Muslims outpace Anglicans in the UK

[kronas]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

All in the name of religion

if i feel better later on, im going to show my religious freinds those quotes, i bet he wont believe it

but if i was to come out in to the public domain and say i dont believe this etc etc

two things would happen

A) i would get sat down by people and get 'taught' islam by them.

B) the idiots would come around to my house

BTW the option B was threatened once and you should have seen the aggression i dished out i got up pointed at the guy in an angry face and said to him "DONT YOU DARE DO THAT I CONTROL WHO COMES IN TO MY HOUSE"

scared him off

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

All in the name of religion

Of course, what often happens next is that some religious smoothy comes in and starts saying things like, "oh it doesn't really mean that literaly and transposed into a modern context it really means...blah blah b/s blah". You know, like what some bible bashers here do.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Flubflow

Of course, what often happens next is that some religious smoothy comes in and starts saying things like, "oh it doesn't really mean that literaly and transposed into a modern context it really means...blah blah b/s blah". You know, like what some bible bashers here do.

Are you referring to me?

Originally Posted by basa

Terrorism is a logical outcome of putting the Qur'an into practice.

Pardon me, but *rubbish*!

There is *no* logical connection between the two unless you start with some *extremely* flawed premises.

The Qur'an promotes permanent struggle against non-Muslims - or at
least until non-Muslims are converted to Islam, subjected to Islamic
authority, or killed. Below is a listing of relevant verses in the
Qur'an.

Have you ever listened to a fundamentalist right wing evangelist *Christian* preacher? Promising hellfire and brimstone for all those who aren't saved? Saying that anyone who hasn't accepted Jesus as their saviour is damned for all eternity?

As with all holy books (except for *very* short ones!) they can be made to "prove" anything the reader wants.

A woman who is raped cannot accuse her rapist unless
she can produce a male witness. Muhammad allowed the Muslims to marry
up to four women and gave them permission to sleep with their slave
maids and as many captive women as they may have (Q. 4:3).

Sorry, where in the Koran does it say that "A woman who is raped cannot accuse her rapist unless she can produce a male witness" or are you conflating the Koran with Sharia law?

He himself did just that. This is why anytime a Muslim army subdues
another nation, they call them kafir and allow themselves to rape
their women.

And, of course, similar atrocities have *NEVER* been committed by *ANY* other armies of *ANY* other countries...

It's very easy to "prove" how "barbaric" a certain group is if you pick and choose your "evidence"...

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

Have you ever listened to a fundamentalist right wing evangelist *Christian* preacher? Promising hellfire and brimstone for all those who aren't saved? Saying that anyone who hasn't accepted Jesus as their saviour is damned for all eternity?

So what's wrong with that?

[basa]

Originally Posted by Graham

Pardon me, but *rubbish*!

There is *no* logical connection between the two unless you start with some *extremely* flawed premises.



Have you ever listened to a fundamentalist right wing evangelist *Christian* preacher? Promising hellfire and brimstone for all those who aren't saved? Saying that anyone who hasn't accepted Jesus as their saviour is damned for all eternity?

As with all holy books (except for *very* short ones!) they can be made to "prove" anything the reader wants.



Sorry, where in the Koran does it say that "A woman who is raped cannot accuse her rapist unless she can produce a male witness" or are you conflating the Koran with Sharia law?



And, of course, similar atrocities have *NEVER* been committed by *ANY* other armies of *ANY* other countries...

It's very easy to "prove" how "barbaric" a certain group is if you pick and choose your "evidence"...

You are of course correct that many if not most religions, even christian ones promote a 'struggle' against the non believers or infidels, (erm but aren't all religions just a different form of worship of a deity called god or allah or whatever nonsense).

The big difference is, it is evident Islam is on the increase and is far more vigorously promoted today than christianity and further that 'struggle' is, by all the evidence, far more insidious and often violent.

Islam IMO does appear to promote itself, via the many vociferous fundamentalists, much more aggressively amongst not only its 'followers' (to ensure continued compliance) but even more so against the 'non believers' i.e. the west.

Of course it is easy to choose the 'evidence' to prove the barbarity, but it appears to me it is the many fundamentalists that choose these paths of 'struggle against the infidels', I merely point out the documented reasons they use.

Originally Posted by Russ D

So what's wrong with that?

I didn't say there was anything *wrong* with that (although I have my own opinions on what they're saying).

My point is that if someone's going to criticise *one* religion for behaving in a certain way, if they wish to be seen as having an unbiased viewpoint they should point out that it's not just that *one* religion that behaves that way.

Originally Posted by basa

The big difference is, it is evident Islam is on the increase and is far more vigorously promoted today than christianity and further that 'struggle' is, by all the evidence, far more insidious and often violent.

"By all the evidence"? Or only by all the "evidence" that you've heard, or perhaps only by all the evidence you're willing to *listen* to?

And "insidious"? Why does that sound like "the insidious international communist conspiracy"?

And finally, yes, there are violent Muslims. There are also violent Christians.

Of course it is easy to choose the 'evidence' to prove the barbarity, but it appears to me it is the many fundamentalists that choose these paths of 'struggle against the infidels', I merely point out the documented reasons they use.

And there are also many Muslims who, because they preach moderation, don't get *heard* in the Western press because their views don't provide rabble-rousing headlines about the "threat" of Islam...

[basa]

Originally Posted by Graham

"By all the evidence"? Or only by all the "evidence" that you've heard, or perhaps only by all the evidence you're willing to *listen* to?

The evidence I refer to is there written in the quran, that together with what I see in the media regarding the activities of al'queda (and the taliban before them), various bombings worldwide and...oh yes, 9/11.

Originally Posted by Graham

And "insidious"? Why does that sound like "the insidious international communist conspiracy" ?

Who mentioned communism ? By insidious I meant that some of the less savoury aspects of Islam (such as suppression of women) are less well known and rarely mentioned although they are an intrinsic part of the way Islam is used to subjugate its followers.

Originally Posted by Graham

And finally, yes, there are violent Muslims. There are also violent Christians.

Can't disagree, and I don't condone violence carried out in the name of chritianity either.

Originally Posted by Graham

And there are also many Muslims who, because they preach moderation, don't get *heard* in the Western press because their views don't provide rabble-rousing headlines about the "threat" of Islam...

Maybe they should shout as loud as the fundamentalists. Maybe they are scared they will be 'downsized' !

I wonder why those who promote voilent struggle in the name of religion are referred to as 'fundamentalists' ?? i.e. maintaining traditional beliefs ?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

Have you ever listened to a fundamentalist right wing evangelist *Christian* preacher? Promising hellfire and brimstone for all those who aren't saved? Saying that anyone who hasn't accepted Jesus as their saviour is damned for all eternity?

That doesn't have any relevance here because the christian promises hellfire in the next life whilst the muslim (if the quotes on this thread are to be accepted) promises to do nasty things to non-believers in this life.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

I didn't say there was anything *wrong* with that (although I have my own opinions on what they're saying).

My point is that if someone's going to criticise *one* religion for behaving in a certain way, if they wish to be seen as having an unbiased viewpoint they should point out that it's not just that *one* religion that behaves that way.

Fair point.

And finally, yes, there are violent Muslims. There are also violent Christians.

I disagree. There are no violent Christians. If a man (or woman) uses violence and professes to be a Christian, IMO that is not possible. What you do have is people who use violence in the name of Christianity, which is entirely different.

True Christians don't go around smacking people about, attacking people, or flying planes in to buildings.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by Russ D

I disagree. There are no violent Christians. If a man (or woman) uses violence and professes to be a Christian, IMO that is not possible. What you do have is people who use violence in the name of Christianity, which is entirely different.

no russ in every race religion around the world, there are violent people in it to say christianity has none is absolutely ignorant.

Originally Posted by Russ D

True Christians don't go around smacking people about, attacking people

how do you know that ? you cant account for every christian ?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by kronas

no russ in every race religion around the world, there are violent people in it to say christianity has none is absolutely ignorant.

No, true Christian teaching does not advocate the use of violence. Violence in the name of Christianity is not that is taught in the Bible. I did not say Christianity has none of these people buy they are not true Christians IMO.

Originally Posted by kronas

how do you know that ? you cant account for every christian ?

As above. Being a Christian isn't just name, it's a way of life, a whole belief system, a lifestyle.

Originally Posted by basa

The evidence I refer to is there written in the quran, that together with what I see in the media regarding the activities of al'queda (and the taliban before them), various bombings worldwide and...oh yes, 9/11.

And there are quotes from the bible which can be used to justify almost anything. And the media are generally *not* what I would call "unbiased". And there are people committing acts of terrorism that aren't Muslims. Oh, and most Muslims disown the September 11th terrorists as not being Muslims as far as *they* are concerned.

If you pick and choose the "evidence" you accept you can prove anything you want. (Or someone else will do it for you cf Hutton, oops, sorry )

Who mentioned communism ?

Communism, Islam, Catholicism, unions, Jews, it matters not what the name is, there is always *something* that someone will claim to be an "insidious threat" to our way of life or world peace or democracy...

There's always a "bogeyman" out there that can be exploited by those who seek or hold power to scare the "ordinary people".

By insidious I meant that some of the less savoury aspects of Islam (such as suppression of women) are less well known and rarely mentioned although they are an intrinsic part of the way Islam is used to subjugate its followers.

And once again we see the "big brush" technique used to tar *all* of Islam with the "less savoury" actions of a *minority*.

Maybe they should shout as loud as the fundamentalists. Maybe they are scared they will be 'downsized' !

Maybe the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope should also "shout as loud" as them...

Originally Posted by Ramrod

That doesn't have any relevance here because the christian promises hellfire in the next life whilst the muslim (if the quotes on this thread are to be accepted) promises to do nasty things to non-believers in this life.

An interesting caveat there "IF the quotes on this thread are to be accepted" (my emphasis).

I don't accept them as being representative of *all* Islam.