13 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am not convinced this is true. Your silence in the face of prejudiced comments addressed to you on this, a thread you started, seems to indicate that you are not being entirely frank with us. You saying "I hold that Muslims are generally tolerant" should surely be done in the face of people are who are trying to smear Muslims rather than in a response to Fabian where you trying to appear tolerant and seem reasonable. When the intolerance was presented directly to you, you went quiet.
I am not prejudice against Muslims, quite the contrary, I am arguing against Islam, not Muslims, for i hold that Muslims are generally tolerant..
13 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by John W Boothwell why don't i find that surprising, its not about me, please refrain from making it personal, all other attempts to do so shall be ignored.
I am not convinced this is true. Your silence in the face of prejudiced comments addressed to you on this, a thread you started, seems to indicate that you are not being entirely frank with us. You saying "I hold that Muslims are generally tolerant" should surely be done in the face of people are who are trying to smear Muslims rather than in a response ...[text shortened]... erant and seem reasonable. When the intolerance was presented directly to you, you went quiet.
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell of course it is about you to a certain extent, robbie. You are quite happy to wave your alleged 'tolerance' when you are seeking to burnish your right on credentials, but when someone addresses you directly with ignorant and intolerant generalizations, the targets of that intolerance cannot expect you to speak out. So you can state your purported 'tolerance' in a post that's about you, but you don't come through on this in reality. You just fall silent and pout when called on it. Are you debating this topic here or not? You started the thread. Divegeester fed you a prejudiced line of self-evident nonsense designed to demonstrate his intolerance, but your 'lips are sealed'. People might wonder why.
well why don't i find that surprising, its not about me, please refrain from making it personal, all other attempts to do so shall be ignored.
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou take up an irrelevant and highly specific question. You cannot use the answer to anything.
you have failed to answer my questions Fabian, i reiterate for your consideration now for a third time, how many Christians have been involved in acts of violence against the cartoonists and publishers for making caricatures of religious figures including Mohammed and Jesus Christ? What has happened in the past is irrelevant, this is happening now. ...[text shortened]... and counter it with blasphemy laws and acts of violence, this i know from first hand experience.
I can ask you a similar answer: "How many muslims has bombed abortion clinics in USA?". If you answer (which is the correct answer) "None" then I can safely draw the conclusion that Islam is a peaceful religion, Christianity is not.
Could I possibly be correct in such a conclusion? No, of course not.
Your question "how many Christians have been involved in acts of violence against the cartoonists and publishers for making caricatures of religious figures including Mohammed and Jesus Christ?" gets the answer "I have no idea" from me and continues "What is the relevance?"
You continue with "Until you do answer I shall continue to point out the intolerance of Islam and its use of violence against innocents, including members who profess the same beliefs." as a child not getting the day's lollipop. My answer is "I cannot name one." And from there we go.
I don't know what a strawman is, is this it?
If you hate muslims because some muslim fundamentalists use terror as a mean, avoiding the fact that they really are fundamentalists, and it is very rare statistically that muslims are violent. Chritians are also vary rarely violents, but there are christian terrorists too, you know, don't forget that. But I don't see christians in general as violent because of these few.
I can debate in exactly the same manner about JW. (JW is a higly immoral organisation.) But I don't do that. I don't want to turn this debate to such a low level.
But one thing is for sure: You, my friend, uses the same arguments like any other islamophobe. Does this make you an islamophobe? If you debate like them, you look like them.
This is my impression about your reasoning: "A few muslims acts violently, therefore it must be a general flaw in their religion." Am I right?
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasshall we talk of how many Muslims were in the aeroplanes that flew into the New York trade centre buildings? all Saudi citizens i believe, and yes i can use the same criteria, for there were also caricatures of Jesus published. You cannot answer it because it clearly shows a distinction, a clear distinction between a Christian reaction and Islamic reaction, simply citing other unrelated instances does not diminish this fact.
You take up an irrelevant and highly specific question. You cannot use the answer to anything.
I can ask you a similar answer: "How many muslims has bombed abortion clinics in USA?". If you answer (which is the correct answer) "None" then I can safely draw the conclusion that Islam is a peaceful religion, Christianity is not.
Could I possibly be correct ...[text shortened]... ently, therefore it must be a general flaw in their religion." Am I right?
Your attempts also to make it personal to me, shall also be ignored, you have attempted to label me a racist, and a hater of Muslims, please refrain so from doing so in the future, if you cannot discuss a matter without getting personal then do not discuss it with me.
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't have to answer your specific questons, because thay are all irrelevant.
shall we talk of how many Muslims were in the aeroplanes that flew into the New York trade centre buildings? all Saudi citizens i believe, and yes i can use the same criteria, for there were also caricatures of Jesus published. You cannot answer it because it clearly shows a distinction, a clear distinction between a Christian reaction and Islamic ...[text shortened]... future, if you cannot discuss a matter without getting personal then do not discuss it with me.
In the aeroplanes that hit WTC the terrorists were all men. You are a man. Ergo: you are a terrorist! You are obsessed with muslims! So are all islamophobes! This make you a ...
How many of the terrorists were non-JWers? Does that make me a terrorist too?
You want to blame someone, and you blame Islam. Easy target, huh?
If you use racist arguments, then we can all suspect what you are. Don't reason like you were an racist, unless you are one! Just an friendly advice.
You are generalizing, you don't like me to generalize against JWers, so please don't generalize. All muslims are not terrorists, Islam is not a terrorist religion. Remember that christians are also terrorists. I don't blame all christians are terrorists. Why? Because I see the broader view.
And, of course I getting personal against your views (not you yourself, but your views), how else can I argue against your islamphobic tendencies?
13 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasyou have been warned and your continuing use of personal remarks are both abusive and against the terms of agreement, you were asked to refrain, civil discussion seems out of the question.
I don't have to answer your specific questons, because thay are all irrelevant.
In the aeroplanes that hit WTC the terrorists were all men. You are a man. Ergo: you are a terrorist! You are obsessed with muslims! So are all islamophobes! This make you a ...
How many of the terrorists were non-JWers? Does that make me a terrorist too?
You want to blam ot you yourself, but your views), how else can I argue against your islamphobic tendencies?
In the course of discussion you have consistently failed to demonstrate that Islam should be regarded as a religion of tolerance. When faced with specific instances, it has been demonstrated that it continues to use violence as a means to an end, is intolerant of criticism and has been a tool of manipulation for centuries. there were three instances sited,
1.blasphemy laws, used against an innocent women, enshrined in the laws of an Islamic republic, that being Pakistan
2. That in a so called Islamic democracy, secular laws may be superseded by religious laws on an arbitrary basis, that being the case in Iran and of a person who wished to change his faith, the result, his unlawful murder.
3. acts and threats of terrorism against those who dared to criticise Islam, death threats against cartoonists who depicted caricatures of Islam and actual acts of murder of innocents in the July bombings in London, the Madrid train bombing, the attempted bombing of Glasgow airport, the attempted bombing in Stockholm, the murder of Theo Van Gough, etc etc
Not one of these points have you answered in an honest and civil manner and resort to the now obligatory personal remark, your a racist, your a Muslim hater, your an Islamophobe, your this and your that, I am sorry to tell you Fabian, your credibility is at an all time low and unless you can produce anything with content it will continue to remain as such.
13 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou yourself have made it personal, robbie, by claiming that the following platitude somehow informs your post and your approach to this issue:
its not about me, please refrain from making it personal
"I am not prejudiced against Muslims, quite the contrary, I am arguing against Islam, not Muslims, for i hold that Muslims are generally tolerant, despite Islam.."
Easy to say, I suppose. Sounds great.
But when someone confronts you with their clumsy, ill-informed intolerance and/or misinformation - i.e. divegeester's remarks made directly to you - all of a sudden you are a "my lips are sealed" kind of guy.
You have made it about you, robbie, by making claims about yourself that you have demonstrated to be hollow and meaningless.
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by John W Booth
You yourself have made it personal, robbie, by claiming that the following platitude somehow informs your post and your approach to this issue:
[b]"I am not prejudiced against Muslims, quite the contrary, I am arguing against Islam, not Muslims, for i hold that Muslims are generally tolerant, despite Islam.."
Easy to say, I suppose. Sounds gre ...[text shortened]... e, by making claims about yourself that you have demonstrated to be hollow and meaningless.[/b]
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobie------
you have been warned and your continuing use of personal remarks are both abusive and against the terms of agreement, you were asked to refrain, civil discussion seems out of the question.
In the course of discussion you have consistently failed to demonstrate that Islam should be regarded as a religion of tolerance. When faced with specific ins ...[text shortened]... ll time low and unless you can produce anything with content it will continue to remain as such.
1.blasphemy laws, used against an innocent women, enshrined in the laws of an Islamic republic, that being Pakistan
------
The Koran and the Hadith are far more inclusive in regards to women than Judaism or Christianity, this is not opinion it is fact.
-----
2. That in a so called Islamic democracy, secular laws may be superseded by religious laws on an arbitrary basis, that being the case in Iran and of a person who wished to change his faith, the result, his unlawful murder.
-----
Iran follows Shi'a which advocates theocracy, most muslim nations follow the Sunni sect which advocates strong secular leadership and shies away from a mixed religion/state. The country with the largest number of muslims is Indonesia, are they all terrorists?
-----
3. acts and threats of terrorism against those who dared to criticise Islam, death threats against cartoonists who depicted caricatures of Islam and actual acts of murder of innocents in the July bombings in London, the Madrid train bombing, the attempted bombing of Glasgow airport, the attempted bombing in Stockholm, the murder of Theo Van Gough, etc etc
-----
Lets talk about the fundamentalists who like to kill doctors that perform abortions, or perhaps some of our other homegrown "christian" terrorists shall we??
13 Dec 10
5 edits
Originally posted by Doward[/i]The Koran and the Hadith are far more inclusive in regards to women than Judaism or Christianity, this is not opinion it is fact.
blasphemy laws, used against an innocent women, enshrined in the laws of an Islamic republic, that being Pakistan
------
The Koran and the Hadith are far more inclusive in regards to women than Judaism or Christianity, this is not opinion it is fact.
-----
2. That in a so called Islamic democracy, secular laws may be superseded t perform abortions, or perhaps some of our other homegrown "christian" terrorists shall we??
Bull, firstly its not even entirely sure which Hadiths are authentic nor accepted by all, secondly the Koran clearly gives permission for a man to beat his wife, or have you never read the following and lastly how you can equate strict segregation as being inclusive, God only knows.
Six translations of Quran 4:34:
1. "Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!" (Rodwell's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
2. "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme." (Dawood's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
3. "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great." (Pickthall's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
4. "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great." (Arberry's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
5. "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Shakir's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
6. "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (Ali's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
One cannot help but notice the contrast in the gospels,
(Ephesians 5:28-33) In this way husbands ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself, for no man ever hated his own flesh; but he feeds and cherishes it, as the Christ also does the congregation, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave [his] father and [his] mother and he will stick to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This sacred secret is great. Now I am speaking with respect to Christ and the congregation. Nevertheless, also, let each one of you individually so love his wife as he does himself; on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband.
yes you may speak of anyone who kills anyone else, for this action is also condemned in scripture, Christianity is one thing, Christians another and the teachings of Jesus quite another, perhaps this fact has escaped your notice, who can say?
17 Dec 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasWouldn't it be great if we could get all the worlds fundies all together, christians, muslims, hindu, whatever, every single one, and stick them all on one small island and let the fight it out and who ever wins, we inject with a dumb drug. (it makes them incapable of fighting anymore)
Totally agree. The religion is irrelevant.
I call them fundamentalists, what do you call them?
