Islam does not hate christianity

A few quick points...

quote:

---

But you prefer your self-righteousness to the righteousness of the God who made you so I leave you to your folly.

---

I often hear people say things like this as though I secretly believe in God and am purposely trying to defy Him. This is simply not the case. In my eyes, I'm not "preferring my own self-righteousness to the righteousness of the God who made me". I'm basing my view of morality entirely on my conscience - in other words, I don't consider the views a being that I don't believe to exist at all.I hesitate to say this (seeing your second quote, below), but think of it like this. Someone says to you that, under their belief system, Hitler was carrying out God's will through genocide. Would you not find it morally wrong anyway? If so, why? It was God's will, after all.Can you see, then, why you saying that your own God justified the slaughter does not justify it in my eyes?Furthermore, assuming that God does exist, creation of humankind does not make Him infallible - saying "the God who made you" does not lend him any more credit morally. If He does something clearly morally wrong to me and there is no better explanation than to say that it's right because He says that it is right, should his power override my own sense of justice? (I know, I'm being nitpicky, but the choice of words bothered me because it implied that God's righteousness was related to the power of creation.)

quote:

---

Anyone who would make such evil comparisons is frighteningly self-destructive.

---

You're either avoiding or missing the point. You said, "No, there are other evidences of God's love and goodness, tons of them, in the Bible and in our own lives." The point is that these are irrelevant - you can't prove that *everything* God does is good by pointing out examples of good things He does. Should we disregard an act that we see as inherently evil just because everything else someone does is good?In other words, evidences of goodness and love in a being don't prove that there are no evils or malices within it.{Edit: You know you should get some sleep when you type "disregard" as "discard".)This message has been edited by Morte, 02-24-2005 02:29 AM

But increasing the number of "somebody"s does not equal evidence. The slaughter mandated by God #1 is not any better than the slaughter mandated by God #2 just because more people claim that He mandated it or that He is a just God, or because more supported such a story later in time. Despite how many people claim (in court) that God told them to do something today, very rarely are they believed. Why is that? Because each one is only a single person? Is there credibility in numbers?I notice that you have quotations around the word "witness" in regards to Mohammed but not to the "witnesses" of biblical events. Do you think if any person claimed, today, that God had spoken to them or an acquaintance (to order, for example, the destruction of a people), he or she would be believed? If a great number of people made the same claim, would they be believed? If not, why not, and why is such a standard not extended to the biblical "witnesses"?Will respond to the rest of the post, but not here where it's off-topic. Posting a response in the 1 Samuel 15 and justice thread.

crashfrog: Faith: A citation on either side would be appreciated.And just because one points out an atrocity committed by Israelis doesn't mean they are looking for "anything to put Israel in the wrong" - just as your saying that all the Israeli military actions are against terrorists doesn't mean that you are looking for "anything to put Israel in the right". Unless, of course, you're saying that you would refuse to believe it if it could be demonstrated that an innocent civilian were a victim of Israel's military actions.

Thanks, was just about to do that myself when I read your previous post and then when I found it (had trouble due to not remembering her name) you had posted again. Was only really asking because it would seem quite a double standard to require citation of only one side. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt - some things are said for emphasis rather than to be taken literally. I try to pick my own word choice carefully to be sure that I don't imply something I don't mean to (especially online, where - as you'll often see here, most notably in the Rrhain/holmes chains - people tend to pick apart everything you say and occasionally even add a meaning that it was quite clear you weren't trying to express). However, I realize that not everyone does this and I slip up myself quite often anyway.Faith, now you have a reference to the killing of this girl. You said in Message 137... ...which certainly seems to imply that there's more to this story than what's presented in crashfrog's article. If you cannot present evidence of this and refuse to concede the point, it will only show that you are doing exactly what you accuse your opponents of - exhibiting blind support for one side in the conflict without regard to facts.And a reminder, this was neither an accident nor an isolated incident. See Message 132 and Message 133 for further examples.{Edit for minor clarification.}{Second edit for spelling, I'm a tad obsessive.}This message has been edited by Morte, 02-24-2005 21:51 AMThis message has been edited by Morte, 02-24-2005 21:53 AM

That's perfectly okay, take as much time as you need. So then who do you trust? If you don't believe that the articles Jazzns and others have been citing are from trustworthy sources, can you present evidence that the statements that they make are untrue (which I believe is the point you were trying to make, otherwise why even bring it up in the first place?)?This is something that I hear a lot - people claiming that they can't trust their opponents' sources as an excuse for counterevidence. Well, here's your chance to prove me wrong - whether or not such sources have bias is irrelevant, as long as they still report the facts unaltered; can you demonstrate that the events they describe are untrue?And if you don't deny that such events truly happened, how do you feel about the examples Jazzns presented in Message 166?

And on a quick aside...

quote:

---

As I understand it Buzsaw is Jewish, not Christian. There's one assumption you can send to the trash bin.

---

I don't think Andya was assuming - I'm pretty sure that buzsaw is a Christian, and has expressed so numerous times in previous threads. The quickest example I could find with a search is Message 53.