Is "eis" a religion???

[Cecilie1200]

Whose land do you think it was before it became the current naton of Israel, dumbass? It was owned by THE BRITISH! And the Jews have lived there since earliest recorded history, even when conquered and ruled by other people. God, get over the anti-Semitism and crack a frigging book.

I read a book


the Jews' own book, actually


it wasn't their land until they raped and murdered all the native peoples (the Moabites, the Jusubites, the Hittites, the Ammonites...) and took the land

Get over the Zionist brainwashing and read some books your damned self

You didn't read the whole book. Read Genesis 1:1 and you will find out who was there first. And if G-d created it then is he not free to give it to whomsoever he chooses?

And no, the never raped the -ites. That is unique to Islam.

I seem to remember God being rather touchy on the subject of sexual congress between the Israelites and non-Israelites, as a matter of fact.

 

[amrchaos]

conquest is a legitimate means of acquiring land and nation-building

I'll send copies of your treatise to all the native americans, jews, and the victims of Japans imperialist expansion.

makes you a bigot and a hypocrite, either of which makes you beneath my notice.

http:

Actually, Cecilie is correct about how land is acquired.

If you have the means and ability, why not?

The thing I can not get over is how people tend to think that the Palestians are supoose to roll over and submit. The Palestians have to learn first that they can not take the land back before they can accept the new situation--Half the land you used to live own was taken to form Israel.

Such a process could last hundred of years. In fact, it is possible that the Palestians may win some land back by force.

 

[THE LIGHT]

You didn't read the whole book. Read Genesis 1:1 and you will find out who was there first

Two people with no nationality or term for their kind, who were members simply of Humanity?

Are you claiming that Eden = The Occupied West Bank?

No, I am saying the world is G-d's.

The book says differently. They even had rules about shaving their heads first and only raping virgins- women were slaughtered, as they only wanted the little girls.

reference?

 

[geauxtohell]

What's wrong with the concept of Coexist? Coexistence doesn't mean any of the parties have to change their beliefs or even particularly like each other, just accept their differences enough to live side by side without killing each other. Novel and idealistic concept, I know. But you have to start somewhere.

Thank God (no pun), some reason shows up on the thread.

Sometimes I can't help but think that, in another time and place, some posters on this board would be sitting on a bus with 15 sticks of dynamite taped to their torso and a detonator in their hands.

The irony in any religion acting like they are above violence.

Yeah, no where in history did Christianity ever perpetuate violence. Well, you have that little matter of the inquisition where the Vatican needed a new Gold roof and had to come up with excuses to persecute the Jews, but other than that, the crusades, slavery, and....

Oh well.

Frig it.

 

[Foxfyre]

What's wrong with the concept of Coexist? Coexistence doesn't mean any of the parties have to change their beliefs or even particularly like each other, just accept their differences enough to live side by side without killing each other. Novel and idealistic concept, I know. But you have to start somewhere.

Thank God (no pun), some reason shows up on the thread.

Sometimes I can't help but think that, in another time and place, some posters on this board would be sitting on a bus with 15 sticks of dynamite taped to their torso and a detonator in their hands.

The irony in any religion acting like they are above violence.

Yeah, no where in history did Christianity ever perpetuate violence. Well, you have that little matter of the inquisition where the Vatican needed a new Gold roof and had to come up with excuses to persecute the Jews, but other than that, the crusades, slavery, and....

Oh well.

Frig it.

But you see the Christians and Jews and Buddhists and most other great religions of the world have rejected the violence in their histories, and none have promoted violence or intolerance now for hundreds of years. Islam cannot say that.

Islam stands alone as either promoting or not condemning the holy war and enforcement of Islamic law as the law of the land and forcing all others to submit to Islam or be destroyed. What other major religion of the world today puts out contracts on people who presume to insult its central figure?

Like Goldcatt I can appreciate that we have to start somewhere. But given the history and methods behind it, I continue to be suspicious that COEXIST has a different agenda than religious harmony. I could be wrong. I have been wrong before. I will certainly be wrong again. And I hope I am wrong now.

 

[geauxtohell]

But you see the Christians and Jews and Buddhists and most other great religions of the world have rejected the violence in their histories, and none have promoted violence or intolerance now for hundreds of years.

Oh. Well that makes it all better. I am sure the Jews who were forced to live in Ghettos were so appreciative that the Vatican renounced their violence after they had filled their coffers with the money they stole.

Islam cannot say that.

How long did it take the Catholic Church (I don't have a problem with Catholics, it's just the most organized and powerful of the Christian religions and thus the best example) to apologize and renounce what it had done?

If you were a Muslim living in the Holy Land during the Crusades, you'd probably be wondering when the Catholic Church was going to renounce violence too.

Islam stands alone as either promoting or not condemning the holy war and enforcement of Islamic law as the law of the land and forcing all others to submit to Islam or be destroyed. What other major religion of the world today puts out contracts on people who presume to insult its central figure?

This is the problem with organized religion. Who truly speaks for Islam? Does Hezballah? You are citing specific events by groups within Islam. I could do the same for Christianity. Yet, we don't take the actions of those groups and say they apply to all Christians or are inherent to the Christian belief system.

 

[JBeukema]

The book says differently. They even had rules about shaving their heads first and only raping virgins- women were slaughtered, as they only wanted the little girls.

reference?

It's your book. You should know.

The virgins were to have their heads shaved and be allowed time to grieve before being raped and made into slave-wives. If you didn't like her, you could throw her aside, but you could not attempt to sell to another man the damaged goods.

 

[goldcatt]

What's wrong with the concept of Coexist? Coexistence doesn't mean any of the parties have to change their beliefs or even particularly like each other, just accept their differences enough to live side by side without killing each other. Novel and idealistic concept, I know. But you have to start somewhere.

Thank God (no pun), some reason shows up on the thread.

Sometimes I can't help but think that, in another time and place, some posters on this board would be sitting on a bus with 15 sticks of dynamite taped to their torso and a detonator in their hands.

The irony in any religion acting like they are above violence.

Yeah, no where in history did Christianity ever perpetuate violence. Well, you have that little matter of the inquisition where the Vatican needed a new Gold roof and had to come up with excuses to persecute the Jews, but other than that, the crusades, slavery, and....

Oh well.

Frig it.

But you see the Christians and Jews and Buddhists and most other great religions of the world have rejected the violence in their histories, and none have promoted violence or intolerance now for hundreds of years. Islam cannot say that.

Islam stands alone as either promoting or not condemning the holy war and enforcement of Islamic law as the law of the land and forcing all others to submit to Islam or be destroyed. What other major religion of the world today puts out contracts on people who presume to insult its central figure?

Like Goldcatt I can appreciate that we have to start somewhere. But given the history and methods behind it, I continue to be suspicious that COEXIST has a different agenda than religious harmony. I could be wrong. I have been wrong before. I will certainly be wrong again. And I hope I am wrong now.

Kind of hard to reject the violence in your own history when you (generic, not you specifically) can't even admit it, or understand how it contributes to the present day.

Blame the other guy for all the ills of mankind is a fashionable game these days, and nowhere more than what this board has become lately. But trying to raise awareness that there are some folks on all sides behaving badly and there is a history on all sides that contributes to that is hardly akin to some Jew or Christian hating conspiracy - it's just trying to look at reality as it is from a different angle than rah-rah cheerleading for one side or another.

Sure it's idealistic, it's probably a waste of time, but why the suspicions about somebody making the effort? Sometimes things are just what they appear to be and there really isn't a conspiracy around every corner.

The whole point is trying to get people to understand each other a little bit and to condemn the violence no matter who started it or engages in it. I fail to see the harm in that for anyone concerned.

 

[amrchaos]

Make sure that we understand this correctly, FoxFryre

Large organizations such as the Christians, et cetera et cetera, are not violent AT PRESENT.

We do not know about the future. Remember, the crusades and inquisitions had large periods of peace between them--including some spokes people arguing for the non-christians during those times!

Ii is possible that violence among Christians comes in a cyclic pattern. That is One century, they are killing non-believers in the name of God, the next century, they are arguing for the preservation of "God's creation".


By the way, Jews brag about kicking major butt after they left Egypt, and Buddhists train civilians and even some of their priests to fight--Buddhisms may prefer peace, but does not mean they appreciate getting pushed around!!

If you want to try a pacifist religion, look up the Jainist.

 

[Foxfyre]

Make sure that we understand this correctly, FoxFryre

Large organizations such as the Christians, et cetera et cetera, are not violent AT PRESENT.

We do not know about the future. Remember, the crusades and inquisitions had large periods of peace between them--including some spokes people arguing for the non-christians during those times!

Ii is possible that violence among Christians comes in a cyclic pattern. That is One century, they are killing non-believers in the name of God, the next century, they are arguing for the preservation of "God's creation".


By the way, Jews brag about kicking major butt after they left Egypt, and Buddhists train civilians and even some of their priests to fight--Buddhisms may prefer peace, but does not mean they appreciate getting pushed around!!

If you want to try a pacifist religion, look up the Jainist.

I am not speaking about pacifism. Many Christians, Jews, and Buddhists (most?) are not pacifists. But all have rejected violence except as necessary in self defense. And all choose to live in peace with peaceful people of other faiths and have been consistent in that policy for a very long time now. There is no reason to think that people of those faiths wil 'cycle' into some other conviction. There is no suggestion from leadership in any of those faiths that the policy should be changed. It is what it is.

Islam, by contrast, started out fairly tolerant of other beliefs and over the centuries has become increasingly militant and non tolerant. And though many individual Muslims do not agree with that, there is no indication from Islamic leadership that policies of intolerance and establishment of Islam as the controlling authority wherever possible will change anytime in our future.

 

[geauxtohell]

Thank God (no pun), some reason shows up on the thread.

Sometimes I can't help but think that, in another time and place, some posters on this board would be sitting on a bus with 15 sticks of dynamite taped to their torso and a detonator in their hands.

The irony in any religion acting like they are above violence.

Yeah, no where in history did Christianity ever perpetuate violence. Well, you have that little matter of the inquisition where the Vatican needed a new Gold roof and had to come up with excuses to persecute the Jews, but other than that, the crusades, slavery, and....

Oh well.

Frig it.

But you see the Christians and Jews and Buddhists and most other great religions of the world have rejected the violence in their histories, and none have promoted violence or intolerance now for hundreds of years. Islam cannot say that.

Islam stands alone as either promoting or not condemning the holy war and enforcement of Islamic law as the law of the land and forcing all others to submit to Islam or be destroyed. What other major religion of the world today puts out contracts on people who presume to insult its central figure?

Like Goldcatt I can appreciate that we have to start somewhere. But given the history and methods behind it, I continue to be suspicious that COEXIST has a different agenda than religious harmony. I could be wrong. I have been wrong before. I will certainly be wrong again. And I hope I am wrong now.

Kind of hard to reject the violence in your own history when you (generic, not you specifically) can't even admit it, or understand how it contributes to the present day.

Blame the other guy for all the ills of mankind is a fashionable game these days, and nowhere more than what this board has become lately. But trying to raise awareness that there are some folks on all sides behaving badly and there is a history on all sides that contributes to that is hardly akin to some Jew or Christian hating conspiracy - it's just trying to look at reality as it is from a different angle than rah-rah cheerleading for one side or another.

Sure it's idealistic, it's probably a waste of time, but why the suspicions about somebody making the effort? Sometimes things are just what they appear to be and there really isn't a conspiracy around every corner.

The whole point is trying to get people to understand each other a little bit and to condemn the violence no matter who started it or engages in it. I fail to see the harm in that for anyone concerned.

But don't you see?!? They rejected the violence in their pasts!

Just don't ask them to pay back all the money they stole.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISysmNCdbGo&feature=related]YouTube - Lenny Bruce - Religions Inc.[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

But don't you see?!? They rejected the violence in their pasts!

Just don't ask them to pay back all the money they stole.

Who do you propose they pay any money they stole to? Who is justified in receiving that compensation? And are Christians in turn due compensation from the corrupt popes and monarchs who confiscated or took money from them by force or upon pain of excommunication? Are they in turn due compensation from those who slaughtered them, confiscated their property, etc. etc. etc.? Who compensates the Jews who had their property, human rights, and lives confiscated over the centuries?

Whenever you get into the blame game or demands for reparations for sins of past civilizations, you really start getting into so many shadows and gray areas that it is impossible to sort it all out. For instance who is to blame for slavery? The slave owners? Or the governments who allowed it? Or the ship owners or captains who transported them? Or the slave traders who paid for them in their country of origin? Or their own countrymen who went into the jungles to capture them and sell them into slavery? And if we are to blame the descendants of those people for such past sins, are we not all guilty of everything any of our ancesters have every done that was not 100% ethical or honest? Who should be responsible for researching all that to see what each of us today might owe?

Hopefully you can see that it is a really silly question.

 

[THE LIGHT]

The book says differently. They even had rules about shaving their heads first and only raping virgins- women were slaughtered, as they only wanted the little girls.

reference?

It's your book. You should know.

The virgins were to have their heads shaved and be allowed time to grieve before being raped and made into slave-wives. If you didn't like her, you could throw her aside, but you could not attempt to sell to another man the damaged goods.

Yes, but you are the one making the claim... I am sure there is a scripture or two from which you are deriving your statement; but me thinks that you are taking it out of context... I am not to proud to admit that I do miss things and I could be wrong which is why I am asking for the reference. It shouldn't be too hard to just state the scripture so that we are both on the same page so to speak.

 

[THE LIGHT]

How long did it take the Catholic Church (I don't have a problem with Catholics, it's just the most organized and powerful of the Christian religions and thus the best example) to apologize and renounce what it had done?

And most often hijacked by freaks and nutjobs.

If you were a Muslim living in the Holy Land during the Crusades, you'd probably be wondering when the Catholic Church was going to renounce violence too.

And vica versa.

This is the problem with organized religion. Who truly speaks for Islam? Does Hezballah? You are citing specific events by groups within Islam. I could do the same for Christianity. Yet, we don't take the actions of those groups and say they apply to all Christians or are inherent to the Christian belief system.

Mohamed speaks for Islam. And Mohamed would be very proud of Hezballah if he were around today.

On the other hand, Jesus is the picture of Christianity.