voice, than many wars wouldn't have happened.
But it should be given as much rights and as much voice as anyone or anything else.
Just give me and my culture as much free spech as any other on political matters.
It is very morally sound for the good of society.
I really do believe that secularism is not all that bad. But, it wasn't very good for all of the innocent peoples conquered by capitilists in the history of American, who history and the secularist have shown started and run America.
America is not a Christian nation. Never was and still isn't. I agree wholeheartedly. Look at the history of America. Not much Gospel there!
If Christianty would have been given a better voice, than many wars wouldn't have happened.
Post #39
"And when I was a foetus I wasn't a human being...merely the potential to be one. As you yourself have already ackbnowledged. "
Using logic, the same would apply to a one year old or a two year old on up. They have "potential" too. But it depends on whose position is used to define potential.
If you decide you don't really want them, then, does the same logic apply to a person in the uterus?
You, were never going to be anyone else but you, from the moment of conception. That is a fact. Please use logic and rethink your stand on abortion.
I want the rest of the world to embrace non-violence and peace. Beginning at conception, and ending with a natural death, preferably at a very old age. The is pure Christianity.
Self evident truths lend much credence to my position.
Using logic, the same would apply to a one year old or a two year old on up. They have "potential" too. But it depends on whose position is used to define potential.
If you decide you don't really want them, then, does the same logic apply to a person in the uterus?
You, were never going to be anyone else but you, from the moment of conception. That is a fact. Please use logic and rethink your stand on abortion.
I want the rest of the world to embrace non-violence and peace. Beginning at conception, and ending with a natural death, preferably at a very old age. The is pure Christianity.
Self evident truths lend much credence to my position.
Post #40
bernee51 wrote: A question for you...would you support or do you believe that the moral code as you claim is set out in the bible or through/by Jesus should be the 'laws of the land"?
This is not borne out by your posts on abortion, homosexuality et al. You asnwer is, as Steen would put it, 'bearing false witness"AlAyeti wrote:No.
You have failed to demonstrate where it does not..that is because it does. In terms of voice christianity (in the USofA) has far and aawya more 'voice' than is healthy.AlAyeti wrote: But it should be given as much rights and as much voice as anyone or anything else.
It has and you have failed to demonsrtate otherwiseAlAyeti wrote: Just give me and my culture as much free spech as any other on political matters.
In you opinion...AlAyeti wrote: It is very morally sound for the good of society.
but no more so and in some cases less so than other belief systems (that is my opinion)
So is it really "The Great Satan" as your 'enemies' would have it.AlAyeti wrote: America is not a Christian nation. Never was and still isn't. I agree wholeheartedly. Look at the history of America. Not much Gospel there!
In your opinion.AlAyeti wrote:If Christianty would have been given a better voice, than many wars wouldn't have happened.
