The Islam Thread

[glockmail]

I'm..... The source of something is always more important than what the source says, and there is NO source that either one of you would EVER consider valid unless it's from a source that you already agree with. You rely on blogs, use other peoples opinions to back up your own, and let's not even get into the Wikipedia argument again.......

Go Buffy!!

 

[nt250]

Go Buffy!!

The greatest TV show there ever was and ever will be.

 

[nt250]

You and I have a disagreement with regards to the interpretation of history.

The fact is that the wars collectively and popularly known as "The Crusades" the Muslims took over the middle east, including Jerusalem, then invaded parts of Europe. The purpose of this invasion is cited in the Koran; to summarize: ‘spread Islam throughout the world, and kill all those who resist’. The European Christians to fight back, driving the invaders south, on to Jerusalem and then east. Those are the facts, and they are undeniable.

My interpretation is that the Christians drove the Muslims as far back as they could, in order to protect Europe, as well as the Holy Land of Jerusalem. If the Muslims had stopped at Jerusalem, The Europeans may or may not have become involved. Did some individual soldiers, or even commanders, attempt forced conversions of Muslims to avoid killing them? Common sense alone tells me yes. Was this the reason the Europeans fought? History and common sense also tells me that it was not.

Your interpretation appears to be that the reason that the Europeans fought in “The Crusades” was to spread Christianity to Muslim lands; to summarize: ‘spread Christianity throughout the world, and kill all those who resist’. And this, historically as well as intuitively, is incorrect.

Now you ask me to "act like Ann Coulter" and accept your interpretation. I assure you, that both Ann and I would be happy to meet with you AND KICK YOUR ASS rather than change our opinions.:2guns:

The Crusades is just a no-brainer. Using that as a sign of Christian aggression is one of the stupidest arguments liberals resort to. If it weren't for The Crusades we'd all be wearing burkas.

The Spanish Inquistion is another lame argument. That was what? 500 years ago? Oh, yeah, lets excuse what Sunni and Shiite Muslim do to each other today by comparing it to what Christians did to each other 500 years ago in Spain.

And by the way. Anybody who thinks the bombings in Spain was about the war in Iraq has no clue how long a Muslims memory is. Spain was targeted because they drove out the Muslims in 1492.

http://www.freeglossary.com/Al-Andalus

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend Jillian when she is perfectly capable of doing it herself.

Well, you joined the board after us, but we joined at the same time. We are friends in real life. She knows I can speak for her any time, and vice versa. If you have a problem with that, tough.

You and Jillian are classic examples of liberal posters on message boards. You can't get any more classic than you two. The source of something is always more important than what the source says, and there is NO source that either one of you would EVER consider valid unless it's from a source that you already agree with. You rely on blogs, use other peoples opinions to back up your own, and let's not even get into the Wikipedia argument again.

For a start, I'm not a liberal. No matter many times you say it, it doesn't make it so. The source is important to me and it should be to you. A lot of sources are biased and openly show their bias. I do listen to some sources and do believe. But the one thing that really cracks me up big time is you saying I use blogs. I NEVER use blogs. In fact the only person I can think of on these boards that uses blogs a lot, is a conservative poster. Jillian rarely uses them as far as I can recall. So you are DEAD WRONG on that score. Nothign wrong with wiki, and if you can prove any assertions in them wrong, be my guest. They demand sources and if those sources are not forthcoming they note "citation needed". Is it perfect? Of course not. But it doesn't have any political affiliation that I know of, and it's usually a good starting point. Also i rarely use others' opinions.

You come to each others defense, and you resort to insults and name calling at the slighest provocation but you don't see it that way because to you if it's true, it can't possibly be considered an insult. You both think telling someone they're stupid is an insult when it's directed at you, but you have no qualms about calling anybody else stupid as long as you don't actually come right out and say the word "stupid".

You are so full of shit NT it beggars belief. I have never insulted somebody in teh first instance - unless you call homophobe and bigot an insult and I don't consider describing somebody's behaviour as an insult. Cussing them out is an insult. If somebody says they hate Jews and I call them an anti-semite, am I insulting them or am I using a word in the dictionary that describes their behaviour. Don't get me wrong, I'll give as good as I get re insults, but I rarely, if ever, start them.

For example: it is extemely insulting for a grown woman to be called 'Dearie". Now, do you think Jillian knew how insulting that was when she called me 'Dearie" in one of her posts? Maybe not. I think Jillian is a lot younger than I am, so maybe she didn't know how insulted I would be by that. But now that she knows how insutling it is, do you think she'll stop using it? I hope so, but I wouldn't count on it.

Do you know how insulting it is to call religious people stupid? Or to question Jillian's bona fides because of her opinions on subjects? (BTW, she is younger than you...just)...You rub people up the wrong way because of your in-the-fact type posting, then get all het up when people throw it back at you. You make no apologies for your stances and style of posting, yet here you are taking issues with the way others do.

I call people stupid, but it's based on what they post. I happen to think all religious people are stupid. If you post something religous, you're stupid.

But that's not insulting, right? And that gets a free pass in NT world?

A lot of people think I'm stupid because I'm a huge Buffy The Vampire Slayer fan. You can call me stupid for that all you want, but it won't bother me because I know that anybody who thinks my obsession with all things Buffy is is stupid is just clueless so I don't let their opinion matter.

I don't think you're stupid in any way. You just come across as pissed off all the time...

 

[jillian]

By todays' definition?

Absolutely. There are about 2000 verses in the New Testament about taking care of the poor and, amazingly enough, not one on gay marriage.

 

[theHawk]

For example: it is extemely insulting for a grown woman to be called 'Dearie". Now, do you think Jillian knew how insulting that was when she called me 'Dearie" in one of her posts? Maybe not. I think Jillian is a lot younger than I am, so maybe she didn't know how insulted I would be by that. But now that she knows how insutling it is, do you think she'll stop using it? I hope so, but I wouldn't count on it.

Heh, thats very true about Jillian.

Like the time she got upset at me for calling her "Jilly"....

If you want an answer from me, my name is Jill or Jillian. We are neither friends nor family, dearie. I don't answer disrespectful children.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=468558&highlight=Jilly#post468558

....even though she'd been called Jilly many times already by others: http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=414353&highlight=Jilly#post414353

I guess I'm not a "friend of family" then!

 

[glockmail]

Absolutely. There are about 2000 verses in the New Testament about taking care of the poor and, amazingly enough, not one on gay marriage.

So you think that Jesus supports gay marriage?

Nice attempt to divert the thread to your liberal agenda, yet again, but the moral relativism practiced by liberals, their unwavering support of abortion and homosexuality, and their refusal to accept personal responsibility guarantees that Jesus IS NOT be a liberal.

 

[jillian]

So you think that Jesus supports gay marriage?

Nice attempt to divert the thread to your liberal agenda, yet again, but the moral relativism practiced by liberals, their unwavering support of abortion and homosexuality, and their refusal to accept personal responsibility guarantees that Jesus IS NOT be a liberal.

You asked if I thought Jesus would be considered a liberal by today's standards. I answered you. Hardly diverting, though you do seem to see any deviation from your narrow world view as diversion.

I wouldn't know what you're talking about by refusal to accept personal responsibility. I've been responsible for myself since I graduated law school and support programs which foster self-reliance as opposed to hand-outs. (You know...the old give a man to fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for his life thing).

So, once again, you attempt to play mind-reader. And once again, you fall short.

You need to not impose your stereotypes on people. You might find yourself surprised by what you learn.

Oh... and do I think Jesus would have been pro-gay marriage? I couldn't say. What I do believe is that he'd have defended any group from being oppressed by any other.

 

[glockmail]

Jesus was a liberal.

The very fact that you refer to Him in the past tense proves that fact that He IS not a liberal by contemporary definition.:teeth:

 

[jillian]

The very fact that you refer to Him in the past tense proves that fact that He IS not a liberal by contemporary definition.:teeth:

How so? I'm not Christian. How else would I refer to him?

 

[glockmail]

....

Oh... and do I think Jesus would have been pro-gay marriage. I couldn't say. What I do believe is that he'd have defended any group from being oppressed by any other.

More proof that He IS not a liberal.

And His view on abortion?

 

[jillian]

Heh, thats very true about Jillian.

Like the time she got upset at me for calling her "Jilly"....


http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=468558&highlight=Jilly#post468558

....even though she'd been called Jilly many times already by others: http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=414353&highlight=Jilly#post414353

I guess I'm not a "friend of family" then!

I've only been called Jilly on this board when people have tried to patronize me and they've done so disrespectfully. I finally said something when it got boring.

And why would you be either friend or family? Have we had interaction that I don't know of? Share a common ancestor, perhaps?

 

[glockmail]

How so? I'm not Christian. How else would I refer to him?

Lemme guess. Atheist?

 

[jillian]

Lemme guess. Atheist?

Nope. Wrong once again. Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

 

[glockmail]

Nope. Wrong once again. Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

So basically you have a relatively weak frame of reference to assert that Jesus is a liberal, compared to a devout Catholic. Is that a fair statement?

 

[jillian]

So basically you have a relatively weak frame of reference to assert that Jesus is a liberal, compared to a devout Catholic. Is that a fair statement?

No. My view of his words isn't distored by dogma that has nothing to do with his words. And don't for a second think that I don't believe he said great things. He did. And most of them have nothing to do with "politics".

From the Sermon on the Mount:

1Don't condemn others, and God won't condemn you. 2God will be as hard on you as you are on others! He will treat you exactly as you treat them.
3You can see the speck in your friend's eye, but you don't notice the log in your own eye. 4How can you say, "My friend, let me take the speck out of your eye," when you don't see the log in your own eye? 5You're nothing but show-offs! First, take the log out of your own eye. Then you can see how to take the speck out of your friend's eye.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew 5-7&version=46

 

[theHawk]

Oh... and do I think Jesus would have been pro-gay marriage? I couldn't say. What I do believe is that he'd have defended any group from being oppressed by any other.

When has God / Jesus ever defended evil or sin? He taught us to reject it, not accept it. You liberals always try to turn a sin from an act to a person, as to put a name on it so we can sympathize with that person and thus condone the sin. Homosexual acts are a sin and an abomination in God's eyes. Liberals try to deflect from this obvious fact by grouping homosexuals as a group of people as if they are a minority group.

 

[jillian]

When has God / Jesus ever defended evil or sin? He taught us to reject it, not accept it. You liberals always try to turn a sin from an act to a person, as to put a name on it so we can sympathize with that person and thus condone the sin. Homosexual acts are a sin and an abomination in God's eyes. Liberals try to deflect from this obvious fact by grouping homosexuals as a group of people as if they are a minority group.

Jesus also said judgment is for the afterlife... not for men to judge others. He was fairly specific on the subject, no?

 

[theHawk]

No. My view of his words isn't distored by dogma that has nothing to do with his words. And don't for a second think that I don't believe he said great things. He did. And most of them have nothing to do with "politics".

From the Sermon on the Mount:

1Don't condemn others, and God won't condemn you. 2God will be as hard on you as you are on others! He will treat you exactly as you treat them.
3You can see the speck in your friend's eye, but you don't notice the log in your own eye. 4How can you say, "My friend, let me take the speck out of your eye," when you don't see the log in your own eye? 5You're nothing but show-offs! First, take the log out of your own eye. Then you can see how to take the speck out of your friend's eye.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew 5-7&version=46

Thank you for proving my above point. We don't condemn the people, we condemn the act. To a degree yes we condemn people that flaunt that act and try to promote it, but most conservatives always say that the people can be forgiven so long as they reject the sin.

 

[theHawk]

Jesus also said judgment is for the afterlife... not for men to judge others. He was fairly specific on the subject, no?

No one is talking about final Judgement. And to my knowlege, it has mostly to do with belief in Jesus, not so much the sins one has commited. And yes, that certainly is up to Jesus in the End :clap1: