Brussels Under Attack

[Saint Frankenstein]

Do you think Sharia is reasonable? Because Sharia is what you will get. The Muslim population of Europe is no larger than 8% of the total population now. Imagine how things would look like if the European population were 40% Muslim. Major European cities would be Jihad strongholds. Imagine a Luton of the size of Paris or a Molenbeek of the size of London. Do you think Europe will survive to that? Once they have taken Europe, they will come after all other non-Muslim nations.

The paranoid ramblings are strong with this one. XD

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The Vatican is the administrative, diplomatic and religious centre of the Catholic Faith.
It has no capacity for armed or terrorist action.

Not anymore, no. Institutional Christianity has largely been subdued by secularism in the West.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Just to clarify: I only liked this post because it made me laugh so much.

Thank the Gods. I was really worried about that.

 

[Demonslayer]

Not anymore, no. Institutional Christianity has largely been subdued by secularism in the West.

This

 

[First Baseman]

The above says nothing in regards to Islam nor how to treat Muslims, and...

Micah 6[8] He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

This is what the Pope is preaching and how the scriptures do say about how we should act. If you seriously believe that this Pope and the previous ones in recent decades are wrong, as well as Jesus' emphasis on compassion and justice, then maybe you're in the wrong religious faith.

So now you are going to lecture me about my faith? Please save it.

According to the NT any teaching other than Jesus Christ as the Son of God is false teaching and therefore evil. Therefore, the teaching of Islam is evil.

Now that we got that out of the way I can elaborate on your quotation of Micah 6:8. We do good in that we help those who believe in Islam, love them, pray for them, etc. We don't pick up arms and go and kill them like many of them do. If the pope is preaching according to the scriptures then he is correct. If he isn't then he isn't correct.

You assume that the popes do always preach in accordance with scripture and you also assume that I do not. You assume entirely too much.

 

[Underhill]

It is written in the Bible that the Law of Moses was binding only for the Israelites that lived in Israel and that its relevance as a legal code ended with the death and resurrection of Jesus. The New Testament asserts clearly that Christians do not need to follow the legal aspects of the Law of Moses. Jesus himself saved people from being stoned to death, although that was the penalty that the Law had prescribed for them (check John 9 to see how Jesus saves an adulterous woman from being stoned to death). The corollary of all of this is that I am peaceful not because I ignore the teachings of my religion, but because I follow them. If I were a Muslim and I took my faith seriously, I would be out there killing infidels, since this is what Islam teaches.

Right, except what the 'laws of Moses' consist of can be interpreted many different ways. Some say it's everything in the old testament, my parents believe that only applies to the cultural rules of the day.

Listen, I am not claiming all christians should be slaughtering people. I am simply pointing out that where these extremist use the koran to justify their actions, extremist christians do the same. It may not happen as often right now in this country, but it does happen, has happened and will happen again most likely.

I would also point out that the notion that the god of the old testament thought it was okay to slaughter people, but then changed his mind when his son was on the planet, strikes a discordant tone with me and is one of the reasons I first started rejecting the bible as a youth. Since then there have been dozens of other reasons, but that was one of the first, and I still feel one of the best examples of hypocrisy in the book. If god knows everything and is this loving, caring being, then why didn't he stand up against slavery? Why did he order his people to commit genocide? You say it was a different time and I say, how does that matter to an all knowing god who lives forever?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Not anymore, no. Institutional Christianity has largely been subdued by secularism in the West.

You'd be surprised. The Catholic Church still has significant influence in Ireland, Christianity is enmeshed in government at multiple levels in Great Britain, schools in Scotland are required by law to provide religious instruction that is Christian in nature - with pupils being opted in by default. The faith still holds a lot of undeserved privilege in Western society - more so than most people realise.

 

[Crypto2015]

No, you simply do not "understand how the mind of a sincere believer in Muhammad works" because they simply are not all the same, much like those of you in Christianity and those of us in Judaism are not all the same. Stereotyping any group almost always leads to prejudice and hatred.

How can you prove that I don't understand their mindset? Time and time again, experience has shown me that I do understand their mindset perfectly well. You, on the other hand, cannot understand it because you don't know what is to believe in something.

 

[Crypto2015]

Ok, but it was God who've put terror in the heart of the enemy, not Muhammad > 8.12 , 59.2

8.63 "And (as for the believers) hath attuned their hearts. If thou hadst spent all that is in the earth thou couldst not have attuned their hearts, but Allah hath attuned them.

You can't be victorious if you don't earn the heart of people. He won because people were little by little convinced by him not because of terror.

Muhammad wasn't send to bring terror to people if that's the reason why you quoted this.

When Muhammad preached in Mecca his message was a peaceful message. At that time Islam was completely apolitical. During that first period, after more than ten years of preaching, he completely failed in converting people Islam. He had only a handful of followers. When he moved to Mecca he started preaching a heavily politicized message. He promised his followers war booties and riches. Suddenly, he got hundreds of followers. So, it is evident that he didn't conquer their hearts, but their pockets. The first Muslims knew that Islam was completely fake (that's why the first Caliph had to wage the wars of apostasy soon after the death of Muhammad), but they pretended to believe in Muhammad's message because (1) Muhammad would have killed them if they had contradicted him and (2) they were becoming extremely wealthy and powerful.

 

[First Baseman]

Metis seems to assume quite a bit about people.

 

[Pastek]

When Muhammad preached in Mecca his message was a peaceful message. At that time Islam was completely apolitical. During that first period, after more than ten years of preaching, he completely failed in converting people Islam. He had only a handful of followers. When he moved to Mecca he started preaching a heavily politicized message. He promised his followers war booties and riches. Suddenly, he got hundreds of followers. So, it is evident that he didn't conquer their hearts, but their pockets. The first Muslims knew that Islam was completely fake (that's why the first Caliph had to wage the wars of apostasy soon after the death of Muhammad), but they pretended to believe in Muhammad's message because (1) Muhammad would have killed you if you had contradicted him and (2) they were becoming extremely wealthy and powerful.

He convinced more easily people in Medina because the majority were surrounded by other monotheistic faiths.
In Mecca it was very difficult also because many people were afraid of the Quraish, even some who converted stayed in Mecca hiding their faith when he went to Medina.
Among the rich people who followed him many gave their money for the religion, charity etc those who were living in Medina shared everything with the Meccan who arrived.
But i never heard that everyone was rich nor that they followed him for that.

As for people who abandonned the faith when Muhammad died, that's exactly what happened with Jesus, soon as he was arrested everyone left him.
Does that make him and his doctrine false because people turned their back on him ? So the "first christians " knew it was a false religion" ?

 

[Marsh]

I would hardly call them 'devout'! Brainwashing/indoctrination is not devotion.


I disagree. To truly be devout, one must have a pure heart and an awakened consciousness.

Sorry, wishful thinking on your part, Godnotgod. A pure heart has nothing to do with one's devotion to a creed. Consider the Nazi movement. It's followers would not have what you call a pure heart, but they were certainly devoted to the death cult created by Hitler and friends. Similarly, ISIS and other Islamist's are devoted followers of the Koran, which they constantly quote. Moderate Muslims pass over those many passages that the fanatics rest their case upon.

 

[Marsh]

People, why are you so stupid? Why the hell are you trying so hard to prove that Christianity is dangerous and pernicious, and this in the context of an Islamic terrorist attack?

I'd say it is political correctness run-amok. It is now considered improper to say anything negative about Islam (or so many other things, for that matter). When you have a prominent American politician say "The future must not belong to those who slander (ie., speak negatively of) the prophet of Islam," then you known you have a very serious problem. At stake in the West is freedom of speech itself.

 

[metis]

So now you are going to lecture me about my faith? Please save it.

Well, someone needs to, and since I taught it..., [a long story]

 

[metis]

Metis seems to assume quite a bit about people.

Well, when you talk bigotry and hate, which you clearly have done along with Crypto, then you both have virtually ignored Jesus' teachings on compassion and justice. It is not I who has condemned an entire religion, and it is not I who has posted stereotypical statements about others in another religion-- it's been you and Crypto who have clearly done that.

Nuff said.

 

[metis]

You, on the other hand, cannot understand it because you don't understand what is to believe in something.

Now that is truly an ignorant statement because you simply do not know me well enough to know what I believe.

Nuff said to you as well, but maybe you and FB can think more about your behavior here at RF over the Easter holidays. As for me, I'm gonna be out of the country for a week, so if you continue to post more of your stereotypes and bigotry because I ain't gonna be able to read it anyway, but I do feel sorry for you having such hatred.

 

[First Baseman]

Well, someone needs to, and since I taught it..., [a long story]

Please don't. If you don't believe it then you shouldn't lecture others who do believe it. The fact that you taught it and now you don't believe it tells me that you are not a good person to talk to about it at all.

And, yes, someone needs to lecture me on it, that's what churches and Christian teachers are for. We don't need or want outsiders trying to tell us what we should believe and why we should believe it when they don't believe it.

 

[First Baseman]

Well, when you talk bigotry and hate, which you clearly have done along with Crypto, then you both have virtually ignored Jesus' teachings on compassion and justice. It is not I who has condemned an entire religion, and it is not I who has posted stereotypical statements about others in another religion-- it's been you and Crypto who have clearly done that.

Nuff said.

You obviously read things into posts that aren't there. I never posted anything on this thread bigoted or hateful, you just perceived it that way. That's on you.

 

[Crypto2015]

Right, except what the 'laws of Moses' consist of can be interpreted many different ways. Some say it's everything in the old testament, my parents believe that only applies to the cultural rules of the day.

Listen, I am not claiming all christians should be slaughtering people. I am simply pointing out that where these extremist use the koran to justify their actions, extremist christians do the same. It may not happen as often right now in this country, but it does happen, has happened and will happen again most likely.

I would also point out that the notion that the god of the old testament thought it was okay to slaughter people, but then changed his mind when his son was on the planet, strikes a discordant tone with me and is one of the reasons I first started rejecting the bible as a youth. Since then there have been dozens of other reasons, but that was one of the first, and I still feel one of the best examples of hypocrisy in the book. If god knows everything and is this loving, caring being, then why didn't he stand up against slavery? Why did he order his people to commit genocide? You say it was a different time and I say, how does that matter to an all knowing god who lives forever?

What you don't understand is that if you don't pick and choose the verses, but actually accept the message as a whole, you will end up being a pacifist if you are a Christian and a Jihad fighter if you are a Muslim. You atheists cannot understand this because you don't know what is to believe in something. You think that our interpretation of the sacred texts depends on our cultural values, when in fact it is the exact opposite: our cultural values depend on our interpretation of the text. The only atheist that comes close to understanding this is Sam Harris, since he has pointed out that the link between Islam and violence cannot be a coincidence. He has acknowledged the fact that Christians are peaceful because their role model, Jesus, is peaceful, whereas Muslims are violent because their role model, Muhammad, was a warlord.

 

[Crypto2015]

He convinced more easily people in Medina because the majority were surrounded by other monotheistic faiths.
In Mecca it was very difficult also because many people were afraid of the Quraish, even some who converted stayed in Mecca hiding their faith when he went to Medina.
Among the rich people who followed him many gave their money for the religion, charity etc those who were living in Medina shared everything with the Meccan who arrived.
But i never heard that everyone was rich nor that they followed him for that.

As for people who abandonned the faith when Muhammad died, that's exactly what happened with Jesus, soon as he was arrested everyone left him.
Does that make him and his doctrine false because people turned their back on him ? So the "first christians " knew it was a false religion" ?

The apostles abandoned Jesus while he was being judged and condemned. However, immediately after Jesus' resurrection the church started to grow. No Christian had to be killed in order to stop Christians from apostatizing. Immediately after the death of Muhammad the first Caliph had to kill thousands of Muslim apostates in the Ridda wars to prevent Islam from falling apart. Muhammad scared people into converting to Islam. It is evident from this

Bukhari (8:387)- Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

Bukhari (11:626)- [Muhammad said:] "I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes."

Muslim (19:4294) - "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.

Muslim (31:5917) - "Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: 'Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?' Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: 'Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger'." The pretext for attacking the peaceful farming community of Khaibar was not obvious to the Muslims. Muhammad's son-in-law Ali asked the prophet of Islam to clarify the reason for their mission to kill, loot and enslave. Muhammad's reply was straightforward. The people should be fought because they are not Muslim.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"