Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Most Dangerous Individual To Ever Live
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 46 of 61 (93767)
03-21-2004 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Buzsaw
03-21-2004 10:42 PM


Buz, If you and Andya want to duke it out in a new thread, I have no problem with that. My problem was in bringing it into other threads you participate in.

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 03-21-2004 10:42 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 03-21-2004 11:20 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 61 (93770)
03-21-2004 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by AdminAsgara
03-21-2004 10:46 PM


Buz, If you and Andya want to duke it out in a new thread, I have no problem with that. My problem was in bringing it into other threads you participate in.
Asgara, this's one sided censorship on your part. Ever since I've been posting here in town people have made negative comments about Jesus and Christianity in many threads with impunity. Now you're trying to tell me I'm not allowed to post negative statements about Islam when the occasion arises in any given thread.
Here we have 9/11; we have thousands of our troops in Islamic nations fighting a war with Muslims; we are at war with militant Islamic fundamentalists; the daily news headlines pertain to Islam and I'm being restricted from saying negative things about Islam which I believe to be true. Is that unfair censorship on your part, or what?
Now the topic of this thread is about people we believe to be most dangerous. I've chosen two. Why am I not allowed now to give reasons why I believe these men are most dangerous and how can I effectively make my point without giving my reasons to make that point??
I don't have the time not the will to involve myself with a new thread. I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to make my point here where the point pertains to. Please clarify before I proceed. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-21-2004 10:46 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2004 1:19 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 48 of 61 (93787)
03-22-2004 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Buzsaw
03-21-2004 11:20 PM


While I agree that if you name Muhammed as a dangerous man and give points toward that end, it ought to fit within this thread.
I think the issue Asgara is getting at is your mentioning debates within other threads which were NOT concluded, and so shifting the debate from there to here. You could just as easily go back to the other thread and continue arguing there.
I don't even think that would diminish any point you make in this thread. You can just say who you think is dangerous and then point to that thread saying go there for the ongoing discussion.
quote:
Here we have 9/11; we have thousands of our troops in Islamic nations fighting a war with Muslims
Heheh. Buz, Iraq has Xians as well as muslims. Saddam's right hand man Tariq Aziz is Xian. Thus we fought a war with Xians too (if you are including Iraq). That was about despotism not fundamentalism.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 03-21-2004 11:20 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 03-22-2004 11:14 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 61 (93791)
03-22-2004 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Buzsaw
03-21-2004 10:42 PM


You missed my reply there?
quote:
There's quite a lot in the link I gave about fighting and not all in the defensive vein from both the Quran, and the Haddiths. Did you read them?
I think we should continue this at that thread. In case you're waiting, I already replied there re:your jihad article link, and here's what I got to say if you missed it the first time around:
http://EvC Forum: Fundamental Biblical Christianity and Fundamental Islam Fundamentally 180% Opposites -->EvC Forum: Fundamental Biblical Christianity and Fundamental Islam Fundamentally 180% Opposites
ANDYA SEZ:
I've just finished reading it. While I do not always agree with the author, I can agree with his point that Jihad, in terms of striving (violence included) is encouraged, against aggressors. Not on offensive. Anyone who promotes aggressive non-defensive jihad violates the Qur'an verse that stated that violence is only permitted against those who attack Muslims. And terrorist attacks to noncombatants, because they kill without reason, is in violation of the Qur'an verse that stated that killing is only lawful if for a cause, like criminal punishment or aggression against Muslims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 03-21-2004 10:42 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 03-22-2004 9:50 AM Andya Primanda has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 61 (93826)
03-22-2004 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Andya Primanda
03-22-2004 2:07 AM


Re: You missed my reply there?
I think we should continue this at that thread. In case you're waiting, I already replied there re:your jihad article link, and here's what I got to say if you missed it the first time around:
Yah, to keep the peace I guess it would be ok, but I need to make the point here that both Jesus and Mohammed prophesied eventual world dominance by their religions. The difference is how their followers were to achieve it. Jesus taught by word and example to evangelize without violence. Mohammed taught by word and example by violence and to FIGHT FOR THE CAUSE OF ALLAH. Did you count the number of times in the link that this phrase was used, most of them without reference to defensive action? This is what gave this man and his religion such a bloody history. I believe I needed to make this point in this thread in order to make my point. The shedding of blood percipitated by the doctrine of Jesus effected mostly the shedding of the blood of his own followers by those who rejected his clear instructions to love and do no violence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Andya Primanda, posted 03-22-2004 2:07 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Andya Primanda, posted 03-23-2004 2:06 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 51 of 61 (93840)
03-22-2004 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by joshua221
03-20-2004 6:06 PM


Jesus: Peace or a Sword?
quote:
MrHambre: As a 'follower of history,' what would you say if someone put Jesus and the Apostle Paul at the top of his list, due to the way that their words have been used to justify war, genocide, and slavery through the ages?
prophex: Manipulation is a dangerous thing, isn't it Mr. Hambre.
Not if you're the one doing the manipulating. Why is it always so obvious that if Jesus's words are the ones being used to justify atrocities, the fault lies with the people who misuse his philosophy? The same doesn't seem to apply to Darwin or Marx, who get the blame for the heinous acts perpetrated by those who claim their influence. The same people who quote me Darwin's petty 18th century prejudices never mention that Jesus said "I come not to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34). The Prince of Peace actually did say, "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one," (Luke 22:36), but it's Darwin that gets blamed for all the judgmental language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by joshua221, posted 03-20-2004 6:06 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by joshua221, posted 03-22-2004 5:48 PM MrHambre has replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 61 (93911)
03-22-2004 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by MrHambre
03-22-2004 11:07 AM


Re: Jesus: Peace or a Sword?
Did you bother to read the verses surrounding the verse? Or did you see it from an Anti-Christian web page or the like? (BTW, I am not at all suggesting that you do not own and/or read the Bible.)

The earth is flat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by MrHambre, posted 03-22-2004 11:07 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by MrHambre, posted 03-22-2004 5:56 PM joshua221 has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 53 of 61 (93914)
03-22-2004 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by joshua221
03-22-2004 5:48 PM


Re: Jesus: Peace or a Sword?
I'm not asserting that Jesus advocated war or violence. I don't have to place the quotes in their proper context. I'm only making the point that Jesus's words can be misinterpreted just as egregiously as the work of Darwin or Marx. Tell me why Jesus should be exempt from the blame that believers place on Darwin for the way his work has been bastardized by racists. Either that or admit that Darwin can't be blamed for what the Nazis did.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by joshua221, posted 03-22-2004 5:48 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by joshua221, posted 03-22-2004 6:25 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 55 by joshua221, posted 03-22-2004 6:27 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 61 (93934)
03-22-2004 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by MrHambre
03-22-2004 5:56 PM


Re: Jesus: Peace or a Sword?
Ok, I agree, now seeing your intention I understand. Yes Jesus is not exempt from misinterpretation, same goes for Darwin.
Also if I were to say He was exempt from the idiocies of misinterpretation, my only support would exist in my opinion of His being God. So support truely doesn't exist at all.

The earth is flat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by MrHambre, posted 03-22-2004 5:56 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 61 (93935)
03-22-2004 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by MrHambre
03-22-2004 5:56 PM


Re: Jesus: Peace or a Sword?
Also, Darwin cannot be blamed for the Nazis actions, if his words were construed in that manner it is not him to blame.

The earth is flat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by MrHambre, posted 03-22-2004 5:56 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 61 (94000)
03-22-2004 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Silent H
03-22-2004 1:19 AM


Iraq has Xians as well as muslims. Saddam's right hand man Tariq Aziz is Xian. Thus we fought a war with Xians too (if you are including Iraq). That was about despotism not fundamentalism.
No we fought no war with Christians in Iraq. That they were under an Islamic regime subject to Islamic rule does not mean we were fighting them. That's nonsense. Saddam likely need his closest man to be a Christian because he knew he could be fully trusted. (There, that oughta stir a rise!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2004 1:19 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 09-12-2004 11:27 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 61 (94025)
03-23-2004 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Buzsaw
03-22-2004 9:50 AM


Re: You missed my reply there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 03-22-2004 9:50 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Intelligitimate
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 61 (106500)
05-07-2004 11:15 PM


Nietzsche's Overman is not to be construed in evolutionary terms. It is an existentialist concept. Try actually reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Apostle.
Nazism has very little to do with Nietzsche and much more to do with capitalism and Christianity. Capitalism is the creator of racism, and Christianity is and always has been the basis of anti-Semitism for the past 2,000 years.

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Apostle, posted 09-12-2004 12:59 AM Intelligitimate has not replied

  
Apostle
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 61 (141705)
09-12-2004 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Intelligitimate
05-07-2004 11:15 PM


This is by no means a sure thing, and is certainly open for debate. Set aside the opinions presented as facts, and we can discuss this if you wish.
Apostle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Intelligitimate, posted 05-07-2004 11:15 PM Intelligitimate has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 60 of 61 (141734)
09-12-2004 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
03-22-2004 11:14 PM


quote:
No we fought no war with Christians in Iraq. That they were under an Islamic regime subject to Islamic rule does not mean we were fighting them.
Um, buz, Iraq was pretty much a secular military dictaorship, not a religious Islamic regime.
Saddam Hussein was a military dictator, not an Ayatollah or a cleric.
Now, the Taliban in Afghanistan, THAT was an fundamentalist Islamic regime.
Not a fundamentalist regime, but still a fairly barbaric and oppressive Islamic regime would be Saudi Arabia.
Bush was giving foreign aid to the Taliban right up to Sept 11, and he hosted members of the Taliban as honored guests in Texas when he was govorner. We all know how incredibly close the Bush family and the Saudi family are, too, them both being oil families.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-12-2004 10:28 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 03-22-2004 11:14 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024