Top Ten Reasons Why Islam Is NOT The Religion Of Peace

[dilloduck]

You don't even know when your own religion began.

You made me have to admit I was wrong. I hate doing that.

I don't bash Christians. I'm too busy bashing Islam these days.

I'm an atheist with a little "a". If it weren't for religious people I'd never even think about this crap.

What I know about any religion could fit on the head of a pin and still have room left over but it will never cease to amaze how little religious people know about their own religions.

For example, did you know that most Muslims in the world can't read? Yup, it's true. They may all have a copy of the Koran, but not a whole hell of a lot of them can READ it.

Who cares, right? As long as you have "faith". Gag me.

An Atheists' dogma has to be the most simple in the world yet you feel somehow "entitiled" to trash people who can't recite a complicated and disputed belief system?
Wow am I impressed !

 

[nt250]

An Atheists' dogma has to be the most simple in the world yet you feel somehow "entitiled" to trash people who can't recite a complicated and disputed belief system?
Wow am I impressed !

Excuse me? I don't know what you are referring to.

What's complicated and disputed about Christianity beginning with the resurrection of Christ?

 

[dilloduck]

Excuse me? I don't know what you are referring to.

What's complicated and disputed about Christianity beginning with the resurrection of Christ?

Because there are those who disagree with you--if you are going to gloat about the knowledge you have about religion over those who believe in it, perhaps you should get it right.

 

[007]

You're just mad because you were shown up to be ignorant of your own religion.

I didn't kick you in the face. I defended you. Go back and read it. I admonished Chad by telling him that of course you would know when your own religion began. It turns out that not only didn't you know, you admitted you didn't care.

You kicked yourself in the face.

I actually love it when I encounter Christians like you. You so amuse me.

I kicked myself in the face... ... when I said I didn't care...

You're grabbing at straws now.

No. What ticks me off is your condenscension, and your lofty, "you ignorant Christians" attitude. You're a typical atheist liberal. Superior in your own mind, looking down your nose at all those "ignorant Christians".

And you're anything but amusing. Now put down the Twinkies and get some excersize, because it sounds like your ire comes from something deeper than just me, the "ignorant Christian". You're probably fat, and not happy with yourself.

 

[nt250]

Because there are those who disagree with you--if you are going to gloat about the knowledge you have about religion over those who believe in it, perhaps you should get it right.

You keep quoting me, but your remarks have nothing to do with me.

Where did I gloat? Go back and read the thread. I defended PR to Chad as I surely thought PR would know that Christianity began with the resurrection of Christ. When PR responded by saying his religion began with God creating the Earth I asked him a question: "The Old Testament is Jewish, isn't it?"

He said he didn't know and didn't care.

Then he got nasty.

I called him ignorant because he admitted he was ignorant.

 

[nt250]

I kicked myself in the face... ... when I said I didn't care...

You're grabbing at straws now.

No. What ticks me off is your condenscension, and your lofty, "you ignorant Christians" attitude. You're a typical atheist liberal. Superior in your own mind, looking down your nose at all those "ignorant Christians".

And you're anything but amusing. Now put down the Twinkies and get some excersize, because it sounds like your ire comes from something deeper than just me, the "ignorant Christian". You're probably fat, and not happy with yourself.

I'm always happy when I piss off people like you. I said you amused me. I have no doubt that I don't amuse you.

Here's what I've learned about the Old Testament:

"The Old Testament to Christians is equivalent to the Torah of the Jews, although the Jews have the books in a different order."

You're welcome.

 

[dilloduck]

You keep quoting me, but your remarks have nothing to do with me.

Where did I gloat? Go back and read the thread. I defended PR to Chad as I surely thought PR would know that Christianity began with the resurrection of Christ. When PR responded by saying his religion began with God creating the Earth I asked him a question: "The Old Testament is Jewish, isn't it?"

He said he didn't know and didn't care.

Then he got nasty.

I called him ignorant because he admitted he was ignorant.

I've asked around and sure enough, the Old Testament is Jewish.

How old are you? How could you not know something that basic about your own religion? And how can you not care?

I will never, ever, ever, understand religious people. To have such willful, proud ignorance.

Your quote is it not?

 

[nt250]

Your quote is it not?

Yes, it is. And I stand by it.

PR is willfully and proudly ignorant.

And a prick.

How is saying that gloating?

 

[dilloduck]

Yes, it is. And I stand by it.

PR is willfully and proudly ignorant.

And a prick.

How is saying that gloating?

For one thing you statement that the Old Testament is Jewish is naively simplistic.

Historicity of the Old Testament
See also: Biblical archaeology and The Bible and history
The historicity of the Old Testament has been a matter of debate, particularly since the 19th century. For a time during that era, one group of scholars claimed that most of the societies mentioned in the Bible, such as the Assyrians and Babylonians, were allegedly fictional due to a (then) lack of archaeological evidence. This view had to be abandoned when the ruins of Nineveh, Babylon, Ashur, and other cities were found, complete with extant tablets describing many of the same events mentioned in the Old Testament, such as the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib during the reign of Hezekiah.

Later on, Julius Wellhausen, using source criticism, claimed to have isolated four strands of tradition behind the Pentateuch (JEDP)(see the documentary hypothesis). The Wellhausen School assigned dates for these strands (and their later editing) from the 10th–5th centuries BCE. Because the composition of the Pentateuch according to Wellhausen was so much later than the events it described, some who accept Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis tend to regard the narratives of the Pentateuch as largely fictional, while others argue that Wellhausen's method is not valid given that so many of our surviving copies of historical documents date from a much later time period: e.g., the earliest extant copies of Julius Caesar's famous "Commentaries on the Gallic War" are medieval copies dating from the 9th century, nearly a thousand years after Caesar wrote the original.

Current debate concerning the historicity of the Old Testament can be divided into several camps. One group has been labeled "biblical minimalists" by its critics. Minimalists (e.g., Philip Davies, Thompson, Seters) see very little reliable history in any of the Old Testament. Conservative Old Testament scholars, "biblical maximalists," generally accept the historicity of most Old Testament narratives (save the accounts in Gen 1–11) on confessional grounds, and noted Egyptologists (e.g., Kenneth Kitchen) argue that such a belief is not incompatible with the external evidence. Other scholars (e.g., William Dever) are somewhere in between: they see clear signs of evidence for the monarchy and much of Israel's later history, though they doubt the Exodus and Conquest. The vast majority of scholars at American universities are somewhere between biblical minimalism and maximalism; there are still many maximalists at conservative/evangelical seminaries, while there are very few biblical minimalists at any American universities. Interestingly, both Kitchen and archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University are probably the only scholars from the maximalist and minimalist camps who are sufficiently trained to address these questions with the necessary sophistication—both are giants in their fields—and both come to different conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

 

[nt250]

I just found that interesting. It was written by actual muslims. Do you disagree? Why do you think it was lame?

Why would you think something written by "actual Muslims" should be taken at face value?

Go to any pro-Islam site and read the stuff they write.

Then go to CNN and read the news.

I don't waste my time breaking down every lie a Muslim tells about Islam anymore. I used to. I did it for over a year before I finally gave up and realized that people like you (that's an editorial you) just don't care.

Let's try it this way if you are really interested in a discussion:

Go find 10 quotes from Muslims that condemn terrorism against Israel. Any 10. But include links to the entire statement so I can read each statement in it's original context.

Good luck. I've made this challenge many times, and no one has ever been able to come up with one.

If you can't find 10 about Israel, which you probably won't, try 10 that condemn terrorist acts against the West in general. Don't bother with any that claim the terrorists are not practicing "true" Islam.

 

[nt250]

For one thing you statement that the Old Testament is Jewish is naively simplistic.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

I didn't make a statement. I asked a question of a Christian who didn't know the answer and said he didn't care.

Why are you arguing about the obvious?

 

[dilloduck]

I didn't make a statement. I asked a question of a Christian who didn't know the answer and said he didn't care.

Why are you arguing about the obvious?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=462630&postcount=69

ya--you did make a statement
--read it yourself--you claimed the Old Testament is Jewish.

 

[Annie]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=462630&postcount=69

ya--you did make a statement
--read it yourself--you claimed the Old Testament is Jewish.

and you would call it what?

 

[nt250]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=462630&postcount=69

ya--you did make a statement
--read it yourself--you claimed the Old Testament is Jewish.

Yes, I did. After asking PR, and him telling me didn't know and didn't care (willful ignorance) I asked around and confirmed it is Jewish.

What's your point in challenging me on this?

 

[dilloduck]

Yes, I did. After asking PR, and him telling me didn't know and didn't care (willful ignorance) I asked around and confirmed it is Jewish.

What's your point in challenging me on this?

My point is that the fact that it is Jewish is contested and complicated. If you (as an atheist) want to debate Christians, perhaps you should educate yourself.

 

[nt250]

My point is that the fact that it is Jewish is contested and complicated. If you (as an atheist) want to debate Christians, perhaps you should educate yourself.

I did. I asked another atheist. Who apparently knows a hell of a lot more about Christianity than PR does.

Actually, he calls himself an agnostic, but there's no such thing as an agnostic.

 

[Annie]

My point is that the fact that it is Jewish is contested and complicated. If you (as an atheist) want to debate Christians, perhaps you should educate yourself.

Contested by whom? Let me guess, the anti-nikirods...fighting for truth, justice and all that stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible

Hebrew Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
11th century manuscript of the Hebrew Bible with Targum
Enlarge
11th century manuscript of the Hebrew Bible with Targum

This article discusses usage of the term "Hebrew Bible". For the article on the Hebrew Bible itself, see Tanakh (Jewish term) or Old Testament (Christian term).

Hebrew Bible (Hebrew: תנ"&#1498 is a term that refers to the common portions of the Jewish and Christian biblical canons. Its use is favored by some academic Biblical scholars as a neutral term that is preferred in academic writing both to "Old Testament" (which alludes to the Christian doctrine of supersessionism) and to "Tanakh" (an acronym used commonly by Jews but unfamiliar to many English speakers and others) (Alexander 1999, p. 17).

"Hebrew" in "Hebrew Bible" may refer to either the Hebrew language or to the Hebrew people who historically used Hebrew as a spoken language, and have continuously used the language in prayer and study, or both.

Because "Hebrew Bible" refers to the common portions of the Jewish and Christian biblical canons, it does not encompass the deuterocanonical books (largely from the Koine Greek Septuagint translation (LXX), included in the canon of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches). Thus the term "Hebrew Bible" corresponds most fully to the Old Testament in use by Protestant denominations (adhering to Jerome's Hebraica veritas doctrine). Nevertheless, the term can be used accurately by all Christian denominations in general contexts, except where reference to specific translations or books is called for.

 

[dilloduck]

Contested by whom? Let me guess, the anti-nikirods...fighting for truth, justice and all that stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible

Current debate concerning the historicity of the Old Testament can be divided into several camps. One group has been labeled "biblical minimalists" by its critics. Minimalists (e.g., Philip Davies, Thompson, Seters) see very little reliable history in any of the Old Testament. Conservative Old Testament scholars, "biblical maximalists," generally accept the historicity of most Old Testament narratives (save the accounts in Gen 1–11) on confessional grounds, and noted Egyptologists (e.g., Kenneth Kitchen) argue that such a belief is not incompatible with the external evidence. Other scholars (e.g., William Dever) are somewhere in between: they see clear signs of evidence for the monarchy and much of Israel's later history, though they doubt the Exodus and Conquest. The vast majority of scholars at American universities are somewhere between biblical minimalism and maximalism; there are still many maximalists at conservative/evangelical seminaries, while there are very few biblical minimalists at any American universities. Interestingly, both Kitchen and archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University are probably the only scholars from the maximalist and minimalist camps who are sufficiently trained to address these questions with the necessary sophistication—both are giants in their fields—and both come to different conclusions

These folks for one----many others would suggest that the Old Testament consists of prophecies that represent the birth of the idea of Jesus coming as a savior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

 

[nt250]

These folks for one----many others would suggest that the Old Testament consists of prophecies that represent the birth of the idea of Jesus coming as a savior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

I know this thread has gotten long, but I posted that very thing on it somewhere.

The Old Testament predicts a coming Messiah. Not Jesus Christ. Christians believe Jesus was the Messiah. Jews are still waiting for him to show up. That's why Jewish people get offended by Christian prayers at public events like school graduations.

It's pretty astounding how many Christians don't even know what a Jew is.

 

[dilloduck]

I know this thread has gotten long, but I posted that very thing on it somewhere.

The Old Testament predicts a coming Messiah. Not Jesus Christ. Christians believe Jesus was the Messiah. Jews are still waiting for him to show up. That's why Jewish people get offended by Christian prayers at public events like school graduations.

It's pretty astounding how many Christians don't even know what a Jew is.

It's amazing how many athiests dont even know what they don't believe in.

Christianity will tell you that the old testament is referring to Jesus. That's why they use it. An agnostic interpreting the Bible is far from representative of what Christians believe.