The Muslims are coming!

[meowmeowmeow 1]

Dearest Enraptured - of course God sees and blesses the beauty of your wonderful heart. You have done the best of things: searching to bring God to your life and to that end I am alway with you....

And, as a final note, I love your avatar! Cats blessings to you as well! (My wife has recently said 'OK' to cat...but I have yet to get Cat! <haha>)

Your brother in love of God, Mark

MEOW!!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Still, I am encouraged Simpson, at least I can count on you to vote for a muslim in coming elections. Bravo!

The Muslims aren't the only ones fighting this war. I believe the Americans and Brits are involved, no? I believe there may be some Xtians and others involved, no? You can't exactly fight a war one sided.

I see, that's your point is it? That because those fighting against the muslims aren't muslim it can't be a religious war. Brilliant.

Actually, if we would get out, the Muslims WOULD be the only ones fighting the war. Muslims are much more efficient at killing other muslims than our troops. I think we shoud get out of Iraq and let Iran and Iraq go at it again like they did in the 80s. Only Muslims were killed and they had to sell oil to pay for killing each other and oil went to less than $10 barrel. Given the economy today I think we could get oil down there to under $20 which would get a whole lot of economical things going here, we could sell bullets and guns to the muslims.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why would Iran and Iraq go to war if we pulled out?

[meowmeowmeow 1]

Still, I am encouraged Simpson, at least I can count on you to vote for a muslim in coming elections. Bravo!

The Muslims aren't the only ones fighting this war. I believe the Americans and Brits are involved, no? I believe there may be some Xtians and others involved, no? You can't exactly fight a war one sided.

I see, that's your point is it? That because those fighting against the muslims aren't muslim it can't be a religious war. Brilliant.

Actually, if we would get out, the Muslims WOULD be the only ones fighting the war. Muslims are much more efficient at killing other muslims than our troops. I think we shoud get out of Iraq and let Iran and Iraq go at it again like they did in the 80s. Only Muslims were killed and they had to sell oil to pay for killing each other and oil went to less than $10 barrel. Given the economy today I think we could get oil down there to under $20 which would get a whole lot of economical things going here, we could sell bullets and guns to the muslims.

you are aware that the US had a hand in provoking this war, right? so you are saying it'd be ok to do it again because oil prices would go down? i'm just confused here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not forgetting that the Iran Iraq war was not a Jihad or a conflict rooted in sectarianism. It was mostly to do with Saddam Hussein wanted to try his hand at imperialism (prior to that relations between the two countries were actually fairly good, historically).

[toma1 10]

Why would Iran and Iraq go to war if we pulled out?

Iraq is no longer the kind of regional power that it was in the 80s and wont be starting any wars with Iran. Who knows what Iran might do, but they could probably overrun Iraq in a month (sans US presence) if they wanted to at this point. I'm not sure that would result in the low prices of the 80s. More likely it would further consolidate the oil monopoly.

Now let me proceed to piss off everyone here:

The problem with these nonsensical religious arguments (like the ones that have been going on in this forum for the past few days) is that the posters are using passages from--sorry--books of mythology that are themselves internally inconsistent. Internally inconsistent=illogical. Attempting to establish a logical proof using an illogical source is ridiculous. (Which is why I had to chuckle when Joseph attempted to use the "red herring fallacy" argument to dismiss the the fact that the New Testament is internally inconsistent while continuing to use the NT to defend the violence of the Old Testament. He must have learned logical argument at Bob Jones University. Please excuse the Ad Hominem... )

Both sides need to admit:

- The Koran says to kill unbelievers and to protect unbelievers.

- The Bible says to kill unbelievers and to protect unbelievers.

It doesn't make any difference how many lines of scripture you post. The fact is: someone can ALWAYS post a conflicting line from YOUR BOOK. (And please stop the "New Testament changed things #######. The NT is as internally inconsistent as anything else (sometimes in the same book) as Jesus himself said:

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Who will be first apologist in line to tell me--with a straight face, nonetheless--that "that isn't really what he meant to say", or that I "need to read it on a deeper level"? Wait for it. It's coming...)

The only difference between the two groups is that at this point in history there are more self-identified Muslims that are siding with the "kill unbelievers" parts of the Koran than there are self-identified Christians that are siding with the "kill unbelievers" parts of the Bible.

BUT THAT HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. Many more Muslims than Christians are living in theocratical third world conditions and they tend to be the ones that are more prone to taking the "kill unbelievers" view. If you are a Christian, I suggest that you visit Malaysia and get to know some Muslims that are living in a near-first-world democracy. You might be shocked to find hospitality that beats what you get from your Christian friends here in the states. I toured a number of Mosques there, and found that the guides were even willing to bend the rules about where non-Muslims could go in order to allow us to get a better photo. They aren't zealots, they aren't radical, and they don't want to kill you. Imagine that!

When Christians were put into theocratical third world conditions in the Middle Ages, what happened? "Kill unbelievers" happened. When Christians were put into not-quite-so-bad circumstances in Northern Ireland and Serbia a decade or so ago, what happened? "Kill unbelievers" happened. Anyone heard of the The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda? Or the National Liberation Front of Tripura? You can read about them in the links below if you like, but I can simplify it for you: "Kill unbelievers" is happening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Libe...ront_of_Tripura

I wonder if anyone here has ever justified (even to a small degree) the violence that Christian anti-abortion groups have used? If you have, then welcome the extremist way of thinking: "Since we have been unable to further our agenda through peaceful political means and we know that God is on our side, it's OK to kill X because of Y." The apologists are no better. The same Christians that complain when Muslims say, "I don't agree with murder, but if they wouldn't kill Palestinians those radical Islamic groups wouldn't attack them" end up saying, "I don't agree with murder, but if they wouldn't kill babies those anti-abortion Christian groups wouldn't attack them."

The very nature of religious belief requires that you set aside logic and accept some things on "faith". Both the Koran and the Bible contain inconsistencies regarding violence and neither book's supporters can prove the truth of their position to a critical third party. You must accept the books on faith alone. Criticizing each others faith-based beliefs is, therefore, hypocrisy at its worst. Didn't your respective religions have something to say about hypocrites? I suggest that each side stop this nonsense and explore that issue instead.

Edited October 14, 2009 by toma1

[The_Dude 1,142]

Iraq was only a military power in the region because we gave them the tools to wage a proxy war with Iran...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Iraq was only a military power in the region because we gave them the tools to wage a proxy war with Iran...

Yeah cause having failed royally in Iran, we wanted someone else to contain the problem that we created.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Iraq was only a military power in the region because we gave them the tools to wage a proxy war with Iran...

Yeah cause having failed royally in Iran, we wanted someone else to contain the problem that we created.

Well it is a nice and easy passive aggressive solution.

[meowmeowmeow 1]

toma1: i think that particular cultural mindsets tend to come more into play when it comes to faiths being targeted for being this or that....just saying.

i.e. you will find that people will tend to resort to tactics that are condemned in most parts of the world than others...and use religion as an excuse to do so. but that's just me.

[toma1 10]

toma1: i think that particular cultural mindsets tend to come more into play when it comes to faiths being targeted for being this or that....just saying.

i.e. you will find that people will tend to resort to tactics that are condemned in most parts of the world than others...and use religion as an excuse to do so. but that's just me.

What cultural mindsets? Can you cite a specific example?

I think that it is lack of education (religious education doesn't count) and lack of a comfortable life that exists in certain areas than anything else. When people are secularly educated and are able to make their lives comfortable, they tend to forget about killing each other for fear of losing what they have.

[HAL 9000 96]

toma1: i think that particular cultural mindsets tend to come more into play when it comes to faiths being targeted for being this or that....just saying.

i.e. you will find that people will tend to resort to tactics that are condemned in most parts of the world than others...and use religion as an excuse to do so. but that's just me.

What cultural mindsets? Can you cite a specific example?

I think that it is lack of education (religious education doesn't count) and lack of a comfortable life that exists in certain areas than anything else. When people are secularly educated and are able to make their lives comfortable, they tend to forget about killing each other for fear of losing what they have.

They just hire others to do their killing for them.

[toma1 10]

They just hire others to do their killing for them.

Haha.. there is a lot of truth to that.

[HAL 9000 96]

In the end I truly think the ones that claim more civility are more prone to barbarous acts of carnage on more innocent people, or aka 'collateral damage.'

[toma1 10]

In the end I truly think the ones that claim more civility are more prone to barbarous acts of carnage on more innocent people, or aka 'collateral damage.'

I have no argument with that, except to note that the difference you suggest probably amounts to a difference in technology alone, rather than a difference in morality. I would add that the ability to casually justify such acts is rooted in the religious beliefs of the perpetrators.