Friday, January 9. A man was kneeling in prayer before the statue of the revered Madonna, with the photograph of a loved one in hand, in the small chapel of St. Barnabas in Perugia (Italy), when he was attacked by five “immigrants.”
The first thing they did was rip the photo from his hands.
Next they unleashed their hatred against the image of the Virgin Mary. They broke the statue to pieces and then urinated on it.
Don Scarda, pastor of St. Barnabas, said the event was led by five “foreigners.” By the time police arrived at the chapel, the unidentified attackers had already fled.
The incident has caused a stir among locals. Some have lambasted Pope Francis who is accused of appeasing immigrants—mostly Muslims—to wild extremes. Earlier he had said that “Migrants, through their own humanity, cultural values, expand the sense of human brotherhood.”
Although the Diocese condemned the act of sacrilege against the Madonna statue, it also followed the Pope’s lead by absolving Islam of any responsibility for what happened. In the words of Monsignor Paolo Giulietti, the auxiliary bishop of Città della Pieve, near Perugia:
For Islam, the figure of Mary is very important: she is the mother of the Prophet Jesus conceived in virginity, and the Blessed Virgin is the most holy woman. Muslims pray at the Marian shrines in the Middle East. We cannot see in this act of vandalism—which as I said is wrong in every way—an episode of religious hatred. It is important not to feed mutual suspicion, especially at this time.
Meanwhile, Pope Francis has called on Catholics and Western people in general to refrain from insulting other religions—namely Islam: “It’s normal, it’s normal [violence]. One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith.”
He made these statements on January 16, apparently in reference to the Charlie Hebdo massacre, when armed Muslims killed a dozen non-Muslims working for a satirical magazine that had mocked Islamic prophet Muhammad.
One wonders if the Pope would call it “normal” if members of his own flock were to murder those who urinated on the Virgin statue?
Thanks to funding from neighbors, the desecrated image could be restored and replaced in its original location. Hundreds of Catholics participated that day in a rosary of relief.
How does this compare to cartoons?
The cartoons were deeply hurtful to Islamic sensitivities but the destruction and desecration of Christian holy sites is just muslims misunderstanding their beautiful religion of peace and something that Christians must accept as part of living peacefully with others.
Obviously the statue of the Madonna and the man peacefully praying with a photo of his loved one in hand was causing great offence to the members of the religion of the perpetually offended that they just felt they had to do something to respond to the offence caused.
There again maybe I am wrong and it was an immigrant from the Buddhist/Sikh/Jewish/Shinto or any other religion but somehow I don’t think so.
Why should non Muslims stand by and watch desecration of religious objects? Pope Francis is possibly more interested in One World Religion….. If Islam tolerated other religions there would be no need to victimise people who opposed them. But hell will freeze over before any of this happens. Wake up non Muslims and smell the hatred and control that emanates from Islam!
This is clearly the work of Protestant Mary-haters, not Muslims.
Christians don’t hate Mary, we just don’t worship her. Because the Bible is written about her Son. Which proves how foolish your statement is. Unless you were trying to use sarcasm which didn’t work…
At first, I thought that he was going for sarcasm, but that’s not the case. He’s a troll. BTW, the Eastern Orthodox Christians, in particular, have a very strong “Miriam” tradition. The Protestants do not, yet they are all Christians. There are even novenas to St. Ann, Mary’s mother, in the Catholic faith. Please change your wording from Christians to Protestants. I’m sure that you didn’t mean to insult non Protestants faiths, but that is how it came across. Thank you.
Thank you, but when I use the word Christian I am referring to those who worship as in the bible. Not to people who have changed what it means. If any person puts Mary at the level of Jesus they are not honoring God. Although I was raised a Catholic I have read His book and realize how much some groups have moved from the God of the bible. That includes Mormons, J.W.’s many catholics, etc. Being P.C. can detract from actually finding salvation. If anyone puts a thing or an angel or even a saint before Jesus they are worshiping idols.
Exodus 1:4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God
http://danbel.webspawner.com/thelordsroom/
I don’t need a lecture and I am not a divider. I’m also not a zealot. There are loads of wonderful, peaceful, loving people in this word who greatly revere Mary, the mother of Jesus, and that includes having respect for statues of her. I read your Exodus quotation, and, if it were to be taken literally, the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox would be seen as non – Christian because of their use of icons, statues, and stained glass. Really, enough said. Keep in mind one thing, I am on the side of love and peace. I’m not on the side of division, because of hair splitting, which goes against Christ’s message of tolerance. Remember, the old saying: divide and conquer. Don’t insult people who would otherwise have your back against a far greater scourge.
I guess you did not finish reading Exodus.
“6] He made also the propitiatory, that is, the oracle, of the purest gold, two cubits and a half in length, and a cubit and a half in breadth. [7] Two cherubims also of beaten gold, which he set on the two sides of the propitiatory: [8] One cherub in the top of one side, and the other cherub in the top of the other side: two cherubims at the two ends of the propitiatory, [9] Spreading their wings, and covering the propitiatory, and looking one towards the other, and towards it.” (Ex 37:6-9)
I take it you are not familiar with dulia, hyperdulia, and latria. Dulia is a Greek term meaning the veneration or homage, different in nature and degree from that given to God, that is paid to the saints. It includes, for example, honoring the saints and seeking their intercession with God. Related to dulia is Hyperdulia, the special veneration accorded the Blessed Virgin Mary because of her unique role in the mystery of Redemption, her exceptional gifts of grace from God, and her pre eminence among the saints. Hyperdulia is not adoration; only God is adored. Such adoration reserved exclusively for God is termed latria, a Greek-rooted Latin term that refers to that form of praise and worship due to God alone.
All worship is given to God. No person worships a statue or an icon. In fact, you would do well to read the Church Fathers. Nothing is detracted or taken from him.
Even in Apocalypse/Revelation 5:8 we see: “And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints”. This is because the prayers of those in heaven, not only on earth, are brought before the Lord. It is a Community of Saints. We are all joined in Christ and all glory goes to to Him. No being has power except through Jesus.
There is no worship of any God but the Holy Trinity. No Saint has any power but through God and can only implore God’s mercy and petition Him as you and I though, and the community of faithful who we ask to pray for us.
Brava, and greatly appreciated. What an intelligent, well written, fabulously enlightening post. Excellent .
When you finished reading Exodus, did you take seriously the 4th commandment about sacrificing the first fruits of every womb to god?
What a pathetic statement
Replied to by a pathetic individual, who will not have read Exodus for himself, but is content to live, not by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the lectern on the pulpit.
Your reply would be less pathetic, if you had anything to contribute beyond the hollow echo of the space between your ears and could construct a fact-based rebuttal.
As you can’t, you resort to just being egregiously rude.
I am coming to expect it from those among the religious who are as rude and ignorant as you show yourself to be.
You imply that Jehovah insists on human sacrifice and then call me ignorant. You are the typical liberal who has no real understanding of scripture. Not that it matters but I have lost count of the times I have read the bible in full.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/dan-beliveau/changing-doctrine/318153011565801
Which is testament to the limits your counting abilities, no doubt.
You obviously skipped that little bit of Exodus prior to raising that straw man.
I DID NOT SAY THAT JEHOVAH DEMANDS HUMAN SACRIFICE!
OK?
As YHWH does accept human sacrifice, as Jephthah’s daughter would testify, had she not been accepted by YHWH as a human sacrifice, your rantings only confirm my previous estimation of your intellectual abilities.
Beware not to trip over your IQ on the way out, we understand how hard it is to see.
“When you finished reading Exodus, did you take seriously the 4th commandment about sacrificing the first fruits of every womb to god?” Thats exactly what you implied. Go play outside
You are the one with the hotline, ask god.
That is what the scripture commands.
I notice that you carefully ignore the FACT that YHWH does indeed accept human sacrifice, nonetheless.
Go get some Righ to Read lessons.
Oddly, that’s exactly what YHWH said. Ask him what he implied.
It’s there, in the only list that the bible calls the Ten Commandments.
Telling Israel to punish those who break laws is not performing a sacrifice. Please show me where it says in the commandments to sacrifice humans. Your breaking the 11th commandment; Thou shall not twist Scripture
Trying to insult my intelligence means nothing to me, it reminds me of children in grade school who were trying to appear superior. Done with your nonsense.
1.You shall have no other gods before Me
2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy
5.Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.
No, the Bible does not call those the ten commandments. It calls the set I gave you the Ten Commandments.
Please address the fact that Jephthah’s daughter was acceptable to YHWH as a human sacrifice.
You have been deceived by the Church of Rome into following falsehoods, but are too entrenched in your delusion, even to investigate it.
Jepehtah swore an oath to God, God did not require it.
Here you can see even Yahoo knows your twisting scripture. Go away.
There’s no reason to doubt the accuracy of the passage. But as you read it, notice there was no participation from the Lord in this matter at all. He neither sought the oath nor did he agree to it. The sacrifice of children was expressly forbidden (Deut. 18:10), and besides He had already determined to give Jephthah the victory, having sent His Holy Spirit to guide him (Judges 11:29). All we know is that Jephthah made the oath and felt obligated to perform on it. Upon learning of this, his daughter agreed even though doing so would require her life. Jephthah’s great victory was swallowed up in personal tragedy. But it wasn’t God’s doing.
And god, being the moral exemplar that it is, accepted the human sacrifice, despite it being the result of a hasty, and wrong promise.
you are morally degenerate, sir, if you can venerate such a being.
Are you by any chance an acolyte of William Lane Craig? I recommend you read his account of god’s morality in respect of the slaughter of innocents, here:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites#ixzz3OrBhhA8E
In it you will find the following:
“I think that a good start at this problem is to enunciate our ethical theory that underlies our moral judgements. According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses. We all recognize this when we accuse some authority who presumes to take life as “playing God.” Human authorities arrogate to themselves rights which belong only to God. God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative.”
Well cupcake you seem to have issues. You remind me of someone who would join a group like ISIS and destroy others thinking you were doing God’s work. but as you say I am a moral degenerate which means I’m a sociopath. Ok lets go with that. I have no Idea who William Craig is, nor do I care.
You hold on to a Church and it’s leader who stated that people shouldn’t insult the Prophet in reference to what happened in Paris, but he didn’t address the 2000 Christians murdered in Nigeria the same day. He had an Imam pray in the Vatican, which is blasphemy.
Nobody has the right to allow a follower of a false god to officiate in a Christian service. Showing respect is one thing, joining in praise with them is idol worship. Trying to whitewash sin, like homosexuality, etc is against God’s word. Christians have a responsibility to speak the truth about sin and the danger of damnation. Not try to proclaim a One World Religion.
Any false religion like Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, etc will all be thrown into the lake of fire. Thats God’s judgment, because He won’t share His glory. You can continue to hold on to your beliefs but it won’t change the end result.
I have no issues, other than to point out to those who rarely, if ever, read their holy book beyond the sweeties that drip from the pulpit on Sundays, that the story they have been told is a lie, and that using YHWH as a moral exemplar is likely to lead them to a similar state of moral degeneracy as the fictions in their book show YHWH to be.
I do understand why, to quell the cognitive issues that arise from having the state of your source of morality pointed out to you, that you need to throw some stones and accuse me of a propensity fro something I have never hinted at.
I fully understand how you need to bring that defence mechanism into play.
You have the cheek to insult me and then, in the next breath almost, raise a straw man argument about infidels and christian service – something which has never been raised between us, but is a useful defective tactic in the quest to remove yourself from having to realise what a moral reprobate YHWH is.
Then, you assert, on the basis of zero evidence, that any who do not believe as you do, will be thrown into a lake of fire.
Have you seen this lake of fire, outside your foetid imagination, that is?
It is customary for believers of all violent religions to resort to The Threat™, as we have come to know it in rational circles, once they have exhausted their arguments and come to realise that, despite their assertions, they are absent ANY evidence. I am surprised that it took you so long.
Let me make something plain to you:
I am an agnostic atheist. This implies a number of things –
1. I do not currently believe in a god or gods;
2. I do not assert that there is no god;
3. My position relies upon the state of the evidence;
4. I am open to changing my position should anyone ever present compelling evidence to demonstrate the truth of their claim that there is a god.
All of this means that, unlike you, I am not prepared to believe something, in the utter absence of evidence, because:
1. Somebody told me it was so;
2. Others believe it;
3. It makes me feel good;
4. I want to.
If you want to base your life upon the ignorance and lies of the ages, feel free. Just ensure that you keep your beliefs in your head, until you have evidence, and do not attempt to force either your beliefs or your belief system’s low standard of morality upon anyone else.
Agnostic Atheist? If you reject God you have no standing because even though you are shown evidence you reject it. I’m not interested in a round robin of you thinking your logic proves anything.
Romans 1
God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Please.
Make an effort and get it through your skull.
If I do not believe in something, it is not possible for me to reject it.
Quoting made up stories about made us scenarios, written by possibly made up people does not constitute evidence.
In the same way that defining something does not bring it into being, nor does constant repetition of something make it true.
Those actions may strengthen belief, but that is all you have, belief. Constant repetition strengthens your belief, but your belief is not evidence of your assertions, otherwise the world would actually have been flat for much of its existence, and Jesus would be alive and well and living in thousands of asylums across the same world.
You have no evidence, no proof, only stories and priests who have hoodwinked both you and your predecessors into giving them your money and resources in exchange for fiction and guilt.
You have no empty tomb, only stories of an empty tomb.
(btw, I have visited both claimants to the title of Empty Tomb and they are both very pretty, but they contain no evidence.)
You should stay away from AnswersinGenesis.com. It will rot your brain.
As to breaking the 11th commandment, there is much precedent from the example of believers throughout history to the current time.
Your list of commandments is wrong, as it is not the list of commandments referred to in tyhe bible as the ten commandments.
I think your reference to the 11th commandment might be pointing to the log in your eye!
I am not a liberal.
Rather, I am a former evangelical, occasional preacher and singer, who was studying to answer what I thought was a cll to ordained ministry.
You have zero understanding of scripture and will not have until you free yourself from the mindset of the apologists who have you by the throat.
Amazing, however, that you get messages from god about my political leanings and that they are so wrong.
Hi. Catholics do not sacrifice 1st fruits to God because sacrifices to the like, sacrifices of atonement, are not necessary because of the sacrifice of Christ. The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity was offered in atonement for sin. However, this sacrifice of Christ is still continued by Catholics in the Mass and the Orthodox in the Divine Liturgy.
We understand Jesus to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (cf. Jn 1:29). The Eucharist is the source and summit of life: “Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.” (Jn 6:53-57)
We understand that we are no longer justified by works of the law as understood in the Old Testament:
“[16] But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” (Galatians 2:16) and that we must indeed take the body and blood of Christ seriously: “[27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” (1 Cor 11:27-29)
So it is not that we do not take take Exodus seriously but realized that Christ came fulfill the law (cf. Mt 5:17). Christ instituted new Sacraments, which we follow. The Old Testament is still followed; for example, the Ten Commandments and that which deals with morality in keeping with natural law; however, it must be taken in the light of the teachings of Christ. Afterall, “[9] Christ died for us; much more therefore, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from wrath through him. [10] For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” (Romans 5:9-10)
“[27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” (1 Cor 11:27-29)
As it is the basis of xianity that all are already guilty of the body and blood of Jesus, otherwise the sacrifice would have been unnecessary, that particular threat is without added force.
The consumption of His Body and Blood is a serious matter and this goes to the point that a person must first be aware of Whom they are consuming and they must be free from sin. This is where the Sacrament of Penance enters the picture as well. The Apostles were given to the authority to forgive sin by Christ: “[21] He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. [22] When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (Jn 20: 21-23)
When a person receives Christ they are to already to have been Baptized, so sin would have been forgiven, and any sin gained after sin would have to be removed through the Sacrament of Penance. Thus, a person would be guilty of a grave sin and condemn themselves by their act in a state of mortal sin. The threat carries great force, as it speaks to the condemnation of one’s soul.
When a person receives Christ they are to already to have been Baptized,
…as were those present at the rite’s institution. You have their baptismal records to hand, one presumes, or do you resort to special pleading?
…so sin would have been forgiven, and any sin gained after sin would have to be removed through the Sacrament of Penance.
So, you DO believe in the inerrancy of the Old Testament, or you lose your faoundation for the risible concept of Original Sin.
The threat carries great force, as it speaks to the condemnation of one’s soul.
You DO have evidence for the existence of this “soul” thing you bandy about so gaily?
When life was given, it was given to me via my soul.
If you want to understand the characteristics and nature of the soul, then you would be better off looking at Thomas Aquinas.
Summa Theologica, Pars Prima,
The nature of the soul in itself (75) – http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm
its union with the body (76)
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1076.htm
You and Aquinas, who was basically a disciple of Plato and Aristotle, BOTH have evidence for the existence of a soul?
Yes. Please excuse me for using others work on this topic.
“..The truth is, we can can demonstrate this truth through reason alone, i.e., through philosophy. But first we need to establish the fact that humans have souls at all, and define our terms.
Does Fido Have a Soul?
The soul is, by definition, the unifying and vivifying principle that accounts for the life and what philosophers call the “immanent action” of all living things. The word “immanent” comes from two Latin words that mean “to remain” and “in.” “Immanent action” means the multiple parts that comprise a living being are able to act “from within” in a unified way, and in accordance with its given nature, for the good of the whole being. The soul is what accounts for this unified action that is essential for there to be life.
This comes as a surprise to many Christians with whom I speak, but St. Thomas Aquinas tells us, and it follows from our definition of the soul above, that not only humans, but non-rational animals and plants have souls as well. Man alone possesses what St. Thomas calls a “rational,” or “spiritual” soul. Plants and animals possess “material souls” that, unlike human souls, are dependent upon matter for their existence. But they possess souls nonetheless.
To be precise, there are three categories of souls:
1. Vegetative – This category of soul empowers its host to be able to take in nutrition and hydration, grow, and reproduce others of its kind. A rock can’t do this!
2. Sensitive – An animal with a sensitive soul can also acquire sense knowledge and use locomotion to both ward off danger and to gather goods it needs to survive and thrive.
These first two categories of souls are material in nature. By that I mean, they are entirely dependent upon the material body for their existence. As St. Thomas says, “They are adduced from the potency of the matter.” When the host dies, the vegetative or sensitive soul ceases to exist.
3. Rational – Capable of all the above, the animal possessing a rational soul is capable of acquiring intellectual, or “spiritual,” knowledge as well, and of choosing to freely act toward chosen ends.
The question now becomes: how does any of this demonstrate the soul of man to be immortal?
What is Death?
In order to get where we need to go, we first have to define death. CCC 997 defines it as, “… the separation of the soul from the body”—an excellent definition. But perhaps a more precise philosophical definition is: “The reduction of a composite being into its component parts.” This is why I would say when Fido dies, you might want to get him out of the house and bury him. It won’t take long for him to start the process to becoming “reduced to his component parts.” And that process gets a bit messy!
However, a spirit, by definition, has no parts. There is nothing to be “reduced to its component parts.” Thus, that which is purely spiritual cannot die.
So for my first four proofs for the immortality of the soul, I am going to demonstrate it by showing the soul to be “spiritual” in nature. If I can do this, I will have accomplished the task at hand.
For my fifth, sixth, and seventh proofs, I will make my appeal through what we find in human experience down through the millennia that points us in the direction of man possessing an immortal soul.
The Soul, the Person, and the Body
The two principle powers of the soul are its power to know and to will. Why do we say these powers lie in the soul? In simple terms, it is because it is the entire man that comes to “know” or to “love” (love being the highest purpose of the will) not just “part” of him. This would seem to indicate that the same “unifying and vivifying principle” that explains man’s life, would also explain his power to know and to will.
But man is more than just a soul. He also directly experiences the “I” that unifies all that he is and all that he has done down through the decades of his life. This “I” represents the individual “person” that constitutes each human being.
Is there a distinction between the soul and the person? Yes. But it can be a bit tricky to demonstrate.
Perhaps it would best to demonstrate the distinctions by laying out some of the differences between the body, soul, and person.
There is no doubt that the body contributes to the soul’s ability to come to know. A damaged brain is a clear indicator here. The soul needs a properly functioning brain to be able to come to know anything, ordinarily speaking.
Yet, it is also interesting to note that according to philosopher and theologian, J.P. Moreland, man is much more than a body as well. Moreland provides:
“… neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield electrically stimulated the brains of epilepsy patients and found he could cause them to move their arms or legs, turn their heads or eyes, talk or swallow…”
But yet, Moreland says, the “patient would respond by saying, ‘I didn’t do that. You did.”’ Further, no matter how much probing and electrical prodding, Penfield found there is no place in the brain that can “cause a patient to believe or decide” (Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p. 258.).
Thus, the “I,” or, the person, seems to use his body, or here, his brain, to be sure, but “he” is not determined by it.
We can also say with confidence that the “I” is not synonymous with the intellect and will, or the soul, either because “I” can struggle to remember, to know, or to exercise my will. There seems to be more to a person than just a body, or even just a soul. Man seems to be a body/soul composite. Both his body and soul contribute to the great and mysterious “I.”
The Proofs for the Natural Immortality of the Human Soul
1. The Intellect Possesses the Power of Abstraction
St. Thomas Aquinas explained, “The operation of anything follows the mode of its being” (Summa Theologica, Pt. 1, Q. 75, art. 3). To put it in simpler terms: action follows being. One can tell something of the nature of a thing through examining its actions. Hence, the spiritual nature of the human soul; and therefore its immortality, can be proven through the exhibition of its spiritual power in human acts. One such “spiritual action” is the power of abstraction.
To use thomistic language once again, when a human being comes to know something or someone, let’s say, he sees a man, “Tim,” his senses engage the individual; “Tim,” through the immediate “accidental” qualities that he sees. By “accidentals,” we mean the non-essential, or changeable, aspects of “Tim” like his size, color, or colors, weight, etc. From this conglomeration of accidentals, his intellect abstracts the “form” of “man-ness” from that individual (This reminds me of a philosophy professor I had in college who seemed to have an inability to pronounce a noun without adding a “ness” to the end of it.).
This “form” the intellect abstracts is an immaterial likeness of the object thought about or seen. It is ordinarily derived from a particular object, like the man, “Tim,” as I mentioned above, but it transcends the particular individual. The form gets at the essence of “Tim.” It is that which is universal concerning “Tim,” the man. He is risible (he laughs), he reasons, he worships, and more. This is that which is changeless and applies not just to “Tim,” but to all men. And very importantly for our purpose, we must remember that this essential “form” abstracted by the intellect is a spiritual reality. It transcends the individual.
Now, there is a material likeness, or image, that is concrete and singular, impressed in the memory of man, but that is not what we are talking about here. Dogs, cats, birds, and bats have memory. Non-rational animals do not have the power to abstract the form of “man.” Only human beings can comprehend “man-ness” or “dog-ness.”
This is not to say the soul of a dog is not real. It is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, a “real principle,” and it is “adduced from the potency of the matter.” This is analogous to elements formed into a compound or an atomic explosion caused from the potency of the matter used in the formation of a bomb. Certain kinds of matter exist in potency to other kinds of matter that when joined create elements, atomic explosions, or Fido! But only man (among animals on earth) has this power of abstraction that necessarily involves a spiritual principle.
Why is this crucial to understand? Well, let’s introduce yet another “form” here… “tree-ness.” “Tree” is defined as, “A woody perennial plant, having a single main stem or trunk arising from the soil and having branches and foliage.” This would represent “the form” that is common to all trees apart from any particular. I could burn the individual tree from which I abstract the form of “tree-ness,” and reduce it to ash so that there is no longer this particular “tree” in existence, but I can never burn “tree-ness” because it is “spiritual,” or “universal.”
Remember our philosophical principle? “Action follows being?” If the soul has this spiritual power to “abstract” the form of “tree,” or “man,” it must be spiritual. And if the soul is spiritual, it has to be immortal. It cannot be “reduced to its component parts.”
2. The Soul Forms Ideas of Realities That Are Immaterial
The human soul not only abstracts the forms of material entities encountered, but it also has the power to know the ideas or “forms” of immaterial realities like logical sequence, moral goodness, property rights, philosophical categories like “substance,” cause and effect, and more.
Where are these realities? What color are they? How big are they? How much do they weigh?
They have no color, size, or weight because they are spiritual—and by definition—immaterial. Sense image alone (like the Empiricists John Locke and David Hume say is the only source of knowledge) cannot account for these. We are not talking about the material world here.
To form an idea of something spiritual, again, requires a spiritual principle, i.e., the soul. If it’s spiritual, it can’t die.
3. The Will Strives for Immaterial Goods
Closely related to my first two proofs, just as the intellect has the power to abstract the “spiritual” forms of the things and beings it encounters, and to form ideas of immaterial realities, the will also has the power to strive for immaterial things, like prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude, etc. One cannot produce what one does not possess. There must be a spiritual; and therefore, immortal principle (the soul), to will these spiritual realities.
4. The Intellect Can Reflect Upon Its Own Act of Knowledge
It could not do so if it were material. A material faculty, such as the power of vision, only reacts in response to external stimuli. It could only be said to “perceive” inasmuch as one “part” was acted upon by another “part” of something else. When our intellect reflects on its own act of knowing, and we could add its own act of being as well, it is both subject and object of knowledge. The soul can only do this if it has no parts. A dog cannot reflect on its own act of knowing, or being. It just scratches! That is sense knowledge.
5. Man Has a Natural Desire to Live Forever
Aristotle gave us an extremely important philosophical principle when he said, “A potency without the possibility of actuality destroys nature.”
The existence of acorns necessitate the existence of oak trees. It is not that each individual acorn will be actualized and become an oak tree. That is clearly not the case. But if no acorns could be actualized, there would be no oak trees.
We could multiply examples here. A digestive system in animals necessarily means we can know there is food… somewhere out there. A female dog necessitates the existence of a male dog. If there’s not, then “dog” will be eliminated in fairly short order.
Thus, the non-rational animal seeks self-preservation, food and sex. Each of these is conditioned by time. Man has intellectual knowledge which is absolute. The “forms” are not conditioned to time as material knowledge is. Remember? The individual “tree” will die, but not the “form” or “idea” of tree that man alone possesses among creatures of earth. From this knowledge of the eternal springs a spontaneous desire to live forever. And this potency cannot exist in vain. That would be contrary to everything we see in nature.
6. The Testimony of Mankind Over the Centuries and Millenia
From ancient Egypt’s Book of the Dead, to Western Civilization’s Bible, every civilization, every culture, in all of human history has attested to the existence of an after-life.
Some will point out the very few exceptions—one being Hinayana (or Theravedic) Buddhism—that deny the existence of “spirit,” or the soul, to discount this our sixth proof. But to no avail.
Actually, the exception tends to prove the rule. And this, I would argue, is certainly the case with Hinayana Buddhism. Not only is this ancient form of Buddhism an anomaly in the world of religion, but the appearance of Mahayana Buddhism (that restored belief in “God” and “the soul”), very early in the history of Buddhism, and the fact that it is today by far the largest of the three main traditions of Buddhism, tends to demonstrate that man is so ordered to believe in the afterlife that errant thinking here or there over millenia can never keep its truth suppressed for very long.
7. The Existence of the Moral Law
My final proof for the natural immortality of the human soul is derived from the existence of the Moral Law that we can know apart from divine revelation. This is a true law knowable to all, and a law that man did not give to himself. And yet, it is often unpunished and the sanctions of law not carried out. Hence, there must be an eternity where all is rectified.
Necessarily rooted in the reality of the justice and wisdom of God who created us and created this that we call “Natural Law,” Plato said without the immortality of the soul there is no justice, which would be absurd. If there is a God who is just, then there must be final justice. Since final justice so often does not occur in this life, there must be a next life in which justice will be served.”
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/seven-proofs-for-the-natural-immortality-of-the-human-soul
Thank you for that, it is interesting.
However, it is all built upon a very shaky foundation, right at the top.
It is true that truth may be demonstrated through reason, however, reason is only a way of processing information and if the premisses of an argument are not true, whether they are false or of unknown truth value, then the truth value of the conclusions are not known.
“The soul, by definition…
This is a prime example of logical “cart-before-the-horsery”. (I will not bore you with all the names of the logical fallacies).
Defining something does not bring it into existence, but the whole argument here rests upon a definition, and acceptance of that definition and an assumption that it is true.
To go beyond the definition of something and then to describe it as though its existence has been established by ascribing attributes to it and categorise various forms of it is an unreasonable exercise to undertake and does not contribute to the demonstration of the things defined and assumed.
Am I making this clear?
It is the same as saying that, by definition, a widget is the part that converts, by its presence, a carefully constructed set of parts into a treacle-bending machine.
Here is a treacle-bending machine.
Now widgets come in various forms and have various effects, depending upon the actual use they are being put to, and the model of machine they are animating.
Rounds widgets are used to animate the lower order machines which are, in effect, servants of the sequence of higher order machines, culminating in the highest member of the treacle-bending machine sequence which has been created which, by virtue of its sophistication, creates the most wonderfully artistic instances in bent treacle, reflecting the glory of the manufacturer of the machines.
This machine uses heptagonal widgets,
Now, you will see that in my condensed version, I also have not produced one or more widgets for you to examine.
I have shown you various example of treacle-bending machine, all of which exist and you can and have touched them.
I have never shown you a widget, you have never seen one yet, because I have defined a widget and described various form of widget to you, and their uses and effects, you are expected to believe, on the basis of definition, description and logic alone, that widgets in their various forms exist.
By extension, you are also expected to believe that widgets are manufactured in a magical factory, which you may never visit, unless you believe in the efficacy of widgets and both their need of complete overhaul before being translated to their eventual destination, a magical widget rest home.
Do you now believe in widgets as the animator of all forms of treacle-bending machines?
Do you believe in the magical factory they are made in?
Do you believe they can look forward to an eternal rest home?
Of course you do not, which might give you some insight into why I do not believe in the mythology you are propounding here.
Now, if I could just produce a widget of any sort, demonstrate how it works and show it to you in action, then you might have cause to believe.
I am waiting for you to produce a soul and to show me its workings and its work.
Is that unreasonable, and can you see that the sophistry of the argument you kindly supplied does not constitute cause for belief?
Well, here is the thing. It is not based on logical fallacies because first and foremost God has made the variable a known. The discussion has only made clear or described what God has presented. God breathed life into man (cf. Gen 2:7), and man was made in His image and likeness (cf. Gen. 1:26-27). This of course is not acceptable to you, but I suspect where you wanted to take this argument, to proof of God.
Being that man has life and is made in the image and likeness of God, he was given dominion over the animal and the earth. This part and parcel of why man stands in great contrast to every other creature that exists. Even when we look at DNA, our closest relative being the chimpanzee if I am not mistaken, we stand in stark contrast. Albeit similarities, anthropologically, sociologically and intelligence wise, we stand in great difference.
Now, I could start citing Aquinas’ 5 proofs and you will cite a counter argument to which I will believe is insufficient but you will believe is complete, believing all the while that Aquinas is refuted. And this will go on and on and on.
Then we will go scientifically and I will talk about the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Big Bang, The 6 Constants, etc. Consequently, I really don’t have time.
In the word’s of St. Augustine: “Credo ut intelligam.”
I bid you good day, and have enjoyed talking you.
Once again, you reply with unsupported assertions and not with evidence.
You declare the “God breathed life into man”, yet you offer no evidence either for the god, or for the event, other than mythology.
Likewise you assert that “man was made in his image and likeness.” Without evidence.
It is not a matter that it will be unacceptable to me. It should be unacceptable to anyone who has not relegated their grey matter to a mere blood-cooling radiator.
None of Aquinas’ proofs stand up as they are all question-begging and rely upon the acceptance of an assumption which has not been demonstrated to have a determinable truth value.
The Anthropic Cosmological principle is shot through with two very big holes: The assumption that whatever was the creator must have been intelligent & the assumption/conclusion that the creator must have been YHWH. ~Whether the Universe had a beginning or even a creator or not, Kalam cannot lead you logically to YHWH.
The 6 constants are descriptive, a misunderstanding common among the religious.
It is add how those who try to promote their myths never seem to “have time” when their favourite arguments have gone up in smoke.
I have enjoyed our chat and wish you peace.
Thank you for the wishing me peace.
I am sorry. I do not wish to appear to be disrespectful. You are worthy of a good discourse and I really have too much on my plate to give you the attention and respect you deserve. I really do not have favorite arguments, but was simply stating the way things would likely progress and continuing going. We would likely be talking for a while because you are an intelligent person.
I wish you well and I am sure we will run into each other again =)
Till we meet again…
Take care.
I am not attacking anyone, just stating truth. It is important that Mary the mother of Jesus is shown respect. But when people pray to her statue or that of a saint thinking that it will do them some good they are involved in idol worship. You don’t like to hear that? too bad. The people of Israel were not praying to the Ark, Unless God’s presence was upon it, so it’s not possible to equate the two.
I don’t hate Catholics, Muslims or any other religion. I love people enough to tell them the truth. If you or anyone else wants to get on your knees before a statue then by all means go ahead. But that doesn’t mean I will join you or just shut up because it hurts your feelings. Unlike Islam I’m not going to kill you or force you to join me. Like the Catholic Church did in it’s past.
Catholics Killed by Protestants http://bit.ly/Up33Dc
/ http://bit.ly/1pdRtWn
Wheres that in the Bible? Venerating Mary and the Saints
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrr-nodLb9g&list=WLE2468E943CCF8148
HOLY IMAGES vs IDOLS Examines the claim of Protestants that they have a personal relationship with the Lord and Catholics do not http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y7wVgLO4oc&list=PLB2AB1DD8299A328B&index=70
This is turning into a conversation about Catholics. Not interested in that. But one last time honoring Mary and any saint [means saved] is appropriate. Praying to them is not. Not interested in any of this ongoing discussion.
https://www.facebook.com/BanTheReligionOfPeace
Then stop mocking Catholic beliefs. I told you these protestants had an agenda.
Mate, we don’t pray to a statue. There is nothing in a statue. A statue is nothing but a tool to aid in prayer. No person believes that a statue is going to answer a prayer. It is a remembrance.
I agree with you that if a person believes that a statue thinks that it will do good of its own, then they are misguided. If they think it has power of its own, without God, and do anything they are falling into sin. There are people out there like that, BUT the Catholic Church does not think like that. I as a Catholic do not think like that.
As far as the Ark, it goes to point that items were carved, that makes your earlier point moot. God’s presence was upon the Ark, He is also in our Churches and around us. When we pray, we pray not to a graven in image, but to the Saint for intercession. The Saint is not in the statue. When we pray before a Crucifix, we pray meditating on Christ and His precious wounds on His suffering on all that He has done for us. He does not live in the Crucifix. As I said before, these objects assist the faithful.
Why would you think that I do not like to hear that? What I do not like to hear is blanket assumptions and accusations at the Catholic Church, especially when practices that are done can be shown in keeping with Sacred Tradition.
My last response. Jesus said If you need anything ask the Father in My Name. We have one mediator between God and man. There is no need for any other pathway. If the statues mean nothing then why do you need them. Praying on your knees in front of a statue of Mary holding a baby who doesn’t exist any longer is of no value. Especially since Jesus is God and knows all things.
He doesn’t need His earthly mother to ask Him to do something. I am sorry to disagree with you, but many catholics throughout my life have prayed to statues thinking that there is a person on the other end who can really hear them.
The only Holy Father is in Heaven, not in Rome. Mary is not the mother of God but was the mother of the Human part of Jesus when He was on earth. She is not the Queen of heaven that is straight out of Babylon and is also known as Semiramis among many other names.
http://aletheia.consultronix.com/7.html
You might also take a look at this series.
http://youtu.be/uoRa3MZxV8g
Again, go an read the verse I cited earlier from Revelation. When one asks for the intercession of the Saints, it is no different from a person asking your friend to pray for you, except that you are asking the community of the faithful in heaven. Your position is a contradiction because you fail to realize that what is sought is others praying for the petitioner before Christ.
There is nothing to disagree with me about because I already stated what the Church teaches and that others do at times, through error, commit sin in their devotions. Just like Protestants in their zeal break from the tenets of their own teachings and communions.
Mary is indeed the Mother of God. It was through Mary that Jesus was made incarnate. He took human form through and His human nature. Jesus has two natures, Human and Divine. This is what Mary is revered for. A perusal through chapter 1 of the Gospel of Luke what shine a great light on Mary and her special role in salvation history.
It is nice that you think that a person kneeling in front of statue holds no value, but you then dare to presume you know the value of the prayer which God receives.
As I stated before, statues, icons, holy items are there so that the person lifts their mind heavenwards. There are there to assist the person. In a church, there are there to help the person leave the world of mundane and raise their mind to that which is divine. This is also why before mid to late twentieth century, so much architecture was done is such an elaborate fashion. This is also why many of us still retain the use of Latin, in the Latin Rite, as it is the use of dead language, which cannot be changed or misconstrued. It is the stepping away from the ordinary and the recognition that something different and divine is happening in the Mass.
Historically, just to mention, paintings, icon, and statues were used as a means of transmitting the faith to those who were illiterate.
I will just put this quote in because I think this person writes it rather nicely, and I write rather rough:
“Pictures and Statues of saints remind us of their lives, their virtues and the blessings they received from God. The objects remind us that we can pray to the Saints in the sense of asking them to intercede before God on our behalf. For who is in a better position to obtain a favor from God than the Saints who are face to face with God? This certainly does not mean that we adore the Saints. Nor does it mean that we are praying to the Saints in the hope of obtaining the favors from them; the favors come from God through the intercession of the Saints.”
http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/apologetics/statueworship.htm
No, you’re not stating truth. You’re repeating the foul lies and blasphemies of the Demon Martin Luther. There are no such thing as “Christians” – only Catholics and apostates. Protestantism is a mistake.
And Catholicism merely and extension of Imperial Rome.
Sorry, I can’t accept that sentence without a verb.
How terribly tolerant and accepting and inclusive of you.
Why should I tolerate terrible grammar?
Actually, I was extending your sentence, which contained the necessary verb, but my editor insists on putting a capital letter at the beginning of the sentence, and I forgot to override it and add an ellipsis.
Abject apologies, Mea culpa!
Mary was a vessel. A very important task. She was married to Joseph. Imagine the dynamics betwen the two, as well as the community! Only through devine intervention and intercedence did they allow this to happen. That’s why they were “blessed”.
See? Another apostate led astray by the false teachings of the Demon Martin Luther.
Why do you keep asserting that I’m a troll just because you don’t like what I have to say? That seems rather intellectually dishonest and more than a bit cowardly. Do you always attempt to silence folks you don’t agree with by playing the “troll” card? Why do you feel the need to stifle open and honest debate?
You don’t know your own history, sir. There are many examples from Martin Luther onward of Protestants desecrating Catholic churches and shrines and singling out the Catholic veneration of Holy Mother Mary for particular abuse.
No, protestants ate followers of Jesus. They respect Mary. Don’t talk against them. They follow the teachings of Christ, of mercifulness. I am a Catholic, but do not hate protestants or other Christians, because we are all one.
Good for you, “Kiran”. Well said. You are not a divider.
Kiran, I don’t hate anyone, I was raised a Catholic and I have no desire to hate many people in my own family. I don’t agree with much of it’s teaching. If you follow the traditions, then it is up to you. But I will follow my heart
this one example,how evil of islam https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=372080229616493
Meeting hatred with hatred merely multiplies hatred exponentially.
If you really want to show that you are better than somebody, the best way is to be better than they are, NOT to imitate what you think they are!
Meanwhile the body count of non muslims grows whilst you maintain your moral superiority. There is always a time to fight. It happens throughout nature. If you don’t fight for your life you end up losing it.
We see Israel torn apart because both sides are engaged in “retaliatory” actions, and you advocate even more.
You have already lost your life and what is left is hardly worth living.
No I don’t advocate more, but if it comes to my city, my street, my door, I will fight.
Islam is expansionist by nature which results in territorial disputes and has done throughout history.
You last comment for someone who doesn’t know me just proves what a tool you are.
It is the “but” that is your problem.
You will not leave home to create more violence, but will wait and home and add yours to the problem if it reaches you.
Perhaps if those xian believers commenting here were to do what their guru preached, they problem might be solved, assuming that they believe what their guru preached.
If believers do not believe what their guru preached in this mattera, what hope do they have that he was telling the truth in anything else?
And what exactly do you think I believe, considering I have not told you anything about me?
Tell me. I have been forthcoming with you.
What I believe is for me.
Damn those giant lizards,they are here somewhere.
I know where they are.
David Icke keeps them in a box under his stairs.
Explain the difference, do.
Yes, one often gets called a tool for calling out hypocrites who think they are empowered by god.
Explain the difference of what. I see we’ve reached the stage of the debate where you start to obfuscate with meaningless drivel. Explain how anything i said was hypocritical.
What is the difference between the two pictures.
Many on here seem to think that the LHS is perfectly all right, yet the RHS is abominable.
That is hypocrisy.
I am merely trying to discover where you stand.
Again i ask the question. I was hypocritical where?
As for your picture the one on the left is religious but goes down the gun range to shoot cardboard cutouts, the one on the right is religious but goes down the market to kill jews. Its a bit of a weak comparison in truth.
“Many on here seem to think that the LHS is perfectly all right, yet the RHS is abominable.That is hypocrisy.”
Where did I say YOU were hypocritical?
You are responding to arguments that have not been made.
Erm here, i was not letting the earlier point drop.
‘Yes, one often gets called a tool for calling out hypocrites who think they are empowered by god.’
Insinuating i was hypocritical for making my point. Care to clear it up?
I didn’t actually say you were a hypocrite, or that I was calling you a hypocrite.
I called out hypoocrites – Fact
I was called a tool (or similar) by you and others – Fact
However, you will notice that I did not call you a hypocrite.
If you are wearing that cap, then you put it, not I.
Seemed like it to me. But if you say so, we’ll draw a line.
Yes.
Perhaps we should. These conversations rarely end well.
;o((
Let’s make this one different.
Agreed
or throw phaspous and chemical bombs on gaza , i m sorry mate you forgot to metion that
Ah the Palestinian sympathiser. No I didn’t mention that mate, you are correct.
And Hitler bomber london so we flattened major german cities. Now that was total victory.
And Constantinople was sacked by the Ottomans.
And India was put to the sword by numerous caliphs.
And the crusades etc.etc. etc.
Nasty war isn’t it?
What do you want me to say?
Perhaps, having been treated that way by someone who does not know you wil encourage you not to do it to those who disagree with you on forums like this, though I doubt it.
More gobbledegook. I think its pretty clear where we are with you.
Thank you for your contribution, it’s been invaluable.
Of course it’s gobbledegook. Something with which believers comfort themselves.
Anything which call out the violent tendencies you have, which appear to come from a religious belief, though you do not have the courage to admit that, if ti is so, is met with such charges.
Simply, if you are either advicating or condoning violence against someone who does not believe as you do, I will take issue with you, no matter what the other person has done.
Your contribution has been meaningless. Thank you.
You are way off the mark. It is nothing to do with my religious belief. I am more than suspicious of islam in that it seems to pose a threat to anyone non muslim. You think you’re safe because you’re an atheist?
You said ‘Simply, if you are either advicating or condoning violence against someone who does not believe as you do, I will take issue with you, no matter what the other person has done.’
It is nothing about belief. If someone randomly attacks me with violence I will defend myself. If that person gets hurt in the process, i call that karma.
You are suggesting I shouldn’t defend myself?
Or are you suggesting I go out to provoke people to attack me, because that is nonsense as well.
You have a very strange view of the world we live in.
Karma?
So you are a Buddhist, then?
If you want me to be.
Makes no odds to me.
I imagine just what the world would be like, if Christianity followed the same tenents as pislam…..
no mudslimes in any Christian lands unless they paid a pislam tax
no mousques could be built or repaired without permission
no non-Christian symbols could be displayed
no critisisim of Christianity
non-Christians banned from the vatican
no non-Christian holidays
no more immigration of non-Christians
killing non-Christians is not a crime
the rape, kidnapping of non-Christians is blessed
no mudslime could hold a postion above a Christian
no mudslime could own weapons
And this is just a brief list of what we could do.
Why don’t we? Simply because we ARE CHRISTIANS!
Do you even read what you’re writing?
What you’ve said is likely as worse, if not a lot worse, than what you claim Muslims would do to you.
Your motivation for this is because you are Christian?
Christians are peaceful aren’t they?
These views of yours go against basic and fundamental human rights.
Reconsider your position, before you start sounding like a Islamist.
Of course it sounds just like what mudslimes do! That’s the point my dimwitted friend……
It’s OK, rabrooks, we can feel the love, the tolerance and the humility and piety of someone who has been made a New Creation is Jesus.
We really can!
Bully for you. I imagine you have an awfully big nose to be looking down it from such a great height.
It is rabrooks, not I, who preaches a gospel of love.
Holding to his own standards is somehow wrong?
Yet the comments come from you. Interesting.
Why should I not point out his hypocrisy?
Why, when believers preach the efficacy and goodness of their saviour, is it wrong to ask why that saviour is not helping them to be witnesses to what they preach.
I am the infidel here, being castigated for not believing in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god, by people who do not demonstrate the virtues they claim this god gives them, but make bellicose demands and preach retaliation instead, and when someone challenges either their stance or their belief, that person receives threats of eternal torture in a place, by a devil, both created by a god for which they have yet to produce any evidence. Someone needs to point out that they are obviously not being empowered to be “New Creatures”, and failing badly as witnesses to what they proclaim as absolute truth.
So narcissistic is the christinsanity and, so often, its adherents that someone has to point out the inconsistencies, because it will never be done from within.
Where exactly did he say he was christian. He was making a comparison to illustrate how wrong it would seem if christianity encouraged the same behaviour.
You are responding to arguments that have not been made.
His defence of things christian does not stem from his Islamic or Buddhist beliefs.
He defends only “Christian” things. That is suggestive, is it not?
Circumstantial yes. Nothing more.
Then he should be more explicit.
Mind you, if he IS a believer, he is accustomed to believing things on an even lower standard of evidence, so should not complain that another emulates him.
He made his point. It had no bearing on his religion if he has one. You have a bit of an obsession there friend. You talk about standards of evidence whilst only providing circumstantial evidence yourself as to his beliefs.
Pot, kettle, black.
Call it “playing to one’s audience”, if that makes you feel happier.
Cop out
No.
You are happy to “fight fire with fire”, yet you demur when I resort to a milder version of the same tactic.
I did not call you a hypocrite, elsewhere. Perhaps I should have.
No I was merely pointing out that you expect a standard of evidence without necessarily adopting the same stringent level yourself.
That is hardly fire with fire.
And, just *who* might that “audience” be, pray tell?
Playing snippy little word games like this, while concealing you own agenda, is a hallmark of apologist sycophants. Tours and Vienna were not defended; from bloodthirsty invaders whose savagery was practiced precisely *because* they followed tenets of the cult of Mohammed; by praying while their heads were cut off!
No1 They decided that; unlike what has occurred in Tibet in the 20th century: their understanding of their faith *did* permit them to defend themselves and thereby also, preserve the carriers and repositories of their religion!
Anyway, you ‘fronts’ for Mohommedian insanity refuse to proffer the mutual respect in free debate, that is implied in the community of commentators found here. This, as much as anything, is why you do not deserve the respectability that you blatantly presume.
Eric, when you have read a little of the history of the christinsanity and realise the extent to which it was spread by the sword, we might have a balanced discussion.
Until then, your ignorance avails you nothing.
I am not a front for Islam or any other religion, finding them all equally deluded, dangerous and abhorrent.
When the religious clean up their act and proffer some mutual respect in free debate, rather than slinging accusations of sexual deviancy as a first weapon of retaliation for the “sin” of not agreeing with them, I will agree with you.
Until then, the log in your eye is obscuring your vision of the mote in mine.
rabrooks is right,in quran killing non-muslim is a command (specially jews and Christian),i have read about it
Yeah, that’s great. What are you trying to say?
MicoB, I don’t think rabrooks is upholding those views. He or she is citing points of Islam’s Dhimmi contract – the contract non-Muslims were supposed to submit to if they wanted to be protected from outright enslavement or death under the Muslims.
He/she is saying think what the world would be like if Christians enacted a dhimmi code towards non-Christians (note the term used was “non-Christians”, not “Muslims”), but that Christians would not do such a thing because because they are CHRISTIANS, and such treatment of unbelievers goes against the Christian moral code.
That’s not an advocacy that Christians or the Western World should treat Muslims according to the Dhimmi contract. It’s a contrast between Christianity and Islam.
I misread his post initially.
You are obviously failed your comprehension module at school. Please reiterate exactly what view of rabrooks goes against fundamental human rights.
Yeah, I may have misread his post. I’ll admit that.
I mixed up what he wants to do (ban Islam) with what he thinks Islam is about.
No probs
Forgiveness, tolerance, and love. Tenants of Christianity. But Islam???? Not so much, from what we read and hear in the news from the radical Muslims. Of which there are huge numbers. Killing for cartoons!!! That’s the Muslim way.
lol i now seriously wish if each and every islamic country will follow each point u accused 😛 brainwashed by fox or bbc ??
Better than brainwashed by the koran….
hahah u aint speaking , fox news is speaking lol
Dumb s Islam follower afraid of the truth.
“Why should non Muslims stand by and watch desecration of religious objects?”
How do you think some Muslims about the Charlie Hebdo cover?
If you don’t like it, don’t buy and read it! That’s how civilized people act.
If you don’t like having your icond destroyed by those who do not share your beliefs, then tough.
That’s what you are saying rabrooks, but you only want it to happen to those nasty muslim types.
Amazing! There is a not so subtle difference between writing or saying something and going into a place of worship and assaulting parishioners and desecrating a holy statue. Christianity is under attack in many muslim countries, physically and brutally. Life is cheap in islam.
Can you imagine what would happen if we toppled a few minarets? I’m yet to hear of any cases in the western world where Christians havr desecrated a mosque.
It’s a statue.
It has no intrinsic holiness.
Make another one,
Life is cheap in the christinsanity. You should try reading the treatises by learned xians on the licitness of the slave trade, and the Papal edicts proclaiming it legal and gifting the slaves and their lands to the Europeans.
It is no use you crying “foul” at Islam, when you set the precedent.
Another non argument.
The quran is just a book, but if i go down to my local mosque and burn is outside I’d be lucky to escape with my life.
Your house is just a house, if I knock it down you can just build another one can’t you or is that not showing you respect.
You cheapen the sanctity of religious worship and show little respect yet you expect it.
Why are you bringing up slavery? It’s a bit rich.
SO DON’T DO IT THEN!
Come, knock my house down and see whether you can defend yourself in court.
The difference between religious trolls like you and me, is that I have outgrown the need to call for tit-for-tat violence against someone who has broken something which has no intrinsic, holy value.
I am not making claims about the value of religious worship, those who perform it are.
The evidence on forums like this is that it breeds violence or threats of violence. If your particular form of worship is doing that, it is no better than the form of worship you are decrying.
This demonstrates the utter lack of value or power of both the worship and the underlying belief system.
Your god is only better than their god if your god makes you a better person.
You have no valid argument, so you attack mine and have no evidence to support your attack.
It’s all about respect for humanity isn’t it? Regardless of belief.
Example
When there is no court that will hear your case when i knock your house down, will you protect your life and property then? Or will you just turn the other cheek and end up homeless?
You have a very naive view on standing up for ones beliefs, be they religious or just moral.
I’m not suggesting that we all go on a pogrom against muslims, but you are suggesting we do nothing in the face of aggression.
There is no other animal in this world that will not fight for its territory when challenged or threatened. Why do you think humans do not have this same instinct?
Not being part of a belief system that advocates cheek-turning, NOT to do so would not make me the hypocrite that so many posters here are.
I DO, however, hope that I would be true to my principles and not do you any harm by way of retaliation, if I had no recourse to law.
I further trust that my community would assist me and make attempts to encourage you to see the error of your violent ways and that you would respond positively to their encouragement.
My view is not naïve. My view is that I am thoroughly disgusted by those who preach peace, love and eternal bliss by way of a loving deity, whose greatest concern is the believer’s welfare, yet who also come on forums like this and advocate violence because their god apparently is not powerful enough to sort it out.
What I am suggesting is not inaction in the face of violence. What I am suggesting is that those who claim to be xian believers are outright hypocrites who react viscerally, and not with the brains or spiritual endowments they claim their deity has given them, by advocating further violence as the solution.
It has never worked, and a cursory glance at Israel/Palestine should teach any but the terminally dense, or terminally faithful to their deity, that his is so.
According to ALL religious beliefs, humans are above animals, with a spark of the divine. If they really believed that, they might start acting that way instead of showing themselves to be no more than animals.
It is not just about respect. It is also about the claims you make about yourself, your world and your beliefs.
Good luck with that when the muslims come a knocking.
I too am thoroughly disgusted with those that preach peace and love and then do the opposite. I am not one of them. I don’t preach, nor have I made any claims about my beliefs. But there are plenty out there who do.
That said it is naive to think that it will just all work out with a few wise words.
It won’t. Islam doesn’t work that way.
I bring up slavery as evidence for the low value put on life, especially the life of anyone who disagrees with it, by the christinsanity and both its followers and leaders.
Thats right, only christianity had slavery, which i might add has been consigned to history. Can you say the same for islam? Or is it that because islam started 600 years after christianity they’re allowed to do it for another 500 years before they realise its wrong.
“Et tu quoque!”
That’s right. Other people have sinned, so I do not feel so bad about being a sinner.
We gave that sort of argument up in the playground – unless we went into politics or the ordained ministry.
It is not an argument which successfully justifies bad bahaviour.
As my mother used to say, “If he put his head in a gas oven, would you?”
Though it is most often rendered as “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
That’s right but wasn’t that exactly what you were trying to convey by bringing up christian slavery?
Two wrongs don’t make a right, christianity has moved on some time ago… And the rest? What’s their excuse?
If you read a little more carefully, you will understand that I was saying the two wrongs STILL make a wrong and that to complain about the speck n someone else’s eye – the cheapness of life under Islam – is to ignore the log in your own – the cheapness of life under the christinsanity throughout history.
Are you sure you are not muslim. I have heard that line of debate so often.
Yes. I’d rather concentrate on a speck that was in someones eye hundreds of years ago rather than the speck in the eye of islam today. /Sarc off.
Historical events we can do nothing about. Current events and what is acceptable now is something we can all address and try to change.
No, I am not muslim.
Whether I was Muslim, Pastafarian or 19th Day Adventist, it would make no difference.
You referred elsewhere to Pot, Kettle & Black. We can both resort to that.
Whilst not addressing my point
You asked it I was sure I was not Muslim.
I addressed it.
As to the rest, sadly some people do not learn from historical events and conveniently forget them. I did not think we needed to discuss it.
Sorry.
No but why don’t we concentrate on the here and now rather than history and try to find a solution to the problem.
Because the past informs our thinking about the future and the present and if our past is based upon a myth, the choices that will be made stand too good a chance of repeating the mistakes of the past.
In order to deal with the present effectively it is necessary to examine the foundation upon which we will make decisions. Decisions based on ideas which are wholly lacking in evidential support are not acceptable. This excludes the relligious from a decision-makig process.
Slavery was not a myth. It was and still is a reality. It is down to conscience to do the right thing rather than bending to greed and power. Religion msy have played a part in cases but that is no excuse.
History always repeat itself because humanity is arrogant.
I put it to you that the arrogance of organized religion is a bigger problem and threat to the world than the arrogance of humanity.
;o((
And I put it to you that mankind is quite capable of such arrogance without religion.
I’m afraid the tribal nature of man mens thise in a position of strength can and invariably will try to subdue or conquer the weak.
Look how well the athiest anti facist facists have done recently such as the UAF to close down discussion with aggression. No religion in sight .
I agree, but the arrogance is increased exponentially when, out of either arrogance or delusion, men decide that they have a divine mandate and organize a religion around themselves to attain, retain and maintain power over others.
Yes, UAF is an arrogant and violent group of people. How much more arrogant and violent they would be if they thought they were commanded from on high to carry out their actions.
Smug arrogance is even worse!
I get it. You have an abhorrence of all religion. That is clear.
But human nature is human nature. Money and possessions are the new God of the atheists. You only have to look at Wall street, abundance of arrogance.
Though I appreciate that you are using it as a figure of speech, you must realise that it is born from an assumption that all humans need a god.
As an atheist, I do not have a belief in a god or gods. It is not logically possible, therefore, that money and possessions are a new god or gods for atheists.
Humans have never understood why they are here or why we evolved the way we have. Lacking scientific answers we have looked to signs of a higher authority in ancient times, usually as a result of natural events that could not be scientifically explained at the time.
But just as much of science, such as the big bang is based on scientific theory rather than fact. How is tht different, it cannot be proved either way and You cannot say for sure.
This whole universe could be an atom in a pimple on the arse of an alien for all you know.
Do you think it is healthy, and conducive to healthy living and development, to continue to base our lives upon the fantasies of ignorant people who were, justifiable, making stuff up to explain what they found inexplicable?
“…based on scientific theory rather than fact.
How can I put this gently? You obviously do not understand the word theory as it is used in science. As a result, you are inadvertently committing an equivocation.
A theory in science is an accumulated of knowledge, facts, rules, laws and ideas which have withstood the assault of many attempts to falsify it. It is not a “hunch”, as the word is used on common parlance. When you understand this, you will stop using this as an argument.
The Big Bang model made and makes predictions about the universe which, at the time of its first being formulated, we did not have the technology to confirm.
Since then, those predictions have been confirmed by observation. That is evidence!
Hence, I can “say for sure”, within the limits of the tentative nature of science.
Can you produce predictions made by religion which have been made by religion and which have subsequently been shown to be true?
I would love to see those.
Being a pimple on the arse of an alien, however unlikely, probably turns out to be more likely than it having been created, by magic, at the behest of a god which you have already implied is probably the invention of human iagination.
I am not a scientist, you obviously are. Many theories have been usurped or disproven but you used the key word in your description… ‘Ideas’. A theory is only strong until another theory blows it away.
Terms like… ‘We think’ is also used extensively in the scientific world.
That means you don’t know but you’re going to try to sell your idea anyway.
You think religion is the cause of all the worlds ill, thats fine, but Im sure its a little more complex than that. What you are really talking about are people who wish to project their beliefs or ideas on other people, be it religion or science. Both can be as bad as each other.
You are equivocating by pointing out the word “idea”.
Perhaps I should have gone with my first instinct and written hypothesis. ;o))
Simply, the way science, and indeed all evidence-based reasoning, works, is this:
One has an idea about something that one wants to investigate;
One develops a hypothesis which is testable and, most importantly, falsifiable;
Experiments, or other methods of data collection, are undertaken to amass evidence which relates to the hypothesis;
The hypothesis is either accepted or rejected on the basis of the evidence.
Unsuccessful experiments are rarely published (some are) but successful ones, where perhaps new knowledge about the way the universe works, whether on a macro- or micro- scale, has been gained, are published. Other scientists read these reports or papers and will attempt to replicate the results of the original work.
When a hypothesis has received much. much further support, from many experiments and the hypothesis makes predictions about the world which can be shown to be correct and withstands any and all attempts to falsify it, it might become a scientific theory. That is the pinnacle of scientific achievement – to have developed and refined an idea or hypothesis to the point where it is called a theory.
The Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory and the Theory of Evolution are all examples of “ideas” which were formulated as hypotheses, tested, re-tested and shown to be able to explain and predict observations in the real world.
Ideas should not be derided, as they are the basis of knowledge, but they should not be accepted and trusted without being proven by the sort of process described above.
I apologize – this was not meant to be in any way patronizing or demeaning. I hope you found it informative and that it helps to explain that I am not rejecting religious claims out of anger, hardheartedness or arrogance – aacusations often levelled at the non-religious – but out of a need for evidence.
It might also help to know that I was once an strongly believing, evangelical christian believer, studying in preparation for what I thought was a divine call to ordained ministry. My apostasy is not a wilful decision not to subject myself to a deity but the result of spending a long time researching the subject.
I appreciate you setting me straight as to your intention. I’m not offended or demeaned. Far from it. You have obviously studied this a great deal. I would also like to point out that I do like to play the devils advocate on occasion, for a balanced discussion.
All I can say is the need for evidence is only needed by you the scientists. People of faith have no such need, they are comfortable in their beliefs. Considering your religious background, you of all people should understand that.
I’m afraid the burden of proof lies with you if that is truely what you crave. You have to prove that God(s) do not exist. I know that goes against your scientific principles but no one from religion is asking you to prove any hypothesis either way.
I’m afraid the burden of proof lies with you if that is truely what you crave.
You do not understand the “burden of proof”, my friend.
The religious make the claim, the religious must support that claim with evidence.
I make no claim and thus cannot supply evidence.
The only thing I can possible supply evidence for is my lack of belief. I hope I have satisfied that “burden” adequately.
;o)
I knew you were going to say that and your lack of belief is duly noted. Religionists have nothing to prove, you either believe or don’t.
Doubting Thomas faith faltered and needed to see the risen Jesus with his own eyes. He saw and was satisfied. I guess thats the whole point of faith.
It is good to know that Jesus loved Thomas so much more than the rest of us.
;o(((
Indeed, but he made his point. Put your pinky here and here. Doubt no more.
Anyhow I think we’ve exhausted this joust. Until the next time.
Of course, protest with your wallet. Makes sense.
Of course, given the fact that the cover of Charlie Hebdo is EVERYWHERE, unless its been banned, so it’s a little more complicated than that.
I agree that civilized people would not react violently.
That’s why I am so bothered by the amount of Anti-Semitism and attacks against innocent Muslims in Europe. I thought Europe was better than that.
charlie hebdo not only make a picture of muhammad (islam),but Jews and christian too,but you know only islam who angry and kill the cartoonist,why ? because the cartoonist is non-muslim,so their blood are permitted,and it’s writed in their quran
Before moderates here backlash me, ask yourselves only one question: are you sure you and your daughters will be safe once Islam is majority in your country ? Do you wish to trust them to be secular with you ? History has shown they have never been merciful to anyone, even the Parsis/Zorostrians were driven out of Iran.
I believe that these so called moderate politicians and journalists are on the payroll of powerful Saudi Kuwaiti Islamic lobbies to spread ignorance that “TERROR HAS NO RELIGION”. There is a lot of money being given to media as well to keep it’s mouth shut. The middle east islamic lobbies knows they can’t fight the west heads on, but they can spread like a cancer within them and tear them apart from inside. If the whole world is Muslim then the House of Al Saud become the Emperors of the entire earth.
Even today people can’t see what happens in Islamic countries that are run by Sharia, where christians and other religions have virtually no rights. If Muslims are moderates then why are they not speaking out against these countries ?? Alas, people only realise very late once the cancer has spread so much that nothing can be done about it.
We see, hear and smell it. However when escapeees like Ayaan Hirsi Ali come here and share their 1st hand experience, they are savaged by the rabid-dog mudslimes, and the govt/press simply denies all of her story. This is worse than the denial of the “death-camps” run by the nazi’s during WWII.
Speaking of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I wonder how Brandeis is spinning the whole Charlie Hebdo story? It’s funny how all of these vilified, outspoken, honest folk ( like Ali) are finally been “included”. Pipes just wrote a great article, which addressed the Europeans and their new recognition of the “Far Right”. It’s worth the read.
I don’t know where all these moderates are on this site that you are so worried about. Most people on here agree entirely with you. In fact a lot would go further and admit that it doesn’t have to wait until Islam is in the majority in the country just look at Rochdale (UK) for a start.
Terroristism arise from Islam. There is no such thing as moderate Muslims ! All of them, they either accept it silently or loudly. The western countries MUST NOT give in to their demands and MUST STOP all Muslims emigrants immediately from coming in to their countries !!.
I have ben saying this for years. One of the precepts of Islam is that every man must strive to Islamify the host country. To that extent at least there is no such thing as a moderate. they come not to integrate but eventually, as they are required to do to subjugate. I fear it is already too late for any kind of peaceful solution. Eventually it must come down to force and the longer we allow them to dominate the less likely we will be to win any such conflict.
LOL… You’ve been wrong for years, too. This is simply not true. Do you always practice theology without a license?
So when Muslim scholars say the object is Global Islam, they are not telling the truth, is that what you are saying? I have spoken to many many Muslims in my time working in the Middle East. They agree that it is part of Islam to strive to Islamify the host country. So they are wrong then. they have no idea what they are talking about? You don’t need a licence to see what is in front of you. the plethora of organisations dedicated to advance Islam, the never ending demands, and the refusal to integrate are all figments of our imagination.
No, what I’m saying is that you literally don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Your very phrasing “Muslims scholars say” gives your ignorance away. You do realize that there a dozens and dozens of internal debates going on WITHIN Islamic scholarship at any given time, right? So when you try and cite some vaguely sourced “Muslim Scholars” as if they were the final authority on all Islamic matters, the rational educated response is to simply enquire which scholars. what’s their agenda, and why do you think they speak for everybody? Look, you can find radical nut jobs who want to impose their will within any belief system – Christianity included.
The problem is that ignorant idiots – and the media – love to cherrypick the most extreme cases to make their arguments and advance their own agendas. But if you’re so worried about “the never ending demands, and the refusal to integrate” then why single out Muslims? Orthodox Jews and Christian Evangelists are just as bad in this regard. If you really want to fight the “the never ending demands, and the refusal to integrate”, why don’t you stand up for America by defending a woman’s right to choose?
I see that as per usual, you liberal radicals avoid the main questions. Can you deny that the mainstream of Muslim thought is Global Islam? Can you deny that one of the very pillars is that every Muslim must strive insofar as he is able to Islamify the host country? How do you explain the proliferation of Islamic terror groups, and smart comments such as terror is terror doesn’t answer it. Let’s just brush off the bit about once Muslim that land remains Muslim in perpetuity, and ignore the resurgence of Islam in Spain on those very grounds.. As for not knowing what I am talking about. I have lived and worked for over two decades in the Middle East including Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Libya. I have read the Qur’an, and while I personally would not class my Arabic as brilliant, I can hold a slow conversation as long as they choose their words carefully. Your credentials are……….. Take a look at Ibrahim’s rule of numbers and see how accurate they are. Of course I know that your mind is made up and it should not be bothered with facts. Can you explain Taqiyya which I Islam is the only main stream religion to practice? You can look it up of course but do you as you read this know what it is?
Being in a war torn region after a western coalition has conquered and occupied it will only put you closer to the militant extremists and not those that simply practice the faith. Btw “brahim’s numbers” is also in the torah and the bible. I spent time in turkey , Saudi Arabia, Israel and Palestine. I met plenty of muslims and we discussed global issues and religious issues alot over tea or just hanging out and my Arabic is shitty but alot of them where I was are western educated and speak decent english.all youve done is push hateful propaganda.
You are a radical who needs watching.
Defending a woman’s right to choose is the death of our future and a woman murdering her unborn for sex is evil.
You are a radical planning a terror attack?
Its part od Christianity and Judaism as well moron. Smdh go back to school dip shit and learn something
Islam is evil. Been evil and should have been irradicate centuries ago. Shame on you for giving those of Islam a kill pass.
I know seems like every redneck thinks they have a doctorate in theology with a minor in political science. Smdh all they are is racist rednecks. Oh yea btw there are already enough muslims in America already to do this “take over” these idiots are scared of. Smdh morons
Evil radical you are. You are with ISIS NO DOUBT.
You lie. Are you muslim Too?
Yes just look at the history of the world, concerning Muslims…they were always fought militarily, to protect the rest of the people on the planet. 700’s 800’s 900’s ..1200’s 1300’s 1400’s etc etc. Take your pick; every century since they showed up suddenly in the 600’s. Lives were always saved and this is the only language they understand.
LOL… Um, no. Terrorism is terrorism and is a tactic that exists independently of Islamic extremism. And don’t you realize that when you deny the existence of moderate Muslims – which certainly do exist – you’re actually playing right into the hands of the Salafist extremists? When you repeat the false claims of the Salafist terrorists – that only they represent “true Islam” – you allow them to dictate the terms of the debate. Congratulations: you’ve become a propaganda tool of the terrorists at the expense of millions of Muslims worldwide who they also victimize. Don’t be a useful idiot.
You are just a complete idiot by trying to defend moderate islam, what exactly is this ‘moderate islam’ that you talk about like you know it so well ? There is only one type of Islam that is accepted and that is the islam of mohamme and his quran, there is no debate on this at all and the quran clearly states that Allah is the only god. How can moderate islam even exist in such a scenario ? Are u saying that some muslims will allow The vergine to be worshipped ? In that case they are not muslims at all. Unlike, protestantism which emerged as an alternative to catholicism, which itself has emerged by opposing the orthodox church ( think russia & ethiopia) islam has no opposing view – sure there are sunni & shi’a but these are not theoretic differences of the quran but rather an interpretaion of hadiths. Lets get this very straight – there are no moderate muslims because there is no moderate path in Islam – islam is either black or white.
When will Hindus stop killing Christians ? Kill Hindus first and kick them out of the West.
LOL… So you’ve never heard of Sufis?
The Bible and the Torah also claim exclusivity for their versions of monotheism, too – so how can moderate Judaism or moderate Christianity exist by your logic, either?
Also, what’ a “vergine”? Are you Borat?
You like to prove that you are a complete idiot, don’t you ?
‘La Vergine’ is how the virgin Mary is addressed in Italy – you need to see more of the world before you get on disqus and show your complete ignorance of the world beyond ‘murica.
As for your views about Protestants please read up on the history of the Anglican church and decide for yourself.
In case you don’t know, Sunnis don’t consider Shi’a to be Islamic at all, hows that for being a sect ? They think its a jewish conspiracy to divide Islam. I bet you didn’t know that.
You can keep LOLing but that wont change the fact that you are an idiot of the first degree
ROFL… Oh look, the hysterical dumbfuck doesn’t get jokes.
Give it a rest you hysterical nitwit… I know very well what they call the blessed Virgin in Italy. Long before I actually traveled to Italy, and long before I read my Vasari and studied Renaissance art, I went to Catholic School in New Jersey, so you’d best believe I know a thing or two about Catholic Iconography in Italian. But I don’t go around like a pretentious git talking about “the Vergine” like Borat, you laughable motherfucker.
Jokes. Do you get them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX-7E9Pqzis
So get off your ridiculous high horse and stop gibbering on about “.Merica” like you know what you’re talking about, you ridiculous doofus.
As for the rest of your dumbfuck rant, why would I bother to read up on the Anglican Church? Those people barely rate as Protestants – they’re just Catholic light. I’m talking about the real-deal, hardcore Protestants: Lutherans and Presbyterians, folks with an actual creed and an ethos, not a bunch of Englishmen drinking tea with the vicar.
And if you knew anything about European History, you’d know that during the counter-reformation and the hundred years war, Catholics and Protestants didn’t really consider each other to be Christians at all. Pretty much like how the Sunnis view the Shi’a – so, yeah, like I said, they’re sects of the same religion.
And yeah, I DID know that “jewish conspiracy” nonsense, you dumb git.
Dude, you bring nothing new or interesting to the table here and just keep asserting your opinions without anything to back them up – and worse, you turn around and act like an arrogant know-it-all when you’re two steps behind.
Get a clue, you basic clown. The only idiot here is you and I laugh in your pompous face.
so now its a joke ? because I am not laughing you racist motherfucker! first get an education you lazy ass idiot, you think you are funny by posting lame ass jokes from Borat and calling them funny. You are a stupid motherfucking cunt. GTFO!
Guest thinks of himself as a paragon of intellectuality.
If the core doctrines of Catholicism and Protestantism were the same, there would have been no need for the great reformation. Catholicism is a religion of works, Protestantism is a religion of grace without works. The Catholic Council of Trent declared the latter as being anathema (condemned), in fact those who believe that salvation is by Gods grace alone, apart from works, which are the FRUIT of salvation, were hunted down, imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the Catholic papacy. Two religions that have two completely different means of salvation are not doctrinally the same, far from it. There’s a chance that both could be wrong, but no chance that both can be right because they are diametrically opposed to one another. Let’s get this very straight – it’s YOU who doesn’t know what you’re talking about.
Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Qur’an next to Muhammad, who quoted him alot, and the virgin mary is revered in islam for birthing jesus, a holy prophet to them . What you dont know about religion could fill 100 libraries. Thats like saying theres only one denomination of Christianity. Smdh just stop man
The Jesus who Muslims revere is not the Jesus of the bible, who was God incarnate, God in human form…
https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/jesusgd2.htm
Ask any Muslim if they revere THAT Jesus and you will get an emphatic NO!
A false Jesus who was nothing more than a minor prophet, which is what Muslims believe of Jesus, doesn’t count.
Tom, but the Salafists and the wahhabbis from which the most terrorist acts emanate are the “true Islam”. They follow the traditional Islam as it was in the early days, full of expansion by the sword, genocides and terrorist acts. Because the fundamentalists speak the truth of their religion, the moderate or liberal Muslims are not able to reform the relationship of the umma (Islamic community of all believers) with their religion.
Propaganda is the refusal of Non-Muslim liberals in the West to see the ideological underpinnings of terrorism and political Islam, but stubbornly insist on socio-economic factors of radicalisation.
Socio-economic factors do play a role in foming discontent among European immigrants, but that is no excuse to resort to terrorism or to desecrate other religions’ artefacts. If religion plays no role in violence, why then the disenfranchised Nonmuslim immigrants don’t start killing Europeans and hating them? I mean, discontent can be aired by means of public protest: going to the streets, writing articles, asking for equaltreatment and job opportunities, criticising the society etc.
No, they simply CLAIM to be “true Islam” – remember, Salafists only emerged in the 18th century and their claim to “tradition” is based very much on the exclusion of other, equally valid traditions within Islam. By embracing their rhetoric, you unwittingly replicate their own propaganda. But Salafists are no closer to “true Islam” than fundamentalist Christians are close to 2nd century A.D. Christianity.
As for your bogus claim that “They follow the traditional Islam as it was in the early days, full of expansion by the sword, genocides and terrorist acts” that’s just historical cherry picking.
First of all, you seem to forget that Christianity was spread to most of the world “by the sword,” too. Ever heard of Constantine and the Battle of the Mulvian Bridge? Ever heard of Charlemange’s forcible “conversions” of his subjected peoples? Ever heard of the Conquistadores? Ever heard of the missionaries who worked hand in hand with European colonialist governments to forcibly convert whole swathes of Africa and Asia? Hell. Christians even tried to colonize and wipe out OTHER Christians – from the Cathars to the Catholics in Northern Ireland. I know that Christians love to play the innocent, but their hands are just as drenched in blood as anyone else’s – and Christianity is just as guilty of “genocides and terrorist acts” on global scale as any other faith.
Moreover, let’s not forget that Islam’s greatest territorial expansion – in the Indian Ocean and along the old silk road – came peacefully through trade, not conquest.
Sorry, dude, but you’re just advancing somebody else’s agenda when you try to cherry pick history while ignoring the plank in your own eye.
Christians and particularly the Roman Catholic Church, being the oldest, undoubtedly have a lot to answer for in the 2000 plus years of their history. But Christianity doesn’t have aggressive global expansion “by the point of a sword” embedded in its theology like Islam does, probably because its founder, unlike the founder of Islam, was not a bloodthirsty warlord. And “peaceful” territorial expansion of Islam? You seem to forget that much of the Middle East and North Africa before Islam was Christian. Egypt was once over 90 percent Christian.Most of those Christians did not convert willingly to Islam; they were not any more willing to do this than are most Christians today. They were wiped out or driven out, and the few remaining were, like the Jews, subjugated and forced to live as second-class citizens called “dhimmis”, forced to pay “jizya” or basically protection money in the form of a crippling tax to the Muslim rulers.
Back up your assertion with solid facts instead of just insulting people.
I’m all ears.
I did. Repeatedly. Learn to read.
Sorry, took you 3 months to respond. I’m not reading through all your tripe again.
I accept your surrender then.
If you must. Loser.
ROFL How does it feel to be bested by a liberal. Again?
Yawn. Did you do a lap of honour?
[email protected]!
LOL There is no “u” in “honor”, “humor” or ” color” and there is no @ in “twat”.
You dumb Brits can’t get anything right can you?
Spoken like a true colonial. Buy a dictionary and learn the queens English which you have so brutally bastardised.
It’s sad really.
But you are right twat is spelt without an @. Literal little gobshite. Trot on now.
ROFL… You may enjoy sounding like a queen, but I prefer to sound like a man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSNREtboX3s
Bwahhhahhhaa! A cartoon? Tom Tom Tom, Come back when you’ve actually had a girlfriend to shag.
Now. Toddle off and play with yourself, your right hand is the only action you’ve seen.
I accept your surrender. Please report to my adjutant’s tent for the ceremonial rogering at your earliest convenience.
Yawn, any last words? You’re obviously tickled pink by your unexpected victory. Where can I pin your medal. It has a 6 foot pin.
Awww… did that rogering tire you out? Poor thing. I guess that’s why you guys can’t keep up with the big dogs. Try drinking coffee, not tea. That’s probably why you weak sisters lost your little empire. As for the medal, up your own ass is fine. LOL
Good effort. It’s a shame though. Must try harder. Toodle pip frat boy
Toodle pip, fruitcake.
You just got schooled, you fool. Talk about bastardizing the language. Your pointless little comebacks are pathetic. You’ve no facts to make a legit argument. Go away.
Thank you for your valued contribution. The only fools are those who STILL believe that Islamism is not a threat to all of us and seem intent on destroying their own cultures and races to satisfy some warped notion that the white race has to pay the ultimate price out of conscience. This week alone 10000 arrived in Italy from north Africa. That is some population replacement exercise.
I’ve argued with blind leftist [email protected] who are dancing with the devil for long enough. Welcome to the party.
I’m afraid I ended up with the same as my girl. A premature spunk covered bedside table and a good laugh at your pencil dick. I wouldn’t go to war with that pea shooter for a weapon. So long septic.
There you go, confusing me with your dad again…
Yeah but he worked through his problem. So good news for you. There’s hope for you yet
Renting him out to a Chechen brothel is NOT working through the problem. Try again.
Ha ha. Why not ? It’s a job eh? Now about your pencil dick. I’ve heard there is an operation you can have. It involves taking fat from your fat yank arse and injecting it into your miserable excuse for a pork sword, [read toothpick]. Don’t get yourself down, there is hope.
It’s easily done
There is definitely a “u” in humor and as we invented the language, it is a little trite of you to say we can’t get anything right…
Yo, asshole American, we Canadians spell those words with a “u” too, as do Australians, New Zealanders, and citizens of pretty much every other English-speaking country in the world. So suck it up; you’re outnumbered as far as this goes.
Well said
ALL terrorists are Muslims. All Muslims are not terrorists, but all Muslims support terrorism through Sharia Law.
i live in Indonesia,that country who have the largest population of islam,so i know how evil of them,in here so many church are burnt,and very difficult to built a church here,eventhough Indonesia don’t use sharia but the muslim here are arrogant,so i hope Europe can be carefull with the muslim invade,i has feel how to live with muslim people,i don’t want europe feel the evil of muslim
Your countries have never done anything to the mudslimes. Indonesia was always thought of as a tropical paradise. Now there are fanatical pislamic gangs trying to take over and erase Christianity, kidnap/ransom tourists and their classic beheadings. I feel for you!
Yes you have 800 million muslims there don’t you.
How many of those are fundamentalists and therefore, a danger to humanity.
Why are you blaming Islam? Clearly this is the work of filthy Protestant scum who have a long history of disrespect for the Catholic veneration of Saints and of Holy Mother Mary in particular.
Nice attempt at a POE, but not convincing.
POE?
This mY HWLP…
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s+Law
Why protestant my father was Catholic and my mother protestant and I know many many protestant and not one or my mother have ever said a bad word against catholics. Protestants scum I do not think so. Get a life and open your eyes and see what is going on in front of them.
All I know is that it wasn’t Muslims who dispossessed the Irish in their own country and killed 3 million Irish in a genocidal famine in the 19th century. That was Protestants. And it wasn’t Muslims who started the 30 years war that killed 11 million European Christians. This was all the devilish work of PROTESTANTS! They were led astray by the demon Martin Luther and his diabolic henchmen, Zwingli, Knox, Calvin and the other bloodthirsty wretches who wanted to destroy the One True and Apostolic Faith. Protestants have killed far, far more Christians in Europe than Muslims. It’s a fact. Do not trust them!
Tom get a grip upon yourself.
Masturbation is a sin, sir! A SIN!!!
So now, you mock. At last, some of the true character is revealed.
So, it’s all a joke to you, provoking other people who show earnest and genuine concern for their lives and our society?
Sick, pathetic, sycophant evil-worshiper. Attached so dearly to a violent false religion cult.
Now that I have expressed my well-considered opinion, you can go running to your local cult leader that thinks for you; who will, no doubt, declare me to be ‘kafir’ and issue a ‘fatwa’ authorizing violence against me.
Tom, the bodycount at the hands of muslims far exceeds anything you have mentioned. Just the three caliphs in India alone account for 80 million plus Hindu deaths.
Straw man deception as pathetic excuse for an assertion, let alone a coherent argument.
Next time you dare to cite “history”, try not to leave out all the evil committed by your favorite boy, there. Capiche?
Tom, you’re funny. True, Protestants have been known to denigrate Catholics, but they’re not usually so aggressive about it. I think it’s safe to assume the thugs were not Christians of any denomination.
How can you be sure? I think these Protestant hordes are trying to steal Italy from the Italians like they once stole Ireland from the Irish. These Protestants cannot be trusted!
Surely if publishing cartoons requires Muslims to seek revenge by killing, we should be doing more than talking about such an act of sacrilege. No I am not advocating it just airing an opinion. If they can kill to defend the honour of a paedophile why can Christians not do the same, or would that be racist and Islamophobic. While their solution is just and understandable.
I think you’re confused. This isn’t about a cartoon, it’s about an act of iconoclasm. Also, what is this “paedophile” you speak of? Is it Moses or Yaweh himself?
Numbers 31: 17-18 “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
And let’s not forget that God himself impregnated Mother Mary when she was only 13.
It’s funny to me when folks get all wee-weed up over the alleged pedophilia in someone else’s Holy Book but overlook it in their own…
Your sick. You are muslim and sick. You think it is k to marry little girls and do all things evil. You are a member of CAIR to desroy America.
Tom, focus! We are not here to worry about Protestants at this stage. It’s possible Protestants engaged in bad behavior towards Catholics in the past, but Catholics have done their fair share of sinning in response. The 1400 year global death toll at the hands of Muslims is estimated at 270 million. All faiths included.
I’m curious where you get your numbers – they seem quite spurious to me. What’s the methodology? And how can you possibly arrive at anything near a precise number? For instance, what do you do with something like the Armenian genocide, which had much more of a secular, nationalist motivation than a religious one? Because if you include something like that, then you’d have to lay everything from the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and Colonialism to both World Wars and the Holocaust at the door of European Christianity – not to mention the Crusades, the genocide of native peoples in the Americas, the 30 years war and even American’s own colonial misadventures in Vietnam and Iraq. Pretty sure the global death toll racked up by European Christendom would make every one else’s pale by comparison.
Let’s face it, once you start tallying up everyone ever killed by a Muslim, you quickly lose the plot and forget the difference between radical Salafist Islam – our true enemy – and the millions of other Muslims who don’t actually yearn for some crackpot showdown with the West. Moreover, in replicating the same dumb “clash of civilizations” narrative as the Salafists, you unwittingly lend it creedence and play right into their hands by reinforcing their own propaganda at the expense of the hundreds of thousands of other Muslims that they also victimize.
And please don’t go cherry picking history to tell me how “Islam arrived at the point of a sword” – because you seem to forget that that’s how Christianity arrived in much of Europe, too: from Constantine to Charlemagne, much of Europe was Christianized in the very same process of conquest and assimilation that saw the spread of Islam in the Levant and North Africa in the 5th and 6th centuries. But don’t let reality get in the way of your misguided misunderstanding of the world’s second largest religion. LOL
Tom, I don’t have a “misguided misunderstanding” of Islam. You do. You have a grasp of history as it pertains to the West, but you don’t have a clue about the history of Islam, apparently. Muslim armies broke out of the Arabian peninsula in the the 7th Century and proceeded to massacre millions of Jews, Christians, Hindus, and Buddhist across the Middle East and India, up to and including Afghanistan. This “Islamic Holocaust” was the greatest act of genocide in human history. And it is still taking place today. If you look, you can find many authoritative sources describing the life of Mohammad, and the history of Islam. Educate yourself, as you’ve asked me to do. BTW, Christianity was alive and well in all parts of the Middle East and North Africa at the time of Mohammed. In fact, the Middle East is the birthplace of Christianity, in case you forgot.
Don’t let egoistic equivocation get in the way of your recognition of the abhorrence of human behaviors in times of war and conquests of the past, as being savage, unprincipled crime.
So: just because exaggerated claims of brutality by Christians spew forth from your keyboard, let’s all consider evil committed in the name of “allah”, to be civilized and acceptable.
Reprehensible, apologist-for-evil tool; that you in fact, are.
your point of rambling on and on ….lol…we will put you first for the first beheading!!!
tom, you are a bright man and i agree with a lot of what you say, but we are of two minds when concerning the extent of the problem of Islamic supremacism. i will make my points and i hope we can have a profitable back and forth while avoiding any personal attacks. i think we both have valid points to make and perhaps we can stimulate people to investigate the topic without resorting to the usual “muzzies suck” nonsense we see so often.
(i apologize for all the missing caps. my caplock is busted. i could only capitalize words the spell check highlighted.)
all organized religions are about control and they all have blood stained pasts. faith is in the heart, in the still of the night and faith is not a priest telling you to believe or go to hell. i personally have nothing but contempt for the savage behavior that we have seen committed to enhance to power of the church and the mosque.
however, the current violence being perpetrated in the name of Islam is today’s problem. and while there may be Muslims who do not advocate violence, their silence about the violence of their fellow Muslims is deafening and disturbing.
there are too many Islamic organizations, from the Muslim brotherhood to.the grand mufti of al ahzar university, the highest authority in Sunni Islam, who speak openly about establishing a global caliphate. they denigrate all the other religions with impunity, while the west is afraid to say word one about the sickness in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Dubai, where foreign workers are virtual slaves or Mauritania, a 100% Muslim nation where slavery still exists.
the same grand mufti, who when asked by a visitor if it was permissible to allow new churches in Kuwait, replied, “it is necessary to destroy all the churches of the region (the entire Arabian peninsula).” he went on to justify his statement by adding that he was following the teachings of Mohammad and the quran.
to deny the supremacist teachings in the quran, the hadith, Islamic jurisprudence and sharia law is just not possible.i do not believe it is possible to read and study the primary texts of Islamic dogma and doctrine and deny that Islamic is laced with violent hostility for non-believers, the subjugation of all other faiths, and making Islam the only religion permitted for all of humanity.nor can any honest person deny that anyone leaving Islam in an Islamic nation under sharia law is subject the the death penalty the same grand mufti made that quite clear as did the most popular cleric in the Islamic world, yusuf al-qaradawi, who said, “If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment Islam wouldn’t exist today”
if we go by the pew institutes research, and they are considered reputable and accurate, 10% to 15% of all Muslims are radicalized. that means at least 160 million to 240 million of of the 1.6 billion Muslims are radical Islamists. they outnumber the combined armed forces of every nation on earth. how is this not a threat?
and it is not just about a “showdown with the west” as you put it. it is about the suffering and misery in the 56 Muslim majority nations. perhaps no one suffers more from Islam than the Muslim families living in squalor in much of the Islamic world. .
while some of your points are valid, i have to disagree with you on the idea that only salafis and wahhabi are extremists. i have been in many of the 56 Islamic nations and i have seen and heard first hand how the concept of Islamic supremacism has become part of this thinking of the masses. the crowds pouring out of the mosques after Friday prayers in every Islamic nation are ready to detonate in the name of Allah and even the most innocent act, such as a christian dating a Muslim, can set a mob of thousands on a rampage, as we have seen in the suffering of the copts in Egypt at the hands of the Muslim mob; especially after Friday prayers.
i look forward to your comments.my bottom line is too many humans beings have died for someone’s concept og religion and it is getting really tiresome. the world could be a much better place.but Islam needs to join the modern world and the USA need to stop trying to export democracy.the Vatican can sink into the ocean as far as i am concerned.
If you are a muslim say so. If you are a radical say so. You are not of American ancestry that is certain. Have you committed Terror? You sound so.
You are proud of the evil that muslims are doing. Why?
I have never heard of protestants in Italy, only terrorist islamic scum are capable of such barbarism!
But that’s where you’re wrong – Protestants have a long history of exactly this sort of “barbarism” against the Catholic veneration of Saints in Europe. Have you never heard of the 30 years war, sir? And there are plenty of Northern European Protestants all over Italy now, buying up real estate all over the place. It’s only a matter of time before these intolerant immigrants start imposing their agenda on the Catholic citizens of Italy!
They were Muslims that did this.
How can you be sure?
the 30 years war ?!!! that probably happened before the damn protestants colonized India and got rich. In the meantime the English have got more civilized and they dont desecrate statues of the vergine, not even in Belfast, they dont. And let me assure you there are no Northern European Protestants buying up Italy, the Italians are too busy running their own damn show to let anyone else interfere, maybe u mean spain because thats where the buying action is or was, rather. Oh btw, people who are rich enough to buy up land dont go around destroying statues and pissing on them… I am sure your name is Pryor, its probably Pasha or some damn muslim name.
He can hardly restrain himself (herself?) from shouting ‘allah akbar’, as he (she?) parrots these make believe nonsense lies.
Desperation – that’s what I sense, here. It is plainly disingenuous to demand recognition of false representations about current practices of the cult of islam nowadays, while making comparisons with conduct from over 400 years ago, of others you oppose.
Repeating the same non sequitur or lie incessantly, adds no veracity to your deceptive assertions; no matter how many times you try.
Yes, everyone believes your transparent lie pulled right out of your a^s/s. After, “everyone knows” that it is Protestants who do this “all the time”; yes?
/s
This is merely more “taqiyya”, as mandated by the quran. Lying ‘troll’ provocateur, standard “playbook”.
Best not to engage too intensely. Starve the troll!
Well said
Are not the Hindus (such as yourself) against the West and Christianity as well? Why spare the Hindus – they’re the same as Islamists.
The headlines are not filled with murdering Hindus taking revenge upon the west in the name of their religion. But Islam, there are dozens and dozens of such stories.
Hindus are too lazy to exact revenge on poor christians. We let karma do the work for us 😉
Do more searching. And quit posting with a European name you Hindu piece of shit.
U are the piece of shit.
Oh really ? Hindus against christians ?! Let me assure you mate, the first chur h outside of jerusalem was established in India as far back as 52 AD, thats even before they invented the pope! India is the only country which has never prosecuted jews in all their 3000 year history. Never ever! No anti-semitism ever! I dare you to raise a word against India.
Acknowledged; in Karala is some of the oldest lineage of Christianity in the world, reputedly established by the missionary works of St. Paul.
its actually Kerala mate but I am not going to nitpick on vowels 😉 India is actually an emerging market for christian evangelists – the potential is practically limitless, think a billion pagans existing peacefully (mostly) with peoples of the book and certain other co-faiths like buddhists, jains and sikhs. hallelujah!
Anyone with half a brain can scour the internet for themselves. Hindus are Anti Christian and Anti Western. Get rid of them.
Pai, I request you to have a healthy debate instead of insulting people and calling us scum before even letting us put our view forward.
When Islam threw out Zorostrians/Parsis from Iran, it was Hindu kings who gave the Parsis refuge. Israel has acknowledged that India/Hindus have never been anti-Semetic. Hindus have been the most tolerant of all religions because they have never had a central controlling authority like the Church or Mecca/Medina.
Whereas in Saudi Arabia even a cross is not allowed inside a country, in India, any religion is allowed to profess/follow its faith. Yes there have been acts of Hindus burning Christians, but those have been when Christian missionaries have been converting Hindus luring them with money jobs and favours.
And last but not least, any Hindu who wishes to leave Hinduism does not get a death sentence the way a Muslim would get for leaving Islam in the UAE/Saudi Arabia/Malaysia/Pakistan or any arabic muslim majority countries.
The ramblings of an insane person.
You are the one who’s lost it mate. Rahul here is putting the facts on the table
“There is a lot of money being given to media as well to keep it’s mouth shut. The middle east islamic lobbies knows they can’t fight the west heads on, but they can spread like a cancer within them and tear them apart from inside. If the whole world is Muslim then the House of Al Saud become the Emperors of the entire earth.”
Nah. I’m pretty sure he’s lost it.
He’s an Anti-Christian, Anti-Western HINDU. He wants to see us fight the Muslims.
MicoB, I was in Dubai last week and I was surprised to hear what an ordinary muslim cabbie was telling me. He was like: Sir, even though we cut and kill, we have a right to, as it’s our duty to turn the whole world to Islam. Cutting and killing for the greater good is always forgiven. We are doing no wrong, as everybody, means everybody on Earth has to be Muslim one day.
The UAE is liberal only because they need slaves to work for them, as 80% population is expat…
Pai, I am not anti Christian or anti Western Hindu, I am a Hindu who loves Western values of free speech, pre-marital sex, freedom in belief and democracy. I just don’t want all of that to go away as Islam spreads like cancer.
I agree with your comment friend, i have studied their religion, i have read their books and teachings, and its teaches nothing but violence and hatred for everyone and anyone except muslims, my friend.
U r right, there are 109 verses in Quran that call for violence or killings. Islam is NOT a religion of peace, if it is it should be called Salam and not Islam which means submission.
LOL… So now you’re a linguist as well as a religious scholar?
And what exactly are you, apart from arrogant and insulting?
You mean apart from better educated and informed than you and your crybaby nitwit friends?
If you say so. Now go and put a bit more air in your girlfriend
Sorry, I was busy ramming my member up your girl’s poo pipe.
Damn, she did tell me. She thought you were being kinky by trying to shove a pencil up her arse. Oh how she laughed when she realised it was your inadequate pencil dick. Besides. It was all over before she could object, shooting your load over the bedside table at the sight of a real pair of tits.
Yes, the main stream media is spreading a cancer, “Islam is peaceful”, “Islam can coexist with us”. Never believe it. Open your eyes. Islam is without a doubt the most intolerant major religion in the world today. It is INCOMPATIBLE with western culture and western values. Incompatible. Islam cannot exist in Europe, the Americas, Australia, and other western lands. Islam clashes with the very core of western values: Freedom of speech/ expression/ press. Mocking the prophet? Too effing bad, get over it or LEAVE.
Actually Islam has existed in Europe for hundreds of years. You’re confusing Salafist extremism with the entirety of Islam and that’ simply incorrect.
Islam allows taqiyya which is to allow deception for muslims in the face of opposition and this is how they were able to exist in Europe & India inspite of continued oppression.
LOL… All this received nonsense from non-muslim non-religious scholars…
Quran (22:19-21) – But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads; Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron
Quran (4:56) – Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise
Quran (8:55) – Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve
Quran (9:30) – And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah… Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
Qur’an 9:29-Fight against Christians and Jews ”until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.”
Qur’an 9:7-9-Don’t make treaties with non-Muslims. They are all evildoers and should not be trusted.
Qur’an (5:51) – ”O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”
Qur’an (2:65-66) Christians and Jews must believe what Allah has revealed to Muhammad or Allah will disfigure their faces or turn them into apes, as he did the Sabbath-breakers.
etc.
As someone puit it “Peace in the middle east and the larger world cannot be made when such seeds of hate are inbreed within the text of the Koran”.
And you are……….. What?
troll and traitor…mohammad sucks pig
Traitor? I think you’ve confused me with Tom Cotton.
ROFL Nitwit.
and what, pray tell, are your credentials. i have studied religion and Islam for 40 years and i don”t think you actually give a hoot about Islam. i think your intention was be provocative and insulting by posting nasty comments with no facts or sources.
in other words, you are a troll.
ignore this guy people.
No, I love to piss nitwits off.
Liberalism has a similar thing only it’s self-deception…
The existence of Islam in Europe was not peacefull! For your enlightenment please read the book
“The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War & the Fate of Non-Muslims” by Dr. Andrew Bostom.
You will understand then that the violent Islam is not linked only to Salafists but to the whole of religion, even if many Muslims do not follow the violent and intolerant teachings from their holy books.
In South-Eastern Europe, where the Ottoman empire ruled for 500 Years the fate of Christians was horrific. The same happened with the Indians of other religions under the Muslim rule on the subindian continent (Today India and Pakistan). No better were treated the Christians in Turkey, Middle East and North Africa.
Hihihi you guys are funny. The only ones talking about “holy war” (which is not translated into Jihad) are the Jews in
Sorry, I don’t read crackpot bullshit by phony scholars with a political agenda.
What was the fate of Muslims and Jews under the Christians in Spain after 1492, btw?
ROFL Any nitwit can cherry pick history for atrocities.
please focus!
i see some your comment and its seems your hobies to deviate conversation with bring new topic without take care the earlier one.
defend and hold your argument before bring a new case..
No. It’s not my fault if you can’t keep up with a fast-moving, multi-faceted conversation. I don’t slow down for dullards.
And can you please rephrase that spastic word salad into something resembling English? I don’t speak gibberish. Thanks!
Whilst weak they are quiet. Now they have a hard on we are seeing their playing hand.
Extremism as you call it has been part of islam sibce the beginning.
As an example of evidence for this assertion, look at the “Old Man of the Mountain” and its link to the etymology of the English language word “assassin”
We Hindus have suffered from this Islamic pestilence for centuries from the day mad barbaric Baabur entered our land and waged Jehaad. From then on, it has just been a tale of wanton pillage and destruction in the name of Allah and also mass rapes and abduction of Hindu women. Even today, this curse is haunting us in the forms of Pak and Bangladesh as well as many rogue Muslim elements roaming free as so called citizens of our land. Not a single Muslim leader talks of jobs, progress economy other than indulging in foolish and criminal Islamic activism. Even after all these centuries of 1-sided tolerance by Hindus. these beasts are still at our throats. And I warn that this will be the same fate of the Eu in decades to come.
Pi$$ on the moderates and the liberals. We will eventually have to kill Muslims or be killed
killing non muslim would b the ideology of extremist muslim but as i see the loving comments i got the idea that killing muslims is the desire of even simple and common man so logically its clear who hates whom most ,so just chill 😛
Add the Anti-Christian HINDUS to that list.
when did Italians become such pussies? why weren’t these heathen scumbags beaten down on the spot??
You sir are nothing more than a simpleton spreading fear and lies in order to sway people to your political views. Your a hate monger and all your doing is the same thing you accuse muslims of, blindly hating all islamic people is just plain ignorant. I have islamic friends a few served in the Iraqi and Syrian armies. They have no ill Will to any religion, or western countries. In fact its muslim against muslim in syria and iraq right now. Extremists make up less than 10% of the islamic population in the world. Whereas 20% of christians and 64% of Jews are considered extremists. The rest are regular people trying to make a living and be good people. Your just a racist moron that thinks he knows everything there is to know about islam from fox news. Smdh go get your tinfoil hat @rahul, your gonna talk like an idiot you may as well look the part.
You are Mad! You say muslims are so Peaceful? You are insane. I am a racist with Islam being where my hate Goes! You need to go to ISIS and ask if they are too peaceful to not behead you. Get back with us if you still have your head. You name is fake. You are muslim terrorist.
Iran is not Islam they are just the opposite of Islam
It happened in Afghanistan with the Buddhists and in Lebanon with the Christians and it is happening in Turkey. The Christian Church, the Hagia Sophia, is NOW a Muslim Mosque.
Well said
Italy; in total appeasement mode. Like Britain, France, America, Canada and on and on and….
Have the vandals been arrested?
Who, those socio-economic victims of the neoimperialist postcolonial West? Do you dare to call the poor Muslim immigrants vandals??
Think again, we are in the eternal apology mode living the multicultural whishful thinking ilusion, and Islamists smell it.
So the pope says that “pislamic violence is normal?” If he sees that their “normal” response is violence, then he should understand that we take defensive measures, to keep form getting killed. Or now is defending ourselves from mudslimes considered islamophobic?
I thought it was declared Islamophobic some time ago, especially here in the UK.
3 groups, or combinations there of, of Islam apologists:
1) Group Clueless: Misguided notion that all “religions” are created the same. Islam is a dogma and most uninformed people incorrectly believe that it’s teachings are no different than those of Judeo/Christianity. WRONG.
2) Group “On the Take” : On the receiving end of Saudi/Qatari/Gulen , etc. $$$$$. In other words, financial or political rewards are enabled by sucking up, putting head in sand, and/or applying the word “Islamophobe” on a regular basis. WRONG.
3) Group Liar : The prophet encouraged his flock to lie to infidels. It’s a common, revered practice in Islam to lie. Do the Judeo/Christian books encourage, endorse, and support lying? WRONG
Pope Francis, which group ( or groups ) do you fall into?
A bit of all three.
Actually, all religions ARE dogmas. In fact, the word dogma itself originated in Catholic theology. I think you’re a bit confused here.
Actually, you are a troll. I briefly checked the rest of your posts for verification. Take you ridiculous comments and shoo, fly, shoo. Feeding trolls isn’t something that I like to do. But, your antagonism and stupidity had to be outed. Shoo.
Ever notice that people like to throw around the word “troll” to describe anyone who disagrees with their point of view these days? Try again. I’m not going anywhere.
The practices can be followed dogmatically. Dogma itself, means to be followed without question. Christianity, has been so scrutinzed by it’s followers and detractors, for so long, that I think that discription no longer applies.
Say that to an Evangelist.
correction: Say that to an Evangelical.
LOL… Tell that to Pat Robertson…
Meanwhile, I think the same could said of certain sects within Islam – the Sufis and Ismailis – to name a few. Remember, when you mistake the extremist beliefs of the Salafists for all of Islam, you’re playing right into the hands of the fundamentalists who want to claim that they represent all of Islam. The best way to undermine and defeat these nuts is to first realize that they do not represent all of Islam and that they are a perversion of the faith – and that the majority of their victims are other Muslims whose beliefs differ from theirs…
You have fallen into the “et tu QUOQUE” fallacy, Tom.
Just because Islam or its many sects does something you consider wrong dies not actually exculpate the christinsanity or any of its many sects when they do the same things.
That species of argument is rarely heard outside the playground, or politics, or religion, and I am surprised that an educated chap such as yourself should stoop to using it.
And you have fallen into the trap of taking meta-satire far too seriously.
ROFL
Sucker
No, Tom. It is you who has fallen into a trap.
You are not good enough to perform meta-satire. I have studied your work.
Again, the supercilious mock about a very important and serious subject.
“Get thee hence”, liar troll.
Moreover, whatever gives you the idea that I wanted to exculpate Christianity from anything? I think you’re more than a little confused.
Pointing out the failings of other sects to bolster the failing and desperate position of your own is an “et tu quoque” fallacy.
I remember when you used sarcasm and were good at it. These attempts at satire are signal failures.
Of course not. As it is written, Satan is “the great accuser” of “God’s people” and the Saints (Zech. 3:1; Rev. 12:10b).
You ply this attack, with gusto. “Get thee hence”, for it is obvious to anyone of compassion and some intelligence, exactly what you are.
Hmm afraid not. Surely, you realise that fundamentalists are following islam in its truest form, by very definition of the term fundamentalist.
“The strict following of the fundamental doctrines of any religion or system of thought”
1: So the violence is clearly to do with Islam
2: You are suggesting that “moderates” are trying to reform islam to be more palatable. Unfortunately, there is no one with authority to do that on this earth
As the Turkish president said. There is not moderate islam, there is just islam.
This gimmick will wear thin, quite soon.
ANY concession is “playing into the hands of the fundamentalists”. YOU, do NOT get to dictate the terms of discussion nor debate. Especially not on some Internet comment board.
AND – if you are so enamored of the cult of mohammed (e.g., islam), why not go emigrate to a country ruled under shar-i-a law?
Correct; there is far more theological debate in Chritianity, than in islam. Furthermore, mohammedians have largely abandoned whatever tradition they had regarding any independence of understanding, in their avoidance of ‘ijtihad’.
You are the confused one and are seriously over-egging your partisan pudding there, Tom.
the word “dogma” predates catholic theology by many years, probably many hundreds of years, being of Greek origin, used to mean “philosophical tenet” and deriving from the Greek meaning something thought or considered to be good.
the world did not start with Constantine and Nicea’s insertion of the spurious passage about Peter into one of the hundreds of circulating gospels out of which they manufactured four as authorised.
You leave my eggy pudding out of this, sir!
As for the rest of your comment, I’ll concede you’re correct up to a point – but our current usage of the word dogma is, in fact, predicated on the Catholic ecclesiastical meaning of the word.
According to the OED the term’s first lexical usage in English was in the mid 16th century and its derivation is as follows: via late Latin from Greek dogma ‘opinion’, from dokein ‘seem good, think’.
I could not live with the absence of integrity which a belief resting solely upon the “good opinion” of dead and ignorant men would necessarily entail.
So, based on that criteria, you essentially reject all religious practice?
I reject all things that require me to believe because someone tells me I must, or because I just want to believe it.
I accept things for which there is good evidence.
Religious practice is, and has been, and can be shown to have been, at the foundation of most of the ills of mankind, beginning with the myths told about creation.
More equivocating BS. Obfuscation and trickery – your stock in trade.
The term’s origin was what was specified; not your decision about when someone else should be permitted to consider its usage to be relevant.
The practices can be followed dogmatically. Dogma itself, means to be followed without question. Christianity, has been so scrutinzed by it’s followers and detractors, for so long, that I think that discription no longer applies.
You’ve obviously never met a Christian fundamentalist… 😉
So therefore, you’re asserting that because of some hardheaded religiously motivated a^s*holes, this justifies brutal violence, murder, property destruction and extortion.
Isn’t this correct, troll? I am sure you wouldn’t want anyone to be confused as to where your actual intentions lie.
i live in the country which have the largest popullation of muslim,so i know what is their religion talking about,in quran (koran) muslim should be to kill non-muslim because non-muslim(specially jews and christianity) are enemy for them,i don’t know why islam so hate Christian and jews.and again i know what is the mission of them,they want to make the world to be “khilafah” that’s a system who won’t believe on their “Alloh” will be forced to believe if you keep don’t believe you will killed by them,i know what is the purpose why so many muslim’s imigrant coming to Europe,they want to separated Islam (Islamisation) and make their Khilafah and shariah system will be in the world,for syria case you can see the example in Saudi Arabia,there’s no chance for non-muslim to get pray in public,there’s no church are built,and ther’s no freedom of humanity,so i advice you to be carefull with the secret Islamisation in Europe
Very well expressed and you are right. Unfortunately, the Europeans did not fully understand the situation that they were dealing with and that’s why it was allowed to get so far out of hand.
For God’s sakes. They beat the mudslimes down once before, I’m sure they can do it again!
Secret? The mudslimes have always been trying to conquer europe. Or more specifically, to destroy the religous centers for Christianity/Jewdiasim. I think that it was in 732AD, at the battle of Tours, where Charles Martel demolished the mudslim hordes, who would have had a free run through europe.(spain had fallen and was occupied) I find it ironic, that this happened in france and is one of the brightest spots in their history! I also understand “common core”bs that either downplays or deletes from history these and other non-politically correct events. Je suis Charlie? Howabout Je suis Charles Martel! Make a stand and drive pislam back into the dust from whence they came!
“Je suis Charles Martel!” Genius!
AMEN! We must commit to “They stop here! And go no further!”
LOL… you think Common Core teaches any European history at all that doesn’t have to do with the US? You’re funny.
To be fair, Muslims ruled Jerusalem for over 1200 years without destroying it. In fact, they were pretty good stewards of the place… just sayin’
To be fair, the first thing the muzzy’s did was to destroy all Jewish temples. Next the desicration and partial destruction of the Chuch of the Holly Sepulchre. But as usual, Jersusalem had absolutely nothing to do with pislam. Well, except for an ample source of wealthy victims to steal from.
The usual reason pislam had to conquer anything Christian/Jewish is simply because it was an important center for a non-pislamic religion.
Just like “Palestine”? It was just unwanted, worthless, dirt until the Jews made something of it, then the mudslimes just had to have it at any cost!
Um, no. Your history is flat out incorrect here. When Jerusalem fell to the Muslim general Abu Ubaidah in 637, the Jews of Jerusalem were actually still reeling from a massacre that had taken place just eight years previously under the Byzantines in 629. The fact is that the newly-installed Rashidun Caliphate under Caliph Umar restored Jewish religious freedom in Jerusalem that the Byzantine Christians had attempted to wipe out.
Also, I think you’re confused about the actual history Palestine as well, remember, it was actually quite a productive agricultural province of the Ottoman Empire before the British mandate – the port of Jaffa was world renowned for its citrus fruits and the olive groves of Palestine were also quite famous. It was actually the nascent Zionists who would take Palestinian land (as their forefathers had taken the land of Canaan – which even in the Bible was considered a very productive agricultural “land of milk and honey” long before Moses and his gang of land-hungry settlers arrived).
What you’re trying – and failing – to reference here is the famous Israeli Kibbutzim claim that the Zionists “made the desert bloom” – which is true. But the Sinai is just a small percentage of Israeli land – and much of Israel has been prized agricultural land for Millennia.
If only you put as much effort into learning some actual history as you did in making up stupid names for Muslims you might actually have something interesting and useful to contribute to the discourse…
You stated “Muslims ruled Jerusalem for over 1200 years without destroying it….” was wrong, previous statement stands.
The dates are your trip, not mine.
“Palistine” was unwanted, and it’s possesion drifted from one country to another. It was under GB, that the great influx of European Jews arrived. We agree.
And yes, the mudslimes had no interest in it until it became what it is today. That chip on your shoulder can get awful heavy. A little more comprehending and a little less showing off….
And I was correct. Muslims did not destroy Jerusalem. Frankish Christian Crusaders sacked the city and massacred its inhabitants. Byzantine Christians massacred its Jewish inhabitants a generation before that, Roman pagans burned down the second temple in 70, and before THAT the Babylonians burned down the first temple in 586 BC. But, in all that time, Muslims never once destroyed the city. I think you’re confused.
Also Palestine was far from “unwanted” – you literally do not know what you’re talking about. To claim that “mudslides [sic] had no interest in it until it became what it is today” is completely false and patently ridiculous.
Muslims were living in Palestine and the Levant since the 5th century AD right up until the era of the British mandate – and it had been ruled by Muslims (most recently the Ottoman Empire) right up until the end of the first world war. Who do you think those European Jews were taking the land back from in the first place? The land had long been settled by Arab Muslims living under Ottoman rule. That’s an absolute fact.
It was an integral and important part of the Ottoman Empire and the Byzantine and the Roman Empire and the Selucid Empire, etc. – it has literally been one of the most fought over pieces of real estate from the time of Aaron until today.
You are completely wrong on every assertion you made. Try harder. Learn some history and stop repeating nonsense that you don’t understand.
You conveniently leave out the facts about the Ottomans, one of the most ruthless, brutal and bloodthirsty regimes of the entire Middle Ages. Numerous massacres occurred at their hands.
“Long been settled”, is it? True: but only after the Turkish islamist cultists ethnically cleansed those areas, beforehand.
Yes: but only, once all the local ‘infidels’ were murdered, and the Christians and Jews submitted to the *murderer’s extortion* – er, excuse me – ‘dhimmi’ tax.
Excellent. History in the real.
Another ‘shout out’ for Jan III Sobieski, King of Poland who “saved Europe” at the Battle of Vienna on Sept. 12, 1683. All he did, was leave his homeland virtually undefended to honor his country’s treaties and bring the largest army he could scrape up to meet the invasion of nearly 200,000 Ottoman janissaries.
History’s largest cavalry charge, some 76,000 strong, swept the Ottoman forces away from Vienna. Kara Mustafa Pasha was later executed by his commanders for his mishandling of the Ottoman army’s advantage in the siege; but not before viciously ordering the slaughter of some 30,000 helpless Christian captives, mostly civilians.
so u r living with muslim majority country , and its our duty to kill all non muslim ,why are u still alive ??
because in my country use an ideology that name is “Pancasila” it save our country from the religion ideology,but now some bigot want to banned “Pancasila” and built the khilafah !
and for you know,the hystory of my countri is so long,in past my country is based on kingdoms who have hinduism-buddhist foundation,but the hystory was destroyed after islamisation come in to my country