nasserae

tallest skil said:

nasserae said:

I am just going to leave this here:

So you have absolutely no argument, reply, or rebuttal, then. Why not just not reply and save people the insanely long quote?

You are trying too hard and you think I really care what you think. I really don't. You clearly had no intention of finding facts. All you are doing is trying to find one sided information to support your opinion about this subject. I told you this before and I will tell you this again. If you are serious about finding answers to these questions you should go to your local mosque. They will be happy to sit with you and answer your questions all day long. But I know you won't because you are not interested in facts.

The video is a perfect example of the most common slander/libel of Christianity, borne of malice and willful desire to misrepresent the contents of the book. It's not a matter of innocent misunderstanding–not this much incorrectness. This is an organized attack.

I also love how they randomly cut together verses, too. If you want to make your own religion, go make your own religion, but don't call it Christianity. If you want to be a Christian, you leave the book as it is. The book even says that.

You are guilty of the same thing when it comes to Islam and The Quran. Beside, that first video clearly shows a Christian Pastor calling for the killing of American citizens the Bible way. It is not cut together verses and it was apparently endorsed by three GOP presidential candidates. 

Oh… three lines? Is that it? Did they really just take three lines from the Bible and then spend the rest of the video getting people's reactions? I shouldn't be surprised, though. The standard behavior these days when reporting on any given world event is to get interviews from people who have absolutely no comprehension of what the event actually was, or who weren't even there. How the event made them feel is now more important than the who, what, when, where, and why–you know, the actual CONTENTS thereof.

Again you are guilty of the same thing. There are more than 6,200 verses in the Quran and you decided to take handful out of context and decided that this represent the whole religion and followers. When you are shown the same verses in the Bible you declared it is "organized attack" & "randomly cut together verses". This is the definition of hypocrisy.

tallest skil said:

massconn72 said:

Can you imagine how many people around the world would be without a job if that idiot Trump had his way?

No, because that’s a ludicrously irrelevant statement.

How many times has he declared bankruptcy?

Learn what bankruptcy is, please.

 sdw2001 said:
Iraq and refugees:  Yes, if we hadn't invaded, those refugees may never have needed to flee.  Of course, if the British hadn't divided up the area a hundred years ago, maybe neither Iraq war would been necessary.

You missed one. If decolonization had never happened, the middle east would be a far more stable place.

Soli said:

…all people from a religion as terrorists…

What can be said against this, Soli, when every interpretation of said religion–both written and performed–fits the legal definition of terrorism?

…insane radicals that claim they are Christian, yet you aren’t calling for all no Christians…

There is an easy response to this. Simply ask whether the prophet Muhammad was a Muslim and whether he led an exemplary life. As he spent most of his as a roving warlord, if his life was a good example, then IS is living the example much more than any westernized kebab. If this doesn’t work, ask whether the person with whom you are conversing agrees that beliefs affect behavior. For example, one if one believes that homosexuality, apostasy, and blasphemy are crimes that should be punished by death, do you think that makes the person holding that view more or less likely to commit violence against a blasphemer or homosexual?

Ask what counts as Islam and “Islamic”. If the words spoken by Muhammad and the life he lead don’t count as Islamic, call bullshit. Do the things Jesus said count as Christianity? Of course.

Give a counter example. If a Quaker or Buddhist or Hare Krishna goes on a killing spree and says he is doing it in the name of Krishna, are there any parts of the Bhagavad Gita that support him? Did the Buddha ever encourage murder? No. So you could very easily say that the attack was un-Buddhist or un-Krishna.

Give examples of systemic Islamic violence. Saudi Arabia has public stoning as a (rare, but) legal form of execution. Homosexuals, adulteresses, blasphemers, and apostates are regularly executed. Is that un-Islamic? Seriously, is Saudi Arabia un-Islamic? That would be like suggesting that Vatican City isn’t Catholic.

This all boils down to people thinking that religious beliefs are all the same, which is utter bullshit. Some religious teach peace and have long histories thereof (Buddhism, Jainism, Hare Krishna-ism, Quakerism, etc.); others teach violence and have histories of violence–Islam being the chief proponent.

…the most statistically probable danger facing the average US citizen in terms of religious extremism.

…xenocidal tyrants…

Except that’s Islam, and has always been.

Soli said:

They don't represent Islam. It's about time you came around.

Oh come on, Soli. You know better. You have to know better. This post was already pretty long, so if you want straight up Quranic proof on this, let me know.

Soli said:

Do you know what happens when we start to blame and entire religion of people on a select few individuals? 

People start reading up on what the religion actually says, discovering that they’re justified?

I am just going to leave this here:

http://www.advocate.com/media/2015/11/09/watch-rachel-maddow-breaks-down-pastors-kill-gays-rally-attended-gop-candidates

SpamSandwich said:

mwhite said:

Trump is the best thing America has going for it!!!!!!

It should noted here that Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the US during the Iranian hostage crisis in the 70s. Trump's suggestion is not without precedent, nor is it unconstitutional since his comment would apply to non-citizens.

It was clear he meant ALL Muslims (including Americans). So I guess as long as there is precedent it is okay to do it, right? So we can assume you are fine with internment camps for muslims.. We have precedent during WWII with the Internment of Japanese Americans so why not!