In Defence of Islam
#11
Metalicafan is your avatar guerjieff?
Reply
#12
(09-13-2010, 11:48 PM)charlesh Wrote: Two. If Mohammedism teaches that a war must be defensive, how did its followers take over Egypt and all of North Africa to Spain, which was Christian; the Middle East to Turkey, which was also Christian (some places Zoroastroan). What were all those Muslims DOING in Spain in the 15th century. How on Earth did they find themselves fighting in VIENNA in the 17th century?

Come on man, USE YOUR HEAD. And read some history.

Following that argument: what where the Portugese, Spanish, British, Dutch, Danish, French, Germans and Belgians--all Christian countries (and some very Catholic countries)--doing in North and South America, Africa, Asia and Australia? Why were they fighting there and imposing their rule? Those are some pretty bloody pages in European history.
Reply
#13
The cstholic nations where spreading the true fAith and it was good
unless you are arguing the Aztec empire should of been saved and nOt destroyed
let's talk about bloody
the peoples of mesoamaeica certainly weren't doves
souls were saved by the advance Catholic civilization but if u feel some strange longing to be some sacrificed prisoner to a moon god then I'm sure the mohamadans will take u on that offer
the bloody pages u speak of wree not nearly as bloody as the pages that preceded catholic evangelizaton
go on do some research I recpmended barnel Diaz as a good eye witness account of the lovely Aztecs u seem to lament
sip sip
Reply
#14
(09-14-2010, 03:59 PM)ecclesiastes Wrote:
(09-13-2010, 11:48 PM)charlesh Wrote: Two. If Mohammedism teaches that a war must be defensive, how did its followers take over Egypt and all of North Africa to Spain, which was Christian; the Middle East to Turkey, which was also Christian (some places Zoroastroan). What were all those Muslims DOING in Spain in the 15th century. How on Earth did they find themselves fighting in VIENNA in the 17th century?

Come on man, USE YOUR HEAD. And read some history.

Following that argument: what where the Portugese, Spanish, British, Dutch, Danish, French, Germans and Belgians--all Christian countries (and some very Catholic countries)--doing in North and South America, Africa, Asia and Australia? Why were they fighting there and imposing their rule? Those are some pretty bloody pages in European history.
The question is, are those continents a better place since the white christian man "imposed" their rule there?

I think their all better places because of the Christian influence, not in spite of.


Unless they all want to go back to living in grasshuts, dying of famine and disease(without the white man's medicine%science) and butchering each other in sacrifice to their pagan dieties in hopes of a better life.

We all know the answer to that one.
Reply
#15
(09-14-2010, 11:50 AM)dahveed Wrote: MetallicaFan,
you asked for correction. And you asked for information. Visit this link. You will learn from this country's best expert on the subject of islam. I might add, a Catholic expert on islam.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html

Respectfully,
enjoy.
1. Its a clearly anti-Islamic website.
2. I am not going to do a search that I have already done.
3. If you disagree show me where I am wrong.
Reply
#16
(09-14-2010, 02:39 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Metalicafan is your avatar guerjieff?
Nope. Close, but I'll let you keep guessing.

Hint; he is a Christian.
Reply
#17
(09-14-2010, 12:21 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: I earnestly started a post to refute the OP but... I find the claims therein to be ridiculous (e.g., "Jihad doesn't mean Holy War" even though 61% of the Qur'an is about non-Muslims: how we are vile animals, how we are unloved by "Allah" for being unbelievers,
Where does it say this?

(09-14-2010, 12:21 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: how "Allah" makes us sin and prevents us from believing and then punishes us for our unbelief,
Is that not what every religious text says?

(09-14-2010, 12:21 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: and how we are to be slain and our property taken from us by Muslims, etc.)
Again, where does it say this?

(09-14-2010, 12:21 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: I see no citations of scholarly works that defend his assertions so I'm inclined to disagree with the OP.
So, basically I cant have views or opinions of my own based on my own research and analysis of the Quran? You may be that ignorant, but not I.

(09-14-2010, 12:21 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: P.S. - Why would a Christian defend a religion that denies the divinity of Our Lord, the truth of His crucifixion, as well as the truth concerning the triune God?
Actually the Quran recognizes Jesus as the messiah, the right and privilege of Christians to practice and be, and the truth of Jesus' teachings. The only thing the Quran strongly disagrees with is the concept of the Trinity. Oh and if you are that bigoted as to say if I dont hate every other religion then I'm not a Christian, then I pity you.


(09-14-2010, 12:21 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Why would a Christian say that "Islam is no better or worse than any other religion,"
Because its the truth. Why would a Christian bear so much hatred when Jesus said to love thy enemy?


(09-14-2010, 12:21 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: statement that would necessarily include his own religion (Christianity)?
Indeed it would. Do you treat all new comers with a different opinion so poorly, or are you just that much of a bigot you dont have to distinguish between proper discourse and insult when you talk?


(09-14-2010, 12:21 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: The vast majority of the doctrines of Islam, be they dogmatic or moral, are false, whereas the doctrines of Christ's Church are entirely true.
How and why?


(09-14-2010, 12:21 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: "For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies" (Sura 4:101).
So?


(09-14-2010, 12:21 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" (Surah 48:29).
So define hard.


(09-14-2010, 12:21 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: "And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden, and Allah has power over all things" (Sura 33:27).
This is once again in reference to the tribes that sides with the Quraysh and whom sought to eliminate Mohammad and his followers.
Reply
#18
(09-14-2010, 04:40 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: The cstholic nations where spreading the true fAith and it was good
unless you are arguing the Aztec empire should of been saved and nOt destroyed
I think it should have been converted through no violent. Spreading the faith through means that are completely contrary to the faith is not good at all - it is evil.

(09-14-2010, 04:40 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: let's talk about bloody
the peoples of mesoamaeica certainly weren't doves
Of course not,never said they were.

(09-14-2010, 04:40 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: souls were saved by the advance Catholic civilization
Perhaps, but the ignorant of Christ are not damned.

(09-14-2010, 04:40 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: but if u feel some strange longing to be some sacrificed prisoner to a moon god
Nope I dont, just a longing for the truth, which I have found.

(09-14-2010, 04:40 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: then I'm sure the mohamadans will take u on that offer
So you think they beleive in the moon God, even though Mohammad and the Quran specifically denounce him and such followers of similar idols?

(09-14-2010, 04:40 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: the bloody pages u speak of wree not nearly as bloody as the pages that preceded catholic evangelizaton
How are they bloody to begin with?

(09-14-2010, 04:40 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: go on do some research I recpmended barnel Diaz as a good eye witness account of the lovely Aztecs u seem to lament
sip sip
Where did I say the Aztecs were lovely. Yes they were violent brutal and cruel to each other - but so have been all primitive societies. My beef is with the so called Catholic who rode in massacring and pillaging their way to better fortune. You realize they enslaved the local populace right?
Reply
#19
(09-14-2010, 05:26 PM)alaric Wrote:
(09-14-2010, 03:59 PM)ecclesiastes Wrote:
(09-13-2010, 11:48 PM)charlesh Wrote: Two. If Mohammedism teaches that a war must be defensive, how did its followers take over Egypt and all of North Africa to Spain, which was Christian; the Middle East to Turkey, which was also Christian (some places Zoroastroan). What were all those Muslims DOING in Spain in the 15th century. How on Earth did they find themselves fighting in VIENNA in the 17th century?

Come on man, USE YOUR HEAD. And read some history.

Following that argument: what where the Portugese, Spanish, British, Dutch, Danish, French, Germans and Belgians--all Christian countries (and some very Catholic countries)--doing in North and South America, Africa, Asia and Australia? Why were they fighting there and imposing their rule? Those are some pretty bloody pages in European history.
The question is, are those continents a better place since the white christian man "imposed" their rule there?
Well today, perhaps, but a lot of other stuff has happened.

(09-14-2010, 05:26 PM)alaric Wrote: I think their all better places because of the Christian influence, not in spite of.
Well the real question should be directed at the initial recipients of 'Catholic good will', which wasn't goodwill at all.

(09-14-2010, 05:26 PM)alaric Wrote: Unless they all want to go back to living in grasshuts, dying of famine and disease(without the white man's medicine%science) and butchering each other in sacrifice to their pagan dieties in hopes of a better life.
Well compared to the slavery, massacring and butchery of the Spanish it was actually better.

(09-14-2010, 05:26 PM)alaric Wrote: We all know the answer to that one.
Not really since it is a very ignorant question to pose.
Reply
#20
"Well today, perhaps, but a lot of other stuff has happened."

Really? What "stuff"? Other than science,medicine,agriculture,engineering, etc.......

I would like to know just what else happened to make those places more suitable for human existence other than gifts from European technology and know how.

Please enlighten me.

"Well the real question should be directed at the initial recipients of 'Catholic good will', which wasn't goodwill at all."


So the missionaries that brought these cultures the very gifts of the things I named above through dedicating and some sacrificing their very lives in order so that backwards people in a strange landcould have a better life, gain spiritual salvation, and join the rest of civilization really didn't have an ounce of "goodwill" in them.

Interesting.

You seem to have a slanted view of history or you have a very jaded one taught to you by some commie leftwing professor in college dedicated to exposing all the "evils" that Christian whitey perpetuated on every noble savage that he came in contact with outside of Europe.


Pure leftist,liberal, drivel.

"Well compared to the slavery, massacring and butchery of the Spanish it was actually better."


Like those indigenous cultures didn't engage in "slavery,massacre,murder,and mayhem" upon their own people.

Really, what planet are you living on?

Many of their lives and living conditions improved so much that many were ready to worship the white man but it was his religion that wouldn't allow it.

Kind of ironic isn't it?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)