Religions of peace? A thread for sober discussion.

[Fungus]

This "MOOC" might be of interest to those of you reading this thread: https://www.futurelearn.com/courses...ium=crm&utm_campaign=10_02_2015_FL_newsletter

"Religion and Conflict. Understand and analyze the role of religion in conflicts and peacebuilding in present-day societies, with this free online course."

I've done several of the FutureLearn courses, and so far only "Football: More than a Game" has disappointed.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

I have just lost 4 minutes of my life.

Christopher Lee is great, but an operatic heavy metal song disguised as a history lesson doesn't really work for me.

It's a bit like the 'bulldog' of pop songs - so ugly it's great...

 

[looney]

There you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden

Read them and become less ignorant.
What do you mean by 'duelism' (sic)?

You're welcome.

Wow there we are dealing with your clumsy thinking and ignorance. You are presenting a side show as if its comparable to the islamic mai event, even if it is true. Has anyone evr taught you about making comparisons in context with relation to scope and scale?

If you would like help with this I can find time to educate you.

 

[Hillian1]

Wow there we are dealing with your clumsy thinking and ignorance. You are presenting a side show as if its comparable to the islamic mai event, even if it is true. Has anyone evr taught you about making comparisons in context with relation to scope and scale?

If you would like help with this I can find time to educate you.

I thought you'd given up on this thread.

Yet more bollocks from the Loonster.

 

[looney]

I doubt very much that they have. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this bizarre claim?

I was having a count up with a friend a few months ago and we came to a double figure conclusion, Of the top of my head Israel/Palastine , Uganda, East Timore, another Indonesiana Island, Bosnia/balkans, Southern Sudan, India/Partition, southern Cyprus/partition. Well thats about 8ish, I may remember more but cant be naffed, you should be familiar with most of them unlless youve been living underground.

 

[looney]

I thought you'd given up on this thread.

Yet more bollocks from the Loonster.

Ah its the iddiot that thinks the KKK is a religious organisation, how many churches do they have?

 

[Hillian1]

Ah its the iddiot that thinks the KKK is a religious organisation, how many churches do they have?

Show me one, just one post where I've said that idiot.

 

[looney]

Show me one, just one post where I've said that idiot.

Well I thought it was you, I may be mistaken. Btw you sign at the bottom of the post like this,

I...t

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

Wow there we are dealing with your clumsy thinking and ignorance. You are presenting a side show as if its comparable to the islamic mai event, even if it is true. Has anyone evr taught you about making comparisons in context with relation to scope and scale?

If you would like help with this I can find time to educate you.

I guess i hit a nerve somewhere with you.
Read my post again, i think you're reading between the lines and presuming things about me and what i have said. It was you that made comparisons not me.

Anyhow i hope you read the link and educated yourself a little, 30 years of war is not a one off occurrence, as you said. If you would care to say what you meant by 'duelism' (sic) in your original post, maybe i can educate you about that too?

It's quite telling that even when you have been shown evidence you dismiss it, perhaps you should consider whether you know about a subject before you make yourself look like a chump?

It does seem from your arguments like you're trying to paint Islam as a religion of war and Christianity as a religion of peace.
If this is the case, then perhaps you could do some more thorough research before your next post? I do realise (from your inability to find a 30 year war on the internet - when given the names of both sides and one of the most famous kings in history) that you are useless at research, so maybe ask one of your family that can use google to do it for you?

 

[cunning fergus]

Quite, on another forum I post on some muppet claimed his grandfather died in WW2 so these people could have freedom of speech.

Really? WW2 was about ALLOWING German Nazis to march in the streets in Britain?

Living in Cyprus, (as it appears) that is some attitude you have concerning the reasons why people fought the Germans and what their legacy means............you should go and tell the Greeks.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...bt-transgressor-of-20th-century-a-769703.html

 

[looney]

I see you are trying to change or dodge the point I was making here

I guess i hit a nerve somewhere with you.
Read my post again, i think you're reading between the lines and presuming things about me and what i have said. It was you that made comparisons not me.

and here...........

It's quite telling that even when you have been shown evidence you dismiss it, perhaps you should consider whether you know about a subject before you make yourself look like a chump?

and here.......

Anyhow i hope you read the link and educated yourself a little, 30 years of war is not a one off occurrence, as you said. If you would care to say what you meant by 'duelism' (sic) in your original post, maybe i can educate you about that too?

But wait.........

It does seem from your arguments like you're trying to paint Islam as a religion of war and Christianity as a religion of peace.
If this is the case, then perhaps you could do some more thorough research before your next post? I do realise (from your inability to find a 30 year war on the internet - when given the names of both sides and one of the most famous kings in history) that you are useless at research, so maybe ask one of your family that can use google to do it for you?

Yes thats it! Well done! What I am saying is one local war, 30 years? wow, is not a valid comparison with an ongoing religous dictat that involves "holy war" over most of 1400 years. You claim to be educated? i doubt that. Would you like to do a comparison between the 2 religions? It may help educate you about scale and scope issues that I was on about earlier.

It cant be nice being made to look a fool regularly. Oh and........

I guess i hit a nerve somewhere with you......

.......educated yourself a little,

It's quite telling that even when you have been shown evidence you dismiss it, perhaps you should consider whether you know about a subject before you make yourself look like a chump?

I thought I told you you are not smart enough to put words in my mouth or project? Try not to do it in future as I will point it out and ask things like, "have i hit a nerve?" ad make you look a bit foolish.

 

[Hillian1]

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

It cant be nice being made to look a fool regularly.

Well then stop posting.

Please go and reread my post and show me where i've compared the 2 big monotheistic.

So yes, i am trying to dodge the point you are making, because you've aimed it incorrectly at me. Good grief man, get a grip.
What a prize chump.

 

[Soulman]

I'm guessing that we are getting into a dialog which has been part of Islam since nearly the first years of Mohammad, that is who is a Muslim and who is not a Muslim. It is my understanding that there are some 30 sects and sub-sects of Islam and that between them they do not all agree who is and who is not a Muslim. While all follow the Qur'an, and such following of the Qur'an is considered a literal use of what is written within it, there is apparently within the Qur'an a set of duel philosophies which (within the West) appear to be at logger heads. No where is this more apparent than with the process of converting non-Muslims to becoming Muslims. It is written that within the initial years of Mohammad in Mecca as to converting others to become Muslims, he apparently used the peaceful approach of conversion. This resulted in relatively few converts. He then left Mecca and traveled to Medina. Here he changed the conversion process to being one of the sword. When he returned to Mecca the numbers of his followers were very large. The debate as to which is the best method of conversion is not the point here, but rather that both are in the Qur'an and being in the Qur'an both are consider as true and the process to follow. This is accepted as a valid way of viewing the world in the philosophy of Islam, that is, the two beliefs that are opposed to each other, that are both in the Qur'an are true, at the same time. To a person in the West this makes no sense. Now add to this the reality of the many Islamic sects and it appears that in Islam opposing beliefs are true and this results in one set of Muslims saying (with absolute belief) that it is a peaceful religion, while another set of Muslims saying (with absolute belief) that it is a religion of the sword and yet other Muslims saying both saying that both are valid. In truth, in the Islamic world both are considered correct. This is not comparable with dialog of differences between the Christian Bible and the differences between the New and Old Testaments. These are seen as significant differences between the world Abraham and the World of Christians and the new religious foundations post the period of Jesus. Here there is a significant difference. The thing to keep in mind is that all in the Qur'an is true and correct now to all Muslims.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I'm guessing that we are getting into a dialog which has been part of Islam since nearly the first years of Mohammad, that is who is a Muslim and who is not a Muslim. It is my understanding that there are some 30 sects and sub-sects of Islam and that between them they do not all agree who is and who is not a Muslim. While all follow the Qur'an, and such following of the Qur'an is considered a literal use of what is written within it, there is apparently within the Qur'an a set of duel philosophies which (within the West) appear to be at logger heads. No where is this more apparent than with the process of converting non-Muslims to becoming Muslims. It is written that within the initial years of Mohammad in Mecca as to converting others to become Muslims, he apparently used the peaceful approach of conversion. This resulted in relatively few converts. He then left Mecca and traveled to Medina. Here he changed the conversion process to being one of the sword. When he returned to Mecca the numbers of his followers were very large. The debate as to which is the best method of conversion is not the point here, but rather that both are in the Qur'an and being in the Qur'an both are consider as true and the process to follow. This is accepted as a valid way of viewing the world in the philosophy of Islam, that is, the two beliefs that are opposed to each other, that are both in the Qur'an are true, at the same time. To a person in the West this makes no sense. Now add to this the reality of the many Islamic sects and it appears that in Islam opposing beliefs are true and this results in one set of Muslims saying (with absolute belief) that it is a peaceful religion, while another set of Muslims saying (with absolute belief) that it is a religion of the sword and yet other Muslims saying both saying that both are valid. In truth, in the Islamic world both are considered correct. This is not comparable with dialog of differences between the Christian Bible and the differences between the New and Old Testaments. These are seen as significant differences between the world Abraham and the World of Christians and the new religious foundations post the period of Jesus. Here there is a significant difference. The thing to keep in mind is that all in the Qur'an is true and correct now to all Muslims.

It doesn't appear that there is much room for grey areas in the Koran if that is correct. The bible says things like 'weigh scripture with scripture' in order that some due process like taking culture, circumstance etc into account can take place. It strikes me as a little anomalous that for Muslims both scriptures are true at the same time in regard to their struggle to perceive the Christian trinity.

 

[cjd]

Good question, I'll let you know his response Wednesday!

Well ?

 

[looney]

Well then stop posting.

Please go and reread my post and show me where i've compared the 2 big monotheistic.

So yes, i am trying to dodge the point you are making, because you've aimed it incorrectly at me. Good grief man, get a grip.
What a prize chump.

Nice try blowhard, but "Go and do some donkey work, re-read my post and admit you are wrong" is both a lazy and stupid way to hold a debate/Discussion.

If you claim I am wrong then prove it, its probably another one of your dodges.

 

[Hillian1]

Nice try blowhard, but "Go and do some donkey work, re-read my post and admit you are wrong" is both a lazy and stupid way to hold a debate/Discussion.

If you claim I am wrong then prove it, its probably another one of your dodges.

To be fair, you're so thick you've probably got the wrong person again.

 

[looney]

To be fair, you're so thick you've probably got the wrong person again.

You haven't spotted yet that I am mimmicking your posting style? Maybe its because your......nevermind.

 

[Hillian1]

You haven't spotted yet that I am mimmicking your posting style? Maybe its because your......nevermind.

Shit, I really never noticed I couldn't spell.

Fair play Loonster.

Now what is it they say about mimicking?