[Spoon Poetic]

I have probably done more biblical/Judaic law/etc. research than you, Jordan. I didn't say you should follow every passage of the Bible to the letter. I'm just saying it's not fair that you think Christians should be able to do that (not follow it all) but even if a Muslim does the same thing it doesn't matter, they're still a warmongering poopyhead that deserves a painful death or whatever.

And no, Muslims can't yet safely stand up and say "I don't follow the Koran!" But they can, well, not follow the whole Koran. Obviously, since the majority of Muslims are not murdering, torturing Jihadists. The only point anyone is trying to make with comparing the violence of the Koran with the violence of the Bible is that both religions have it in their holy book, and both religions consist of a majority of people that don't live by those passages. You're saying all Muslims are the same, believe the same - when they aren't and they don't. Just like most Christians don't believe in all that archaic law of the OT, but there are a handful that will kill gay people etc. because the Bible says so. Just because some people do bad things in the name of their religion does not mean that every person in that religion is horrible. How would you like to be grouped in with Fred Phelps and his lot?

And I KNOW the Koran has violent teachings. I've stated that a billion times. I've even argued against someone that was saying that every violent passage in the Koran that someone quoted were all pulled out of context. So don't accuse me of being ignorant of those passages.
However, the Bible also has these passages. No Christian follows them anymore - though they did use those passages to justify their actions at certain times in history - but the fact remains that they are there. The comparison is this: Most Christians don't follow violent passages in the Bible. Most Muslims don't follow violent passages in the Koran. Think about it: Muslims make up a huge percentage of the world. If they were all really following these passages that sanction violence to non-Muslims, there'd be a huge war going on right now.

Plus, many of these passages in the Koran are like the ones in the Bible, in which God's commandment to kill the heathens was directed to the people at a certain point in time. Just because they were supposed to kill the nonbelievers that they were warring with at the time does not mean God meant for them to always commit genocide against nonIsraeli peoples. Many of the violent passages that people quote from the Koran are from these kinds of situations.

Also, the Bible is pretty danged violent. The difference is, God does most of the killing and punishing. The extremist Muslims have taken it upon themselves, whereas Christians that think certain people deserve punishment for their sins are content to let God handle it when he wants to, because Jesus promised that various kinds of sinners would die a violent death, have their city destroyed violently, or whatever - but by God's hand. So the Bible is still kinda sanctioning violence, just instead of the followers carrying it out, supposedly God will. Jesus had several violent things to say. Just, again, he was giving the violent jobs to God instead of his followers. Or sometimes the angels get to do it. There are even a few passages in the NT that sanction violence towards certain type of sinners, they just don't explicitly say "Kill these people," they just instead say things like "these people are worthy of death," etc.

(On a side note: Check out Matthew 5:17 and a few passages after that. People argue that with Jesus's dying and what-not, the old law was destroyed. But it could be argued that that was not Jesus's intentions. He said he did not come to destroy the old law. And he never really criticized the old law, so much as criticizing people who felt that the law was more important than God, and were uber legalistic but missed the true meaning of things, etc. So maybe we should be following the OT! Ha)

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 13 February 2008 - 02:44 PM

[Slade]

You hear that, Spoon? Your quest for fairness is gay!

Edit: Heh, I guess you did hear it since you posted before I did.

This post has been edited by Slade: 13 February 2008 - 02:46 PM

[Jordan]

And I KNOW the Koran has violent teachings. I've stated that a billion times

Great then no problem.

No Christian follows them anymore - though they did use those passages to justify their actions at certain times in history - but the fact remains that they are there.

It's not helpful to the argument and you're confusing me. We're talking about how Shira Law and the Quran have explict statements from the prophet himself endorsing violence and mistreatment to women and heathens. Why do you feel the need to bring up old testament if you're not dawing a comparisson or analogy. Whats the conclusion? Oh gee it's just the same old thing happening?

Jesus had several violent things to say. Just, again, he was giving the violent jobs to God instead of his followers. Or sometimes the angels get to do it. There are even a few passages in the NT that sanction violence towards certain type of sinners, they just don't explicitly say "Kill these people," they just instead say things like "these people are worthy of death," etc.

Name the passages where violence is sanctioned? Find me one where chrisitans are told to do violence.

There are none, Jesus doesn't tell people to wage wars and he doesn't target certain groups. Why can't you just admit you enjoy balancing everything.

Plus, many of these passages in the Koran are like the ones in the Bible, in which God's commandment to kill the heathens was directed to the people at a certain point in time. Just because they were supposed to kill the nonbelievers that they were warring with at the time does not mean God meant for them to always commit genocide against nonIsraeli peoples. Many of the violent passages that people quote from the Koran are from these kinds of situations.

What is your conclusion? That essentially these religions have the same faults? Muslims don't see the Koran as a book written at a point in time, it's the eternal word of God which is always applicable. Christians see the NT as the same thing, the OT is viewed as history and is used primarily for the prohecys that they believe are fulfilled in Christ. Again, one timeless book is violent, the other is not. Stop 50/50ing

This post has been edited by Jordan: 13 February 2008 - 03:05 PM

[Spoon Poetic]

Gah, I friggin' spelled the analogy out for you. You just completely ignored those paragraphs? WTF is up with that, Jordan?

OH, and: Jesus pretty much lets God do all the fun violence and stuff, but it is clearly sanctioned here:

Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Matthew 11:20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: 21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. 23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Luke 10:10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, 11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. 12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. 13 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. 15 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Romans 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection [homosexual], implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
(Translation: All these sinners are worthy of death (and know it but they do it anyway). Could be easily taken as a call to kill these types of sinners.)



Not to mention all the bazillions of mentions of throwing people into lakes of fire, everlasting fire, and "weeping and gnashing of teeth." Also, Jesus as well as authors of other books give a bug thumbs up to huge acts of violence that were done in the OT. And there's a good bit of misogyny in the Bible, as well. (Keep the head covered, keep silent, subordinate to man, natural use is sex, women are inferior and are only saved through having kids, widows are horrible people unless they are old and perfect in every way, etc). Also the intolerant bits about keeping away from unbelievers, don't be friends with unbelievers, don't let them in your house, unbelievers are teh suck, etc. But I think it would be more efficient if you just looked that up yourself rather than making me do all the work again.

Also, note that this is completely NT. Including the OT would be WAY too much work, and like you said, no one follows it anyway.

And I probably wasted my time anyway, because surely you will ignore everything I said that is of consequence and dwell on statements that don't get my point across without their brother sentences supporting them. You were supposed to read the whole post, not just that one sentence about how those passages are in the Bible but few follow them. The point was that it is the same for Islam - the passages are there but few follow them. Same principle. Please read the entire post next time, or if not, then don't bother commenting on pieces you pull out of context.

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 13 February 2008 - 03:38 PM

[Jordan]

Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Therefore chrisitans are suppose to supress groups and be violent? Not one of your references calls out for violence or persection, but warns the perils of dieing and not believing in Jesus.

I read your entire post, you didn't draw one comparrison to Mohammad and Jesus.

Not to mention all the bazillions of mentions of throwing people into lakes of fire, everlasting fire, and "weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Again, not one reference that calls Christians to act like assholes. Those are reasons the bible says you should believe in Jesus, it never once sanctions violence or mistreatment to women or nonbelievers.

Here in lies the fundamental difference I'm talking about. If you think God of the Christian bible is an asshole, and you do, then thats fine. But don't say the NT sanctions violence on the same level as the Quran, because it doesn't.

And one of my points was- if Christians are able to commit evil acts in light of the bible, a book that does not endorse it, how much worse are Muslims commiting evil acts in light of the Quran, a book that does endorse it.

The NT verses that you mentioned all warn believers of the afterlife, it doesn't call for action against any one in this life.

I win!

Here are some lovely passages

fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you...[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

Just like what the apostles said! Come on Spoon, Christ said turn the other cheek, Mohammed fought in bloody campaigns and killed heathens. Do the math.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 13 February 2008 - 06:48 PM

[Spoon Poetic]

I was not trying to draw a comparison to Mohammed. I also did not say that the NT of the Bible and the Koran are on the same level. Find where I said that, I dare you. And I didn't say the NT tells Christians to be violent - just that it condones violence in general. God is quite violent, and it's great to be excited about the uber violence God's gonna bring on your ass if you dare have a different opinion than your husband, are gay, etc. Also it does sanction mistreatment to women, especially in the books written by Paul. I'm not going to quote every book that Paul wrote at you so you'll have to read that yourself. I listed some examples of what Paul says about women in my previous post, though - if you don't believe me, look them up.

AND! That passage you quoted from the Koran is completely taken out of context. If you have taken the time to read the preceding and following verses, you would have seen that the Koran is permitting the followers of Islam to fight against those that fight them. In fact, the preceding verse even goes so far as to say "...be not aggressive. Surely Allah loves not the aggressors."
The entire passage:

2:190 And fight in the way of Allah against those you fight you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah loves not the aggressors.
2:191 And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it; so if they fight you (in it), slay them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers [that fight you].
2:192 But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
2:193 And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah. But if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

Obviously, these verses are giving the followers of Islam permission to fight back if they are attacked. If someone goes to war with them, they must fight back in the name of Allah. But once the attackers stop attacking, the Muslims are to stop as well. It says that if they drive you out of our land, drive them out and take it back! It even fucking says to not be aggressive! This is not violent. You think they are not entitled to fight back against someone who attacks them first?

Do your research before you quote something. If you want to argue the terribleness of the Koran you should pick the right damned verse to do it.



And no, those NT verses don't call anyone to action against others - I was just showing how Jesus loves him some violence from time to time, albeit that God's the one gonna bring the smackdown. If you really want me to pull out the Bible violence, I can pull out the stone-your-children and kill-the-heathens verses and stuff from the OT. I just figured you'd heard those enough already. And I'm not trying to say Christianity sucks. I'm just saying that you have to quit holding Muslims to a different standard than you do Christians, even if you think Christianity is the one true religion. I will reiterate my point, as you continue to miss it completely: MOST MUSLIMS DO NOT FOLLOW THE VIOLENT PASSAGES OF THE KORAN. Just like most Christians don't follow the violent passages of the Bible. Again: MOST MUSLIMS DO NOT KILL NONBELIEVERS.

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 13 February 2008 - 07:56 PM

[Simperin' Fool]

Also it does sanction mistreatment to women, especially in the books written by Paul.

Not to mention all the misogynistic undertones.

Again: MOST MUSLIMS DO NOT KILL NONBELIEVERS.

There's a family in my homeschool group that's Muslim. I've met the mother and two of her daughters in person several times. One of them made a sarcastic comment directed at me once, but they've never tried to kill me, so I can attest to the above statement.

[J m HofMarN]

1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, you should obey your masters respectfully, not only those who are kind and reasonable but also those who are difficult to please.

And Corintians 7 21 says that slaves shouldn't run away even if given a chance of freedom.

1 Corinthians 11:6
Indeed, if a woman does go without a veil, she should have her hair cut off too.

1 Corinthians 14:34
As in all the churches of God's holy people, women are to remain quiet in the assemblies, since they have no permission to speak: theirs is a subordinate part.

1 Corinthians 14:35
If there is anything they want to know, they should ask their husbands at home: it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly.

1 Timothy 2:11-12
During instruction, a woman should be quiet and respectful. I give no permission for a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. A woman ought to be quiet.

(I enjoy this one, though you might not, Jordan)

Acts 4:32
The entire group of believers held everything in common, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions. Any who owned houses or land sold them, and the money they laid at the feet of the apostles.
Acts 4:35
The money was then distributed to each according to his need.

This chapter is followed by the cute little story of a couple who sold their land but gave only SOME of the money to the church. Peter found out and they were struck dead. "By God" Sure thing Pete.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 13 February 2008 - 11:04 PM

[J m HofMarN]

Islam doesn't allow it's followers to critize it

My friend had long hair, so they expelled him from his church. Catholics get excommunicated too if they misbehave. So isnt this true of all religions?

This is my point make any criticism of immigration and suddenly you’re Adolf Stalin.

I was more refering to Jordan's past railings agaisnt immigration and Muslim plots to take over the West. Islamophobia and anti-immigrationism generally go hand in hand.

To be fair, Muslims who do disregard those parts are labeled as infidels, because taking the words in the Qur'an at anything less than face value is a capital crime, or something like that.

I hardly think thats true. In many Muslim areas women go about without the garb ordered by the Quran, or associate with men they are not married to, and thats not even counting the pcall to Jyhad or Muslims who miss The Hajj.

I simply don't acknowledge it in my daily life, nobody does.

Ah yes, because all Muslims go to holy war in their daily life.

"Honey, bring back milk from the store"

"I can't, Salifa, it's jyhad night and me and the boys are going to go kill unbelievers"

"Oh ok, make sure you don't wear your Friday keffiyeh, I already washed it once this week"

Quranesque passage that preach violence, death, or even converstion for any group of people.

Well I cant conveniently find any of that except that the OT is full of it. But of course thats off limits because, well, its off limits. No one pays attention to that anymore, people got this anti-homosexual stuff and that saying about an eye for an eye from... ummm. MUSLIMS! IT WAS THEM!

Your quest for 50/50 fairness in all things is so PC and gay

"Fairness... is so gay" Super, Jordan. Super. I guess we'll have to stone fairness.

[J m HofMarN]

What is your conclusion? That essentially these religions have the same faults? Muslims don't see the Koran as a book written at a point in time, it's the eternal word of God which is always applicable. Christians see the NT as the same thing, the OT is viewed as history and is used primarily for the prohecys that they believe are fulfilled in Christ. Again, one timeless book is violent, the other is not. Stop 50/50ing

So wait... If the Muslims put all the so-called "bad" stuff (the stuff you dont like, for instance the chapters that say they can defend themselves) into a book and called it Quran part 1, and then put all the good stuff into a seperate book and called it Quran 2 Islamic Boogaloo, that would square everything away?

Did it never occur to you that a lot of the Quran is byblically based? That a lot of their laws and ideas came from either the NT or OT together?

how much worse are Muslims commiting evil acts in light of the Quran, a book that does endorse it.

You consider warfare an evil act? Just what have you done to stop it? Or does Jesus' call to preach peace and turning the other cheek not matter except when it comes to people we're attacking?

fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you

"in the way of god" synonomous with godly, decent. For instance "what we do to people at Guantanamo is not godly" I see no problem with this passage.

and drive them out from whence they drove you out

If they drive you out of your home, drive them back out of it. Is that one of the "evil acts" you mean?

but if they do fight you, then slay them

Killing people who are at war with you seems like a good strategy, and I think its the one Christians and, ya know, EVERYONE adhere to.

One of them made a sarcastic comment directed at me once

SF: AHA! More damning evidence against the Muslims. How can you continue to defend them in light of this? By your own admission all Muslims must be sarcastic, because clearly if 10 or 20 guys in a cave can be taken as representative of a billion people, so can this one person. Be wary of the Muslims, not only do they all want to kill unbelievers, but they'll make sarcastic comments whiel you die.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 13 February 2008 - 11:47 PM

[Jordan]

Right, so where are the passages that preach violence?

JM, you'll actually read the Quran and rebuke any explictly violent passage, yet in the same vein you post violent NT examples when it says a women shouldn't run a church. Bravo.

Your ideology is ANTI american and everything else falls into place after that. If we allied with the Muslims you'd be on them like flies on shit. US=Chrisitan=bad Middle East= anti us=Islam=good.

The US is not a christian nation and hasn't been for ages, maybe for a small period of time. It's a nation run by corporations and capitalist imperialism and it uses religion and everything else to sucker people into thinking it's something not. Freedom spreaders, Godly, Justice for all, oppurtunity for all etc..

Any how, if you can tippy toe around all the violence in Islam and justify it then I can understand you reading into CHrists teachings as evil.

Spoon- You're missing the point, time is not relevant to religious people. The book of god is eternal. It never is not relevant.

Obviously, these verses are giving the followers of Islam permission to fight back if they are attacked. If someone goes to war with them, they must fight back in the name of Allah

Right, the Aytollah Koemani used that verse to spur Iranians of all ages, young kids like 14, to fight against Iraq. Most of them died. What does it mean to fight back? Draw a picture of allah, fight back. They oppose Islam and attack the verses, fight back. Jesus taught people to not fight back. There no comparison.

MOST MUSLIMS DO NOT FOLLOW THE VIOLENT PASSAGES OF THE KORAN. Just like most Christians don't follow the violent passages of the Bible. Again: MOST MUSLIMS DO NOT KILL NONBELIEVERS

Go watch the documentary I linked. Most muslims in the middle east would not kill you, but it doesn't mean they wouldn't endorse a Jihad. That is the catch of their bible. You can choose a passive lifestlye or join the miltant ranks. Neither is wrong and neither denounce one another.

[J m HofMarN]

Go watch the documentary I linked. Most muslims in the middle east would not kill you, but it doesn't mean they wouldn't endorse a Jihad

And what do most Christians in the US do when our country goes to war? Like in Afghanistan for instance? My first protest, in a good Christian town of 5000 people against a war, attracted only ten people.

Also, did you bother to read some of the bible quotes I posted or are you just going to react as usual?

Jordan: Islam is an evil religion and they shouldnt be allowed to invade my nice safe white Christian world.

JM: Christianity has bad passages too and Islamic peoples have been provoked more by socio political factors than by their religion.

Jordan: You're an anti american commie.

[civilian_number_two]

This whole business about how there are no shit religions, how there are no belief systems based on utter nonsense, is PC and reeks of faggitry. To wit: I had a Jehovah's Witness come up to me and start a conversation. A tenet of their belief system, which is a kind of Christianity but obsessively focused on the second oddest book in the Bible, is that we are approacing the End Times. It's all they talk about, the End of Time and the Day of Judgement and sitting with God and lions and lambs and all that crazy shit. So naturally it's all fearmongering about being ready for the Judgement Day (and I don't mean that lousy movie). A thing they preach like crazy is that there has been an increase in pestilence and war and bad weather and Earthquakes.

Yes, earthquakes.

So the guy started talking about it, the End of Time, and how the Bible told him there would be more Earthquakes, and didn't I notice that there were a lot more Earthquakes nowadays, and how they were worse than the ones in olden days?

Whoa, daddy. I knew exactly where to start. I said "no, I hadn't noticed that." So because there had been an Earthquake recently that killed a load of people in LA (this is where I date my story), he mentioned that one, and how bad it was because of all the deaths. So I asked "so what?" He told me that the massive property dmaage and the loss of life meant it was, like, a really bad Earthquake. Well, the conversation went on for a while, so I will spare you the play-by-play, but here is the gist of my counterargument:

1) You can't judge the severity of an Earthquake by the dollar value of the restorartion or bvy the number of people who die. There are empirical factors such as the amount that the Eath actually shakes and also the duration of the aftershocks, that would be measurable using the same scale at any place or time.

2) You can't conclude that there are more Earthquakes now than ever before, because the number of people to observe the phenomena is now more than ever, and the equipment more sensitive, and the records more exhaustive. I wondered how many Earthquakes were reported in the early days of civilisation, when about 32000 people were spread out over Africa and the Middle East, in tiny commnities with no written record and very little communication. I also wondered, really, how much it would cost to rebuild the straw huts they spread out along the river deltas.

3) If these varius phenomena are worsening annually, then why do we have more people that ever, with greater than ever lifespans in the developed nations? Couldn't it be said that the great numbers of deaths each year is just a function of an incredibly large and growing population?

4) Finally, I hadn't noticed fewer Eathquakes in the olden days because, well, I wasn't born yet.

Summary: The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is run by cruel schemers who prey upon idiots to make millions of dollars a year. As religions go, it is enviably successful at separating fool from money, but as a faith it is shit. Any church that asks folks to stand on streetcorners and go door to door might as well be the little league cookie drive. That is a church, I told him, that I would not be joining.

I believe that there are many shit religions. Since I am an atheist, I believe it is all nonsense, but some are more violent and manipulative and meanspirited than others, while many are also demeaning to their members and downright silly (what's up with Mormon men all having to wear the same white shirt? That is fucked!). So I don't think there's anything especially intolerant in the business of examining a religion and its tenets, people and practices, and then after examining, making the fair comment that it is shit. Such a reasoned conclusion shows a bias, yes, but it is much different from drawing a conclusion from the hip, based on difference and race.

Given its undercurrent of misogyny, I reject Christianity (I also believe that dead is dead, come on, and there was no Resurrection). Given its current of misogyny, I reject Islam. Hellenised Judaism is ok, since it's really just sayings and jokes. Orthodox Judaism is all rules and nonsense. Militant Israeli Judaism is just hate and fear-mongering. So Judaism isn't really for me either.

I like the Raellians, except I think they should be building a spaceship instead of just waiting for the aliens to come and get them. If they were to promise to build their own spaceship, I'd probably throw them a buck or two.

[Simperin' Fool]

I hardly think thats true. In many Muslim areas women go about without the garb ordered by the Quran, or associate with men they are not married to, and thats not even counting the pcall to Jyhad or Muslims who miss The Hajj.

It is true, according to Sharia law. I'm just saying, that's what it says in the Qur'an, that personal interpretation isn't allowed.

SF: AHA! More damning evidence against the Muslims. How can you continue to defend them in light of this? By your own admission all Muslims must be sarcastic, because clearly if 10 or 20 guys in a cave can be taken as representative of a billion people, so can this one person. Be wary of the Muslims, not only do they all want to kill unbelievers, but they'll make sarcastic comments whiel you die.

... Dude, I was agreeing with her. That part was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

Your ideology is ANTI american and everything else falls into place after that. If we allied with the Muslims you'd be on them like flies on shit. US=Chrisitan=bad Middle East= anti us=Islam=good.

This post has been edited by Simperin' Fool: 14 February 2008 - 07:58 AM

[Spoon Poetic]

Dude, I love the Raelians. Too bad the Jews/Muslims won't give up that spot they want to build their embassy on - we'd have met aliens by now if they would!

And there have been a ton more earthquakes recently - we were just learning about it in my geology class, and my professor is almost as liberal as Jm, and as anti-Christian as anyone. He made fun of people that are using the fact that there are more earthquakes to predict end times, but the fact remains that there have been more earthquakes. Not that it's important or anything, just kinda a Fun Fact.