In Defence of Islam
#31
(09-15-2010, 07:07 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Metalicafan needs some lessons in  history
the Aztec were defeated primarily because they're empire was built and sustained by plunder And slavery. Cortez had the insight after first engaging the Aztecs and narrowly escaping wiith his and his troops lives (some were killed)  to rather then  attack head on to forge alliances with the azteC enemies which were every tribe under Aztec oppresion.  Prior to Cortez and prior to even barnal Diaz 2 catholic priiests were  ship wrecked and were living as Maya amongst the Maya in the yocutan. (one was made a slave the other a local petty prince due to marriege) they were living there  for close to 15 years or so.  Some Maya were Under  aztec  oppression some weren't  all were resentfull. when the Spanish landed (after some initial engagements with hostile Maya)  they were quickly pointed toward the direction of one of these priests. This priest  knew  Maya and Spanish hence Cortez was able to communicate and realize the Maya hated the Aztecs.  he was given a Maya princess who was actually a slave to the Aztecs. She new Maya and new nauutle (Aztec) she also  learned Spanish. Her name we know as la minche. She also could speak other  Indian languages from the central hghlands. The Spanish forged alliances with the Indians who were under mexica (Aztec servitude) through her. and thus were able to conquer the Aztecs. The aztecs though  brave were no match for Spanish weaponry. The Aztecs had no metal weapons no horses  and only possesed the wheel as a childeens toy. They did have obsidian which is sharper then steel but breaks upon impact against it thus muting it's cutting capability. The Aztecs were also no match in  strategy. The Spanish that came as reinforcements and most onthe first expedition were hardenend conquistadors from the reconquesta. Tenochtitlan (Mexico city) though at first seemedto be solidly impenitrible havng been bult in te middle of a lake had a fatal flaw. It's water source was outsize the city. Once the Spanish descovered this they laid side and it was just a matter of rme before th final battle between the Spanish maybe nmbering 400 (maybe it's been awhile since my mesoamaeican  history courses) and thousands and thousands upon housands of Indians tha rose against the  vile aztecs. The Aztecs were doomed the minute Cortez could speak with the Mayan who could speak with hebother subjugated tribes
hardly thebpicture leftist scum paint of Spanish bloodletting and Christian bloodletting
the destruction o the satanic Aztec empire was a good thing. And here's the clincher
most azecs didn't  convert from  or emperiIal  policy. Actually few converted untill  our  lady of guadalape appeared o don Juan
the mexica were not forcably converted
now forhe oft said Spanish bloodletting compared to whom they conquered th is a bald face lie. Temple mayor the  major Aztec temple (the first one still survives  beside the cathederal which was built ontop of montcezumas palace) had thousands of human sacrifices a day. U can still see where the heads would land after being rolled down the steps. The Spanish put an end to this
period
If you want to debate the massacres of the Spanish, fine, but do it some where else. No where did I say the Aztec and like minded peoples were good in any way. I simply said that the actions of the Spanish were appaling and horrific - and if they did it in the name of God that makes it even worse, not better.

(09-15-2010, 07:07 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: as for mohamadans worshipping th moon deity it s not vert but mohamadanism is abfusion of judiasm wi some Christian principles and ancent Arabian moon dirty worship (the kaba is abgood example of this)
Incorrect again. Mohammad actually said such idols and God's like the Moon God was blasphemy and sacrilege. The reason Muslims face Mecca when praying is due to the tradition Mohammad practiced in facing the first Mosque. The Kaba was traditionally said to be built by Abraham, thus a divine structure. That's why, when Mohammad returned to Mecca he smashed every idol inside and cleaned its walls except for the image of Jesus and Mary.

(09-15-2010, 07:07 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: as for Christianity being a non violent hippie love fest
this is simple not true and complelty false. I strongly recomend  the writiings  of st Bernard of clairvaux. Last father of the church. Doctor of the church. Who fused the sword with the cross in establishing catholic military monastic orders. In praise of the new knighthood is a good start
I dont recall saying that, but fact is Jesus was a pacifist. No way you can use a sword against an enemy when he said as plain as day "do not resist an evil person" and "love thy enemy". But again this is for another thread.
 
Reply
#32
Again mullah bin credo demonstraes more interest and knowlege in vile nohamadN history then sacred history.
traditionally st Bernard of clairvaux is considered the last father of the church.
It's not just t about the  second crusade mullah bin credo.  it's about bellum sacram and the fusing of the sword  and the cross. Though crusades and holy wars  existed prior to st Bernard he was the  first to articulate the new charasm. Ever single monastic military order traces their holy rules back to him and his rule he wrote for the poor knighs of Christ. All of them  even the orders that existed prior to him writing his rule. Even orders such  as the order of  our blessed mother Mary of mercy and the ransom of captives owe him a great  debt. For his articulation of the new knighthood. What this means mullah bin credo is from the reconquesta  to the baktics  and to the new world the rule of st Bernard as he wrote it gave a new articulation of a new  charasm to a new calling. So rather then just ask one question about how the second crusade turned out,  u must ask how the reconquesta turned out? How the crusade in the balics  against th vile pagans turned out,  the crusade against the vile pagans of the new world turned  out even how the last crusade in Spain 1936 1939 turned out? So now go do some home work
sip
the actions of the Spanish were not horrific they were just and catholic to  qoute at Bernard of clairvaux

“The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes, and serves himself when he falls. Neither does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a mankiller, but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender of Christians. Should he be killed himself, we know that he has not perished, but has come safely into port. When he inflicts death it is to Christ's profit, and when he suffers death, it is for his own gain. The Christian glories in the death of the pagan, because Christ is glorified; while the death of the Christian gives occasion for the King to show his liberality in the rewarding of his knight. In the one case the just shall rejoice when he sees justice done, and in the other man shall say, truly there is a reward for the just; truly it is God who judges the earth.”i
in praise of the new knighhoox


The kabah was an Arabia. Pagan idol that was coopted by mohamet. Just because mohamadans claim is from Adam doesn't make it so. I am not incorrect the kabah predate mohamadanism it was used as an idol go do some research
christ was not a pacifist. That's rather licks claiming cheist to be a democrats or a Whig or any other modern vile ideology
keep beliving anarchonisms



Reply
#33
(09-15-2010, 01:48 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: MetallicaFan,

Ad 1: Sura 8:55; 30:45.

Ad 2: Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God positively desires certain men to go to hell. Allah, however, actively works to make people sin and not believe, and then sends them to hell for what he made them do.
That is true. But it does say many people will go to hell.

(09-15-2010, 01:48 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Ad 3: Sura 33:27; see also Bukhari 53:392.
Well, it would have been nice if you had cited your sources so that we could check for ourselves. You're free to your opinions, but not expect me to simply accept them at face value.
My sources were the Holy Quran and bits and pieces. Although the book "No God but God" by Reza Aslan has it well summarized.

(09-15-2010, 01:48 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Does any Islamic nation, with Sharia Law in effect, allow for public worship by Christians?
No, but Shariah law, as in the Quran and practiced by Mohammad allowed Christians and Jews to worship, even create churches.

(09-15-2010, 01:48 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: I hate falsity, as does God. I do not hate Muslims, but rather their false doctrines. As a Christian, you should too.
I dont think good willed and good intentions are false, ever. Islam has its flaws, of course, but so does Christianity and Judaism.

(09-15-2010, 01:48 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: ... The Christian faith has been revealed by God; you and I should both agree on this point.
I do.

(09-15-2010, 01:48 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Islam, because it contradicts what God revealed through Christ, cannot be from God, because He cannot deceive nor be deceived.
Well yes I agree, but that doesn't mean the good works that come form it are not in the way of God, or that Mohammad's wisdom is useless. I beleive God played his part in allowing Mohammad to establish the moral codes he did, and as they are in their original context and compilation are quite good. Indeed the manner in which modern Christians have accepted Jesus' message is actually parallel to the teachings of Mohammad. For example Mohammad said war in self defence was ok, where as Jesus did not. Yet Christians practice warfare.

(09-15-2010, 01:48 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Please forgive me if I came off a little bit harsh toward you. I still cannot understand how you can say that neither religion is better than the other when you as a fellow Christian ought to believe that God is indeed triune and that any statements to the contrary are entirely false, including those made by Islam.
Well I said neither Christianity or Islam, and by Christianity I mean the established church around Jesus. Jesus message by itself is perfect and better than any other, however it is still manipulated and destroyed.

(09-15-2010, 01:48 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: How is Islam false? Because Christianity is true,
That makes no sense. One could just say "why is Christianity false? because Islam is true" - this is not an argument that's just an opinion.

(09-15-2010, 01:48 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: and as the two religions contradict each other in many ways,
Such as?

(09-15-2010, 01:48 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Islam must be false as a matter of principle (i.e. non-contradiction).
Well if contradiction is enough to say something is false then the Bible is itself false!

(09-15-2010, 01:48 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: More specifically, here are some of Islam's false doctrines:
- Jesus was not crucified
- Jesus is not the eternal and divine Son of God
- God is not three Persons in one nature
- God predestines some to hell
No one is predestined in Islam you can be saved.
"Except those who repent, have faith and good deeds, those Allah will charge their sins for good deeds. Certainly Allah is most forgiving and merciful."
(Qur'aan 25:70)

(09-15-2010, 01:48 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: - False evidence is allowed to hide a Muslim's crime or protect his reputation
Incorrect. Oh boy you have no idea how many people manipulate Taqiyya in the manner of terrorists and use to attack the mainstream. Taqiyya is about self defense, not lying. Lying is prohibited. Taqiyya is for the protection of one's life from persecution and to save the lives of innocents.

(09-15-2010, 01:48 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: - Allowance of polygamy
Not really. Directly after saying 4 wives is ok he indicates that it is impossible to have 4 wives appropriately.

(09-15-2010, 01:48 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: - A wife's evidence doesn't count while her husband's does
Of course it does, it is half of a man's however.

(09-15-2010, 01:48 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: - Blood revenge and law of retaliation are permitted
Incorrect. They are not, noly just punishment and self defensive wars. Just like Judaism - an eye for an eye.

(09-15-2010, 01:48 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: - 72 virgins waiting in heaven
Incorrect again.
Reply
#34
The Koran is not holy! Neiher is any text of any false religion. Next u be saying he satanic bible and playboy r holy too.
This is a traditional cathokic forum to argue the holiness of a text that dens Christ denies the trinity and calls for holy war against Catholics is well
obviously Being  a troll

Reply
#35
(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: Islam is certainly and absolutely worse than one religion - the only religion that is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
Why?

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: God is not, in any way, playing games with religions and with the souls of mankind.
Well historically he has. But that of course doesn't discount the fact he can be working through people and thus their religions. 

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: All other religions lead souls to hell,
Why? I disagree.

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: and that is the work of fallen men, and the Enemy.
How do you know? I disagree once again.

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: None of those religions are valid, practical, or useful except for the purposes of fallen men, and the Enemy. 
Incorrect again. They are quite morally and legally good. And in terms of practicality Islam is one of the best.

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: MetallicaFan, pray for the conversion of Muslims.
I do, but I pray for the enlightenment of Christians more so.

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: You are right that not all Muslims are entirely sold on brutal Jihad, but that does not change the fact that Islam, because of wrong belief, cannot fully cooperate with God's grace as God intends.
I disagree. We wish to show the way of Jesus, but that does not mean Islam is any worse for that reason.

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: They are not part of the One True Church.
According to you.

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: Conversion is necessary.
Well it would be nice, but it isnt necessary.

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: Until Muslims are converted, they can be swept into Jihad one way or another.
No, they cant, unless they are forced by circumstance or people, as Christians have been into wars, massacres and other crimes.

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: The necessary events, if they were to transpire, would provide the necessary motivations.
Indeed, and would do the same for anyone else.

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: Still, not even a sudden absence in Islam of all motivation to Jihad can make Islam any more valid or good for the souls of its followers.
Why?

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: It isn't a matter of our human judgment finding Islam to be equal to other religions.
Actually it is and the word of Jesus in finding and realizing the love of others.

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: You are asking Catholics here, and, especially on this forum, we are not going to answer from a position of adopted Indifferentism, which we are bound against as it is a heresy.
Actually Christians are compelled to not judge, merely to practice and preach.

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: As it has been said here, God can neither deceive, nor be deceived.
True, but he works in mysterious ways.

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: One more thing:
"MetallicaFan" Wrote:
"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?

You miss one immense and vital distinction.  We are commanded to love our enemy, but not his religion.
True, I agree.

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: We are also commanded to hate iniquity, and false religions are vile iniquity because they lead souls to Hell.
Well no, because Islam is linked to Christianity and does good deeds.

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: Hating Islam is not the same as hating a Muslim.
Hate is never good.

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: A Christian should be entirely opposed to Islam at the same time as praying for the conversion of Muslims,
Not entirely, that is pointless.

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: and loving them the way God intends us to love them.
If you love them you should respect their beliefs, not follow, but at least respect.

(09-15-2010, 03:29 PM)Admiratio Wrote: This does not include supporting them in error that puts their souls in danger.  That is wrong for us to do.
I do not see how their souls are in danger.
Reply
#36
(09-15-2010, 06:38 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Again mullah bin credo demonstraes more interest and knowlege in vile nohamadN history then sacred history.
traditionally st Bernard of clairvaux is considered the last father of the church.
Well I consider Jesus the first and last father of the church.

(09-15-2010, 06:38 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: It's not just t about the  second crusade mullah bin credo.
Who is Mullah bin credo?

(09-15-2010, 06:38 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: it's about bellum sacram and the fusing of the sword  and the cross.
Indeed to suit your own desires and needs rather than to fulfill Jesus commandment of loving thy enemy.

(09-15-2010, 06:38 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Though crusades and holy wars  existed prior to st Bernard he was the  first to articulate the new charasm. Ever single monastic military order traces their holy rules back to him and his rule he wrote for the poor knighs of Christ. All of them  even the orders that existed prior to him writing his rule. Even orders such  as the order of  our blessed mother Mary of mercy and the ransom of captives owe him a great  debt. For his articulation of the new knighthood. What this means mullah bin credo is from the reconquesta  to the baktics  and to the new world the rule of st Bernard as he wrote it gave a new articulation of a new  charasm to a new calling. So rather then just ask one question about how the second crusade turned out,  u must ask how the reconquesta turned out? How the crusade in the balics  against th vile pagans turned out,  the crusade against the vile pagans of the new world turned  out even how the last crusade in Spain 1936 1939 turned out? So now go do some home work
I know the origins of western just war theory. You realize jihad is just war theory that was create many hundreds of years before? Again all the crusades were unjustified, including the reconquesta, which actually left people living extremely worse off than they were living under the Muslim regimes.

(09-15-2010, 06:38 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: the actions of the Spanish were not horrific they were just and catholic to  qoute at Bernard of clairvaux
So killing thousands of people, including innocent people and then enslaving thousands of others, is Catholic and good? I didnt realize Catholics condoned criminal acts.

(09-15-2010, 06:38 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: “The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes, and serves himself when he falls. Neither does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a mankiller, but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender of Christians. Should he be killed himself, we know that he has not perished, but has come safely into port. When he inflicts death it is to Christ's profit, and when he suffers death, it is for his own gain. The Christian glories in the death of the pagan, because Christ is glorified; while the death of the Christian gives occasion for the King to show his liberality in the rewarding of his knight. In the one case the just shall rejoice when he sees justice done, and in the other man shall say, truly there is a reward for the just; truly it is God who judges the earth.”i
in praise of the new knighhoox
Again Jesus said "turn the other cheek", "love thy enemy" and "do not resist an evil person." And again this is irrelevant to my thread.

(09-15-2010, 06:38 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: The kabah was an Arabia. Pagan idol that was coopted by mohamet.
How? Which idol? Considering he destroyed every idol in the Kaba how is that possible?

(09-15-2010, 06:38 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Just because mohamadans claim is from Adam doesn't make it so.
No, not Adam, Abraham.

(09-15-2010, 06:38 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: I am not incorrect the kabah predate mohamadanism it was used as an idol go do some research
If you want to call a buildng an idol fine, but then that would mean Catholic worship inside an idol every week!

(09-15-2010, 06:38 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: christ was not a pacifist.
Yes, he was. Again this is irrelevant

(09-15-2010, 06:38 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: That's rather licks claiming cheist to be a democrats or a Whig or any other modern vile ideology
keep beliving anarchonisms
I have no idea what this is about.
Reply
#37
(09-15-2010, 04:37 PM)ecclesiastes Wrote:
(09-14-2010, 07:38 PM)MetallicaFan Wrote:
(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.

Tolstoy?

YES!
Reply
#38
(09-15-2010, 06:47 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: The Koran is not holy!
I didn't say it was.

(09-15-2010, 06:47 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Neiher is any text of any false religion.
No, and neither is any text not rewritten by God himself.

(09-15-2010, 06:47 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Next u be saying he satanic bible and playboy r holy too.
Well if you really are that childish in your assumptions perhaps you should just go away. And you are wrong.

(09-15-2010, 06:47 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: This is a traditional cathokic forum to argue the holiness of a text that dens Christ denies the trinity and calls for holy war against Catholics is well
obviously Being  a troll
When did I argue for it as truth? I simply said it is valid and ok. Back off mate.
Reply
#39
metalicfAn wrote

"I didn't say it was." reffering to my post stating the vile  Koran is not holy

metalicafan said in post 32 of this very thread

"My sources were the Holy Quran"
dk says
I think that's clear As Chrystal. I wonT  back off I've been here for over 12 thousand posts no no lad im just fine being here to challang u on your bullshit. When u get to  12 thousand posts then I'll give u an attaboy

metalicafan wrote

"Well I consider Jesus the first and last father of the church."
Dk says
U may  consider Christ the first and last father of the church but to those who belie Christ to be The messiah  he is much much much more
metalicafan wrote
Who is Mullah bin credo?
Dk says
Mullah bin credo is the tanks resedent imam
bellum sacram does not negate loving your enemy. U can fight the enembof Christ and still love them. So much so It is an act of charity to fight  them to qoute st Bernard of clairvaux
“But the Knights of Christ may safely fight the battles of their Lord, fearing neither sin if they smite the enemy, nor danger at their own death; since to inflict death or to die for Christ is no sin, but rather, an abundant claim to glory. In the first case one gains for Christ, and in the second one gains Christ himself. The Lord freely accepts the death of the foe who has offended him, and yet more freely gives himself for the consolation of his fallen knight.”i
Metalicafan said
I know the origins of western just war theory. You realize jihad is just war theory that was create many hundreds of years before? Again all the crusades were unjustified, including the reconquesta, which actually left people living extremely worse off than they were living under the Muslim regimes.
dk says
jehad is never justified. What rubbish!! Listen to yourself!!! fighting against Christ is never  justified!!according to the church which for those here has more authority then you the crusades were justified as well as the reconquesta. As for Spain
being better off under the vile mohamadan yoke spaniards and Spanish history disagrees with you. Spains glory was and is catholic  not barbourus mohamadan. Rubbish u belive but u probbly also belive christ  was a ninja too

I need to break me reply up
sip
more later


































Sip moving  along
Reply
#40
Back at it
sip

Metalicafan said
"Again Jesus said "turn the other cheek", "love thy enemy" and "do not resist an evil person." And again this is irrelevant to my thread."

dk says
for a guy who likes woodpecker Lipping  scripture what dis Christ saywould happen to hose who deny the holy ghost?

The kabah was that is past tense used by pagan Arabs as an idol the wee blacks stone and the box around it.  cough. Mohamet when he conquered Mecca coopted it much the same way mohamadans coopt churches the conquer hagia Sophia a good e ample but he mohamet made it he center  of his new faih of fusion. Elements of Talmudic judiasm elemetz of Christianity elements of old Arab paganism.
Mohamadans claim abrahmanth Abraham that but so what? They also lain cheist was not crucified do u belive them in that too?

MelalicsfN claims Christ was catholic I chAllange u on tht yet u say it's irrleavent. If uts irrelevant the. Why make the claim here?
And no in nonshape way or form was Christ a pacifist that's like claiming Christ was a fascist o any other modern political ideology. He was not a pacifist ge over it. Right next u will say gandi is Christ lol

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)